Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Easter is a fifty day season. Lasts up to Pentecost.
That's not Lent. Lent begins on Ash Wednesday, which is 40 days (not counting Sundays) before Easter. The week preceding Easter Sunday is called "Holy Week," and includes the Triduum -- Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Vigil.
Since nothing was written in the early days of the church, "going 'beyond what is written'" was a given for the early followers.
There is no such thing as "the original."
The sermon is one of five laid out in Matthew, and it has little to do with "the simple religion of Jesus." First of all, Jesus was a Jew. A Temple Jew. Second, Matthew was written for a completely different audience than Jesus would have known, with at least 50 years development under its belt.
There may or may not have been. All we know is that the writer of Matthew lays out five interrelated sermons in his gospel, and this one is set on a mountain, which seems to be a theme for Matthew (feeding of the multitude, the temptation, the transfiguration, and the ascension). But the sermon doesn't relate to any "simple religion of Jesus," as you seem to indicate it does.
My answer would be different from St. Frankenstein's here. Salvation isn't about regressing to a pre-sapient state. It's about fulfilling our full potential and being completely alive, in touch with the truth of the world, free of all delusions and defilements. The Adam & Eve myth isn't about disobedience or crime & punishment; like others of its kind, it's about the development of humankind from a basic animal state to what we are now (along with the natural consequences of that almost-but-not-quite-godlike consciousness). Perfection isn't about undoing that; it's about finishing the job.
Why is there a penalty to be paid? Why is there need for any of that? And most importantly, why is there need for horrible suffering and death? Why is it necessary for God to solve problems with violence? It was barbaric when ancient people did it to animals (and sometimes each other), and it's barbaric to imagine that Jesus is just one more example of a blood sacrifice. I don't think he would be pleased by that at all.
Doesn't work that way. This model of atonement (which is Calvinist in origin and only about 400 years old, even if you don't care to acknowledge it) places God squarely in control of the means of atonement. Making it a violent act of murder is therefore entirely God's choice, not one humans have dictated. There is no horribleness in the world that God is not ultimately responsible for (for which see Isaiah--and pretty much the entire Judaic tradition).
The Johannine author does use the metaphor of an atonement sacrifice. It's a cultural touchstone, the way all 1st century Jews and early Christians construct meaning through allusion. To take it literally is to miss the point, and it would also be bizarre in this context, which is a series of metaphors and examples of highly abstract language one after another.
"Salvation" is a metaphor, and the original Greek has a lot of associations that aren't obvious in English. Crazy snake handlers aside, nobody actually thinks that salvation prevents bodily harm.
So what applied from the Christian scriptures to Jesus' early followers has no application to us because....?
Sheesh!
Where do you find Jesus telling his disciples to wipe their asses? Toilet paper is un-Biblical!
You were not told by Christ to not go beyond things that are written. You were told that by the Watchtower. Christ's teaching by its very nature goes beyond what is written and urges you to do the same. The truth cannot be imprisoned in walls of text. That's the perspective of the Law, which Paul says has been shattered by the coming of the Christ. The only "commandment" is Love, which people can express quite well by coming together at Easter. Trashing the holiday and the people who celebrate it is not a manifestation of Love. Quite the opposite. It's a symptom of your false pride, in thinking that your path is superior to everyone else's (and thus makes you superior). You can project that onto Jesus all you want, but he never suffered from that vice and in fact warned against it.
You do know that the Gospels were some of the last books of the NT to be written, right? And that they were written with preexisting theological traditions in mind, as well as sectarian differences. The Gospel of John in particular can be seen to argue against the ideas of other sects (see the explicit development of the polemic in the Johannine epistles), although it's probably a trait universal to all of them to some degree or another. The Gospels record a number of existing Christian traditions; they did not precede them. For such strong Biblicists, one would think you'd actually know a thing or two about the origin of the Bible.Of course not....there is no point to the gospels at all. They are just words that applied to the first Christians....nothing to do with us!
Doesn't matter. Air conditioning isn't biblical either, yet I'd be willing to bet that you use it. Since all Jesus' alleged commandments are the product of the interpretation of later Christians, and have little to do with Jesus, himself, I don't see where it matters that other later Christians began the observance of Lent and Holy Week.
If you think that's all the Last Supper symbolizes, you're reading the texts in pretty shallow fashion, and you know nothing of where the meal originated -- nor do you have the slightest idea what that means, for example, for Luke's gospel.
The joke is that it's all human tradition, and I know you've been informed with regard to your error in the origin of Easter, and yet you continue to propagate the misinformation was if it's fact.
Some of it does; some of it doesn't. It depends entirely on the text, and whether the meaning is specifically relevant to us, or not.
Christ's teachings, are, by their nature, meant to modify written teachings. Jesus' followers and their faith have never been contained by a book -- and were never meant to be.
What is acceptable to God is intentionally loving each other unconditionally, not holding each other hostage to the narrow interpretations of faux-pious gatekeepers.
Of course it does. The majority of Christians are still a table community -- although some have shied away from participating regularly in the Eucharist. But, along those lines, many people, as adults, bear little resemblance to themselves as infants.
There is a point -- but the point lies in the reality of the gospels as much later stories, written in specific contexts -- not in the fairy-tale of them being the magic words of God.Of course not....there is no point to the gospels at all. They are just words that applied to the first Christians....nothing to do with us!
Well, of course, but remember that the religion is all about a relationship with God. Therefore, God works through human agency to accomplish God's purposes.
I'd say the metaphor of forgiveness is misleading to begin with. The Greek word that gets translated as "sin" is not the normal word for the transgression of a rule, or an insult against authority, or anything like that. Those are concepts that a legalistic Roman church imposed down the road. That's not what Paul and the other early Christians are talking about at all. "Sin" is an error based on a flawed or incomplete understanding of the situation. Humanity doesn't need to be forgiven; it needs to be perfected and saved from ignorance, which is the true root of all evil. And that's not something that can be accomplished unilaterally. The teacher can point the way for the students, but he can't make them understand.
Death wasn't required. That's a heresy begun with Calvin.
Only if Cavin wrote Hebrews
Nah. Using an example from the extant culture does not advocate for human sacrifice. It simply makes use of a picture that the audience will understand.Only if Cavin wrote Hebrews
Hebrews 9
11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here,fnhe went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtainingfn eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,fn so that we may serve the living God!
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
16 In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18 This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19 When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20 He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”fn 21 In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.