Here's your chance: Stump the Christian Chump

[angellous_evangellous]

The rest of that chapter gives examples construing pistis as obedience - as in a "faithful dog." That's different than belief in dogma.

Well, dogs don't believe in dogma.

Obedience for humans is not exclusive of an assent to the existence of God. In order to obey God, I would think, we need to believe in God.

In any case, when I was talking about it in the first place, I was referring to faith in a modern understanding. For me, we don't need to transfer precisely what the Bible said to its original readers to our current situation. So much has happened since then, but IMHO there's still something from the text that can be redeemed and made useful.

 

[doppelganger]

In any case, when I was talking about it in the first place, I was referring to faith in a modern understanding. For me, we don't need to transfer precisely what the Bible said to its original readers to our current situation. So much has happened since then, but IMHO there's still something from the text that can be redeemed and made useful.

As you know, I agree completely. However, you made a statement about the modern notion of "belief" being consistent with NT theology, and I'm curious about how you would support what we now call "belief" as part of the theology of the writers of the NT.

 

[Autodidact]

Could you define "Christian?"

 

[doppelganger]

Well, dogs don't believe in dogma.

Nor do cats follow the catechism.

 

[doppelganger]

Nor do cats follow the catechism.

Though more than a few rats follow Ratzinger.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As you know, I agree completely. However, you made a statement about the modern notion of "belief" being consistent with NT theology, and I'm curious about how you would support what we now call "belief" as part of the theology of the writers of the NT.

I really don't think that I did that.

But I will look up pistis when I get to my library.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Though more than a few rats follow Ratzinger.

:biglaugh:

 

[Vendetta]

I love the fact that my question was avoided by both threads. Perhaps of this thread is just satirical to poke fun at danmac then say so otherwise its quite odd that such a question as mine, which is central to christian faith has been avoided.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Could you define "Christian?"

You've stumpt me.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

what does god's room look like?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

1) How is Jesus God if he addresses an other(e.g. "my father")

2) If Jesus is God, why did he recite the Sh'ma Yisrael in the temple and not address himself as the creator?

I don't think that the concept of Jesus being divine was fully developed before the Gospels were written. This dogma was in its earliest stage at this time, and Christians would fight over it for another 300+ years.

So we have in the Gospels a sort of clumsy relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

what does god's room look like?

Your left pinkie toe.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I call the "Trinity" a false monotheism. This means that no one would ever come up with the doctrine of the Trinity by studying the NT. We have to be told about the Trinity from early and late Christian theologians.

The false monotheism of Christianity stems completely from the theological problems related to the deification of Jesus. In many ways it is a cheap way to continue a Jewish monotheism while having a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, if we remove the "Son," it's quite easy to see that the Father and the Holy Spirit are One. Of course, the exeriment to remain united with Judaism failed - and in fact it was abortive, fizzeling out in the first generation of Christianity.

However, the OT is genuinely important in the formation of the Trinity in early Christian thought. It was critical for them to have one God (well, most of them) and so the Trinity develops - one God in essence with three persons.

To me it's a beautiful doctrine, but it is logically false.

You say it is beautiful, But is it necessary to believe it as explained?
Can a Christian Disbelieve it and remain christian?
Or Believe it, but disbelieve the explenation.
Or perhaps believe Jesus was the Son of God, But less than divine.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You say it is beautiful, But is it necessary to believe it as explained?
Can a Christian Disbelieve it and remain christian?
Or Believe it, but disbelieve the explenation.
Or perhaps believe Jesus was the Son of God, But less than divine.

Whatever floats your boat.

God has more important things to do than caring about what we think of the Trinity.

I think that believing it is fun.

 

[Koldo]

You say it is beautiful, But is it necessary to believe it as explained?
Can a Christian Disbelieve it and remain christian?
Or Believe it, but disbelieve the explenation.
Or perhaps believe Jesus was the Son of God, But less than divine.

It is not necessary to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Your left pinkie toe.

figures, i've been getting noise complaints.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Whatever floats your boat.

God has more important things to do than caring about what we think of the Trinity.

I think that believing it is fun.

I would extend that thought to believing "That God is not exactly exercised about anything we may or may not believe."

However such a wide thought does Inhibit building a logical religious edifice.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I would extend that thought to believing "That God is not exactly exercised about anything we may or may not believe."

However such a wide thought does Inhibit building a logical religious edifice.

I think that we would miss out on many spiritual experiences if we had a lack of faith.

 

[Koldo]

I would extend that thought to believing "That God is not exactly exercised about anything we may or may not believe."

However such a wide thought does Inhibit building a logical religious edifice.

Which is why we shouldn't build a religious edifice.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think that we would miss out on many spiritual experiences if we had a lack of faith.

I am not suggesting a lack of faith. But that God is perhaps more interested what lays behind what we believe than the details.

Clearly what was believed by the Didaque communities, is a far cry from the Pauline churches, as that is from the later Roman and Orthodox ones.
They all Believed in God But thought very different things about Jesus and what was necessary for salvation.

All these were Christian but had very different beliefs and customs.