Ridiculous statement of Jesus?

[sojourner]

My point in context is that without academic knowledge the theology has much less value.

The education me and you possess gives us an understanding that most do not.

It is not an attack on theological beliefs, education and knowledge does more then just compliment the theology, it is the only way to obtain a more full picture.

Agreed.

 

[sojourner]

Yet none hold a high degree of certainty.

Yes we can hope. but as you know many of the parables in the same hand can be attributed to John, as Jesus did not pull them out of thin air.


John was his teacher, and he took over Johns movement with Johns death by our best accounts.


With all that said.

I wish we could trace back the parables to Galilee, but we cannot. They are later Koine parables with very few Aramaic transliterations.

I agree, yet... they are also highly bucolic in nature, indicative of Galilean origin (if not structure and fleshing out), and they are also indicative of the "anti-Rome" sentiment that was rampant in Galilee. It's an interesting conundrum. It could be that the seeds of the stories are Galilean and the structure was provided by the gospelers.

 

[Thief]

Baptism doesn't make us children of God; it acknowledges that we are children of God. Baptism isn't the only way to receive the Spirit. There are instances of Jews being Spirit-filled. How does that happen, since Jews aren't baptized?

and the recognition doesn't take hold until you recite the Lord's Prayer.
Our Father.

heaven hears it....so too the devil.....
good luck

btw...Jesus did not baptize

 

[Thief]

I have to seriously disagree here. Jesus is "only begotten." We are adopted. We are reconciled to God through the faith of Christ. All of us. All humanity. We are not made evil -- we're made good. That's what the bible says.

Jesus said....Do not call Me good.
No one is good but the Father.

 

[Thief]

God made Adam from the dust of the earth.

this is true for everything that lives.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

so if Adam is God's son then everything that lives is also God's son. Doesn't the Bible say that to be God's son you must be born again? Obviously everyone alive is not born again so everyone is not God's son. Oh, I keep forgetting, no one accepts the word of the Bible. So just go ahead and make up anything you want to believe. No one can prove you wrong so you can just go on believing it.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

concerning the Lord's Prayer (our Father which art in Heaven) So if a pagan or non-believer says this that automatically makes that person God's child? The Lord's Prayer is meant for people who have followed the necessary steps to receive God's spirit and have earned the right to call Him Father. It is not meant for everyone.

 

[Thief]

so if Adam is God's son then everything that lives is also God's son. Doesn't the Bible say that to be God's son you must be born again? Obviously everyone alive is not born again so everyone is not God's son. Oh, I keep forgetting, no one accepts the word of the Bible. So just go ahead and make up anything you want to believe. No one can prove you wrong so you can just go on believing it.

shallow retort.
It's not want the bible says that matters.....

recite the Lord's Prayer....with heart felt earnest....
heaven hears it....so too the devil...

don't screw up the rest of it....

it's becomes your declaration.
you are declaring yourself a child of God.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

so, according to Thief, all you have to do is declare yourself a child of God and you automatically are? this is just the kind of statement one expects from a person who says "it's not what the Bible says that matters". I guess it's what Thief says that matters. Sorry but I'll trust the Bible before the word of someone who says the Bible doesn't matter.

 

[Thief]

so, according to Thief, all you have to do is declare yourself a child of God and you automatically are? this is just the kind of statement one expects from a person who says "it's not what the Bible says that matters". I guess it's what Thief says that matters. Sorry but I'll trust the Bible before the word of someone who says the Bible doesn't matter.

It's not what I say that matters

People recite the Lord's Prayer....they do that.
people teach their children to do so.

All the while heaven hears of it....and so too the devil

Stand between heaven and hell and say it again.
and you will

I believe in lines drawn.

how about you?

 

[Glaurung]

Jesus made wrong statements like he is son of god and the unfaithful will go to hell.

You're kinda taking you own presuppositions for granted aren't you? It would be like a Christian asking a Hindu why he worships non-existent deities over the true God. Well, why do you do such a ridiculous thing?

Tell me who is not a son of god? How can a son of god go to hell for eternity? I have heard these ridiculous statements from christians. My question is why do we need such a religion based on blackmailing?

I've learnt that it is futile to answer questions that are not made in good faith. You have no interest in answers. The first step would be understanding what Christianity is and what such phrases mean instead of assuming your own unrelated framework. Until then we cannot even begin to talk to each other.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

the lines drawn are that God decides who will be His children. Everyone is not automatically a child of God just because God made Adam. You must follow certain steps to receive God's spirit and then you can become His child. Just saying a certain prayer does not make it true. And repeating that prayer over and over many times does not make it so. It only makes it look like God is not paying attention and you have rto repeat it many times to get His attention. Read John 1:12 again. those who receive Jesus have the power to become God's sons. They are not automatically. And those who do not receive Him do not even have the power to become HIs sons. Again, only going by the Bible which I know many people do not believe. So just go on making up what you want to believe.

 

[outhouse]

they are also highly bucolic in nature, indicative of Galilean origin (if not structure and fleshing out),

Definitely have the bucolic nature. And I hope its Galilean in nature.


I think the martyred Galilean did generate enough of a desire in the Hellenist who found value in the growing theology that they tried to learn what they could. I see more being traced back to John since he was the popular teacher for a long as opposed to Jesus very short ride in the hot seat.

But I also think the Hellenist who formed the traditions related to the bucolic nature because their teacher was supposed to be just that an agrarian peasant.

I can tell you with certainty that even the typical Hellenist had a tough go in life in this time period. We see Harris lines in all their children.

and they are also indicative of the "anti-Rome" sentiment that was rampant in Galilee.

Anti Rome, it is complex and dynamic.

It was in part competing against the Emperors divinity as "son of god" with the real "son of god" the one all powerful god who was not a corrupt politician. We see the authors proselytizing to these people, mirroring the Emperor to give them a better path in life.

The last thing they were going to do while appealing to the Romans was to highlight the plight of Galilean rebels, but more then that Romans were NOT Jesus enemy nor his followers. The corruption in gods house and the Hellenist oppressing the Galileans were his enemies more so then the Romans.

There are secretive allegory and metaphor in later text that evolved due to the Romans who had persecuting this movement from the get go. Paul and he was not alone, there would have been many. You have Nero and on and on. Most of the text is after romans butchered the Jews and temple fell.

It's an interesting conundrum. It could be that the seeds of the stories are Galilean and the structure was provided by the gospelers.

Very interesting. Enough so I go back through my lessons every few months to see what I missed the first time.

I do think there is a Galilean core from Nazareth, and John and his inner circle, and firmly believe he existed as poor rebel whom his own followers thought he had failed due to his death.

 

[outhouse]

btw...Jesus did not baptize

I would think he did.


But you don't understand the first thing about the true context of his real life.


You don't even know his first real name

 

[wizanda]

I was speaking of Moses.

Moses didn't say we were good, anything about it being right to use humans for blood atonement; Moses saw how long it took for a people to become corrupted, if that is what you meant.

 

[JoStories]

Here is a quote I picked up this morning.


“The real interest of theology is in something deeper than God, deep within God, and deep within ourselves, something older and deeper than the debates that rage up above about believing and not believing in God, in the existence or non-existence of a Supreme Being.”

I love that Outhouse. Mind if I borrow it? Its truly profound and right on point.

 

[JoStories]

No evidence points towards it at all, and all evidence points to being only man.

One would have to think "divine" could be defined as intellectually inept and primitive if we thought all biblical text was inspired.

When we look at text we see so many factual errors and contradictions, its an insult to divinity to place any amount on any of these text.


It all wreaks of man and only man, from the rhetorical prose used, the mythology, the fiction, the pseudo history, to the pseudepigraphal abuse. Why would divinity even need to be redacted ?



I have come to the conclusion that divine is another name for a person who had god in his heart [a good attitude] while writing text. Nothing more.

Agreed and that last remark is what I meant by saying it may or may not have been divinely inspired. I think of Helena Blavatsky when I think of divinely inspired as in she allegedly got her text from two higher souled monks. Whether that is true or not is up for debate of course but that was what I had in mind.

 

[JoStories]

There are many quotes that are scholastically attributable to Jesus. I think you're being a little harsh when you say that the bible was written to "control the masses." By the time the last book was written, Christianity was still very much a religion on the fringes. Christians were, at worst, persecuted, and, at best, patently ignored by Rome (the powers that be). The "church machine," as I think you imagine it here -- the one that was deeply politically-involved -- didn't emerge until hundreds of years after the texts were written. The goal of the proto-church that wrote the texts wasn't "control," but rather "empowerment of the oppressed."

I agree about Rome and that time frame but I continue to see the Bible as being written to set down rules, particularly as it pertains to Paul, that one must follow or be cast out of that faith, possibly resulting in hell. Paul's treatment of women is particularly egregious and points to attempts to completely control women to the point of making them chattel and silent in many cases.

 

[JoStories]

He's failing to actually exegete the texts. His is an eisegetical rather than exegetical approach.

Perhaps but how would one not interpret anything from one's own POV? Or bias, etc, if you will. How does anyone read anything that one doesn't do same? You might read the Sermon on the Mount and get one particular idea while I might get something entirely different. If we take the exegetical POV and assume that the Bible is historically accurate, how then do we come to terms with the inherent mistakes contained therein. I personally cannot see any other approach the eisegetical. But of course, I view this from a theologian's vantage point as well.

 

[JoStories]

Hold on a sec! The earliest gospel was written just post-70 CE -- only forty years after the Jesus Event. And the Q source is likely less than 10 years after the Jesus Event, according to one credible, scholastic viowpoint. Heck, even John was written only about 60 years following that event. I agree that none of the writers knew Jesus, but to say that they were written "one century or more past the time frame" is a little disingenuous.

You are absolutely correct and i was stretching the truth there. Mea Culpa on that Sojourner. I know you knew that I knew the correct dates but, again, I was just being a bit dramatic for effect and I should have been much more accurate given my educational background. I stand corrected and in the corner for a well earned time out.