Question

[Endless]

Hi all

I'm a bit curious here. How do you decide how much of Jesus' teachings to follow?
It's just that i've read that some of you believe that he did walk the earth - therefore i assume you see the Biblical accounts as being accurate, otherwise you would have no reason to believe the truthfulness of him having walked the earth.
Anyway, just curious as to how you make the distinction between what you accept and the stuff he taught that you reject.

Thanks!

 

[Mike182]

Hi all

I'm a bit curious here. How do you decide how much of Jesus' teachings to follow?
It's just that i've read that some of you believe that he did walk the earth - therefore i assume you see the Biblical accounts as being accurate, otherwise you would have no reason to believe the truthfulness of him having walked the earth.
Anyway, just curious as to how you make the distinction between what you accept and the stuff he taught that you reject.

Thanks!

greetings, may i first thank you for the respect you have shown in your post, i hope i can answer your questions, but if you would like any further answers to the ones i provide, please feel free to ask me again

second, just to quickly note that i can talk only for my own beliefs, and not for the other christian wiccans on the forum.

to best answer your question, i would like to highlight this part of yoru post:

i assume you see the Biblical accounts as being accurate

i do and i don't - allow me to expand, the original message of jesus has been changed throughout time, to me this is irrefutable! i believe in the basic message of jesus christ, that all of man kind may be saved because God loves the world and all of its inhabitants

bits of the bible i can personally agree with, from a moral point of view, but i see the whole bible as a guide, not a rule book. i do not believe their are universal objective truths, i do not believe there is one set of moral rules that everyone in every culture in every period of time should live by - morality is subjective.

This belief of mine could be seen as conradictory to the bible, becasue you could argue the bible lays out how we should live our lives, and that by living in this way, we can go to heaven, and by ignoring these rules, we risk going to some form of hell.

im not sure if that was relevant, or a tangent ........ i will post some more on this tomorrow when i can think straight

if you think of any more questions, or if you want my point of view on any particular bits of scripture, please, feel free to ask - you cna either ask in the forums, or send me a PM

for now, blessed be :dan:

 

[jeffrey]

Well said, Mike. If I might add, in my perspective, Christ's 2 laws, love God, love everyone else is the key for me. As mike said, so much of the bible has been changed, edited, translated, re-edited and so forth. So by trying to love everyone, it's hard to go wrong with the rest of your beliefs.

 

[Endless]

Thanks for the responses
Can i just ask how sure you are that most of the gospel accounts of the teaching of Jesus have been altered and changed to warrent you having to follow the more general point of the teachings of Jesus?
I have been under the impression that secular scholars in the field have testified to the reliability of the gospels stating that we have recovered with 99% accuracy the NT text. In all the variants of the NT 95% of the errors causing the differences are recognised as unintentional - ie. confusion of similar letters, repetition of words and sentances etc. The remaining 5% include revised spelling, harmonization of passages, elimination of textual difficulties and theological and doctrinal changes. These are easy to spot since there are so many maniscripts available to study of the NT (over 24,000). However everyone is in agreement that the theological teachings and doctrines are preserved unchanged since the NT was penned.
So i was just wondering where you are getting your information from? What i have posted up is the view of scholars in this field of work.
Thanks

 

[imbobbbb]

when it comes to history,'everyone isnt in agreement' about what happened last week much less 2,000 years ago.there is also no consensus of belief between christian/wiccans any more than there is between different groups of christians as evidenced by the many heated discussions about which denomination is right and which groups are 'real' christians.i dont exactly consider myself a christian/wiccan though some might.the' teachings of jesus 'only constitute a small part of the bible and he didnt personally write those parts.while i dont discount the teachings of the apostles they were men and not infallible[in my opinion]on matters of doctrine.many secular scholars dont even believe that paul was the actual author of all the books attributed to him.while i do feel that the old testament has worth in regards to moral lessons,literature,and some history the sacrifice of jesus released all from the 'old covenant' and i dont feel that jewish law ever applied to non-jews in the first place anyway.to sum up what 'i' believe,i do think the teachings of jesus are very important and the teachings of the apostles are something that should be studied and judged on their merits as should 'other'religious books that didnt 'make the cut' at the council of nicea and i even find value in reading more modern books like 'the book of morman'.i dont think i reject 'any' of the teachings of jesus but different people can read the same quote and interpet it differently or fail to put it in the context for who the message was for.a statement made by jesus to a jewish priest may not apply to nor be intended for a christian gentile 2.000 years later.i hope i have given you some perspective on one persons opinion regarding your question

 

[Jingkaide]

I have a question to expand on this one. How do you deal with the contradictions between the two parts of the faith?