And it's also true!
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Day was Jesus Crucified?
- Thread starter fallingblood
- Start date
Depends on which "Christian" circle below you're talking about.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2294024-post981.html
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
The honest ones.
Ah. . .we accept the parts we like, we just don't accept its central claim. . .got that.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
No, I don't accept just what I like. I look at the scripture with a critical eye, as well as relying on authorities on the subject. What I don't find historical, I can see as theological. Thus not rejecting it all together.
My source for the existence, validity and numerous examples of types is the NT claims themselves (below), which NT claims provide a pattern for application. . .and familiarity with the whole Bible doesn't hurt either.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html
So it's Google vs. the NT.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yet nowhere in Scripture does it say, "Jesus is the Jewish Messiah."
In fact, the term "Messiah" only appears twice in the NT, and the writers prefer the Greek term "Christ," showing the seperation between Judaism and Christianity. This hardly makes it seem that the central claim of the NT is that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
No comment.
Shame on you AND your Sunday school teacher.
Once upon a time, I WAS a Sunday school teacher's aid (it was a Jewish school). Now, the class we taught was no where near that sophisticated, but I CAN tell you something that is learned in the Jewish elementary school that was attached to the Yeshiva high school I went to.
In the Book of Esther, Mordechai gave his cousin Queen Esther news of a report of an assassination attempt, and Queen Esther gave the news, with full accreditation to Mordechai. (Esther 2:21-23)
This accreditation became important, because when King Achashverosh couldn't sleep, the king's book of chronicals was brought before him, and he realized that he never rewarded Mordechai for his efforts. (Esther 6)
This set in motion the Haman's downfall, and the evil plot to eradicate the Jews was undone.
It is a common lesson: giving credit where credit is due can be meritorious enough to save a nation. Even if the moment is not anywhere near as important as all of that, it is enough to understand the importance of giving proper credit where it is due.
No, not really. An audience is an audience, whether it is a Sunday school, a parochial classroom, a Masters' dissertation, an online bulletin board...
Always cite your sources. If an idea doesn't come from YOUR head, it should be cited.
I'm not sure why you think it is okay to do otherwise...
Well, yes. That is part of the problem.
Um...
Smoky... The rest of your argument would be strengthened by acknowledging what is and isn't from your own mind.
If you can't give credit where credit is due, you are shooting yourself in the foot, as people are NOT going to pay attention to you, even if your argument is correct.
No. Really, it isn't. Understanding who gets credit for the work is only PART of understanding the truth.
Bully for you.
But it is intellectually honest to explain where the sources come from, even though the post is YOUR post.
You're welcome.
esmith
Veteran Member
I have posted a couple of times to this thread and have been following it. I kind of took offense to one post for the following reason.
First I would like to say I am 68 years young.
I was raised a Christian and had to attend church until I joined the Navy and spent 20 years. I had not attended church from 1961 to just recently when my wife started attending after never attending in her life. After a few months I decided to support her and start attending again. However, I decided I couldn't attend on "faith" alone. I started reading various books (Jewish Study Bible, NIV Study Bible, DVD seminars on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Old Testament, New Testament, Lost Christianities, and the Book of Genesis). I have also have been reading about the history of the Ancient Near East as it relates to the bible. One must always continue to learn. At the present time I, along with the wife, have become very skeptical about what the New Testament is expounding (as you can gather from my posts).
I guess what I am saying is just because we may be old doesn't necessarily mean we have a closed mind to religious teachings. I find the RF very informative and am not just killing time since we are retired.
I am not sure about the statement about old vs young and plagiarism. I kind of believe that the "older" generation has as much respect, if not more, than the younger generation in respect to personal honor.
First I would like to say I am 68 years young.
I was raised a Christian and had to attend church until I joined the Navy and spent 20 years. I had not attended church from 1961 to just recently when my wife started attending after never attending in her life. After a few months I decided to support her and start attending again. However, I decided I couldn't attend on "faith" alone. I started reading various books (Jewish Study Bible, NIV Study Bible, DVD seminars on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Old Testament, New Testament, Lost Christianities, and the Book of Genesis). I have also have been reading about the history of the Ancient Near East as it relates to the bible. One must always continue to learn. At the present time I, along with the wife, have become very skeptical about what the New Testament is expounding (as you can gather from my posts).
I guess what I am saying is just because we may be old doesn't necessarily mean we have a closed mind to religious teachings. I find the RF very informative and am not just killing time since we are retired.
I am not sure about the statement about old vs young and plagiarism. I kind of believe that the "older" generation has as much respect, if not more, than the younger generation in respect to personal honor.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I'm sorry that you were offended - I'm simply sharing my experience.
And I don't see it as some horrible thing, it's just a matter of teaching and has nothing to do with personal honor. Most students just need a gentle reminder and all is well with the world. Now after they know what plagiarism is, that's a whole other ballgame.
Another good belly laugh! . .Try Jn 4:25-26. . .
And how many times does it have to appear before it's true?
My Bible says two things in Jn 1:41; 4:25-26, each:
1) Jesus is the Messiah, and
2) Messiah means Christ.
And that statement, along with the three above, shows why (link following) you ended up on the wrong side of six arguments, so far. . .and may be heading
for a seventh clock cleaning.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2300254-post1078.html
Are you saying that it is not the central claim of the NT that Jesus is the promised Messiah?
Evidently you haven't read the epistles.
Was Jesus not the Messiah? . .Was Jesus not Jewish? . .you do the math. . .6 + 1 = 7.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Really? Maybe you should quote it so everyone can see.
smokydot said: So it's Google vs. the NT.
Scholarship can't do it. (1 Co 2:1-2, 4, 1:22-25)
Or is it the mind of a seasoned scholar vs. a "mind that has been opened to understand the Scriptures" (Lk 24:45), which is the only way they can be understood.
Scholarship can't do it. (1 Co 2:1-2, 4, 1:22-25)
Good Sunday school lesson. . .can we sign you up to teach down at the First Self-Righteous Church?
(I stole that from Ray Stephens.) Am I gonna' have to give the source for every line in a song that I use? This seems ridiculous. . .
Hey, I'm proud to remember that I got that list of titles from my Sunday school teacher.
Nothing I learned in pre-college came from my own head, it all came from the textbooks and my teachers.
So I can't discuss gravity or inertia any more because I can't remember where I got the knowledge? I dunno'. . .when does what you've learned become the public domain?
I have now acknowledged repeatedly that the list of titles came from my Sunday school teacher. That is all there is to acknowledge.
With the repeated acknowledgement that my list of titles came from my Sunday school notes, I have acknowledged ALL material in this thread which is other than my own.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
In Pascagula, Mississippi?
Until you do it enough to make it clear that you aren't stealing stuff... I would say, "Yes."
Okay.
And I'm probably guessing you don't necessarily quote line and verse from them, either. You know, I DID say that there was something to not citing something if you HONESTLY forgot its source. But if it is clear you KNOW what a source was and didn't bother to list it...
There is a difference. I hope you can understand the difference.
I just covered that.
Not really. Especially if someone was able to pin your source down to something more specific.
The proper answer that would have been far less contentious, then, would have been (or I would have thought): "Cool. I didn't know where my Sunday school teacher got that from. I'm glad to know where it came from."
But by then... This is an embroiled mess, and I'm not going to sift through who was right and who was wrong. But I DO understand the concept of plagiarism. (I was a tutor for 7 years on two separate universities' payroll, and that was a MAJOR issue. I had to turn in a couple of students who DID plagiarize unrepentantly, even when I pointed out how to correct the issue, cite their source, or otherwise fix the situation.)
Simply brushing the concept under the rug isn't cool.
If it is important to you to live what you consider to be a Christlike life, you should be able to act with intellectual integrity.
Telling people who correct you about such things that "It isn't important because your Sunday school teacher didn't bother" shows a complete unwillingness to follow God's tenets of moral straightness, as stealing intellectual property doesn't fit well with "Loving one's neighbor as one's self."
And it was pointed out that your Sunday school teacher's notes came from Oral Roberts.
It wouldn't hurt you to acknowledge this publicly.
You have the right to claim that you didn't know it before. But now that you know, you have as much responsibility to list the source as I did when giving my lecture, once I realized that someone came up with the idea before I did.
I refer to a lot of Scripture. . .I don't intend to quote it all. . .that's why I give "addressess" where the Scriptures can be found.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
Am I really being self-righteous? Or are you annoyed that I've told you that you were wrong?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
You flatter yourself a bit much.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Presenting two verses to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah isn't going to hurt that much (except to show that you are wrong, again).