Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 07-10-2005, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

The idea that Chili mentions is a New Testament doctrine, mentioned in passages like Romans 3:20:

To the contrary, the Old Testament teaches that the law was intended to be kept, and the Israelites would be "justified" by doing so:

It is a NT thing since in the NT the Law is fulfilled in that it will have served its purpose for the NT person. The Law must convict the outer man and lead him to remorse so he will return to the state of mind he was at birth and 'there' give an account of himself. Joyce called it "pregant with dispair" as if it is a state of mind wherein hu-man is beyond reason (non-rational) before the inner man is able to conquer the ego so that paradise might be regained.

John Kesler · 07-10-2005, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler:
The idea that Chili mentions is a New Testament doctrine, mentioned in passages like Romans 3:20:

To the contrary, the Old Testament teaches that the law was intended to be kept, and the Israelites would be "justified" by doing so:

Chili:
It is a NT thing since in the NT the Law is fulfilled in that it will have served its purpose...

I know that this is what the NT teaches. However, in the Old Testament there is no indication that in the future the law will be "nailed to the cross" (Colossians 2:14) or that the law was a temporary measure (Galatians 3). The Old Testament says that the law is "perfect" (Psalm 19:7) and gives no indication that it will be abolished.

French Prometheus · 07-10-2005, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

It is not the case that I claim such a thing to validate Jesus. I am an NT person and never read Ezekiel except maybe here at this IIDB.

Is it perhaps possible that Ezekiel is wrong, because, God forbid, if there ever would be such an impostor who fulfilled all the prophesies he would end Judaism as probably the greatest mythology to ever exist? I think the best thing was that they did crucify him as an impostor (Matthew 27:64). Notice that the chief priest here recognized Jesus as an imitator but they knew that the second one would be worse than the first if he did not die.

So Jesus came out of the blue? He wasn't prophesied by the Messianic prophets of the OT?

Quote:

The marvel here is that the chief priests knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing what they did. It is the greatest story ever told.

:rolling:

Quote:

I am not sure. As I understand it most of his work happened in Galilee where a messianic movement was underway. This would be much like a massive Billy Graham crusade and to upset one of those would be the best thing he could ever do . . . which was the purpose of his message because they were all lost in Galilee and never reached the state of mind called Israel.

Actually, the NT gives a contradictory account here. Jesus says that the Law of Moses still holds ("Till heaven and earth pass" Matt. 5:18) and that breaking any commandment of it is like breaking them all (James 2:10). However, Jesus is also shown breaking the law and inciting others to follow suit.

Quote:

Yes I understand but my perspective is where any and all religions come to an end. This 'end' will be the same for all and it is towards this end that religion must be the vehicle and no more. So there is a difference. Instead of scattering thru different interpretations I consolidate the valid interpretations into one united front where the final end justifies the means. Important here is to let the evidence speak for itself.

The problem is that the "evidence" is contradictory. You can always solve the contradictions by making up various theological (or contextual) explanations. But not everyone will agree on one particular set of explanations. Hence the thousands of Christian denominations that exist. I assume that you're sure your interpretation is the most consistent but I can assure you that it doesn't appear so from the outside. That's actually a strong argument against the Bible being theopneustos.

As an atheist, I sincerely wish that the modern liberal Christian view was the most coherent and the closest to rational exegesis. But it's not.

Quote:

I don't know myself, but I do know that manna are second hand bible passages that came from heaven to the children of Israel via Moses. Is it possible to see the Ten Commandments as an inspiration towards the conviction of sin so it becomes like a fishing tool to snare the sin nature of man?

Everything is possible as far as theology goes. Your interpretation, like any other, is possible. But that doesn't mean that it appears convincing when seen from the outside.

Quote:

The sacrifice of Jesus served him well and we must do the same in "follow me." In this sense must we take Jesus from the cross and place ourselves upon it -- lest we die at the foot of his cross while singing songs of patient endurance. See the difference?

But yes, this is NT stuff for NT people. We have a good passage on this in John 21:18 where we, as Catholic, are free to go about life and pretty much do as we please. Out of this freedom another will emerge to tie us fast and carry us off against our will. In this sense is it a 'hands off' religion.

Standard Vatican-style Roman Catholicism is anything but a 'hands off' religion...

If I understand your answer correctly, there will be no further sin-offering? No more animal (or human...) should be sacrificed to God?

Quote:

I am the person here who claims that there can be no such thing as a Christian religion because religion ends where Christianity begins. Notice that just as Jews are not Christian so are Catholics not Christian but at best Christian-in-becoming and once they enter this domain religion must come to an end. Gal.5:1-4 is very clear on this.

You've already presented this view on this board. It's not convincing because its entirely based on your own personal re-definition of certain words (religion, Christianity, Catholicism,...).

French Prometheus · 07-10-2005, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

I know that this is what the NT teaches. However, in the Old Testament there is no indication that in the future the law will be "nailed to the cross" (Colossians 2:14) or that the law was a temporary measure (Galatians 3). The Old Testament says that the law is "perfect" (Psalm 19:7) and gives no indication that it will be abolished.

Absolutely. Actually even Jesus claims that the law is not to be changed or abolished. Claiming that "fulfilling the law" is equivalent to changing it or making it obsolete is just plain wrong:

Quote:

Matthew 5
17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Quote:

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Jesus has come to 'fulfill' the law but that doesn't mean that it's no longer binding. The whole law is still binding on Christians. It will remain so until 'everything' is fulfilled. That will happen when "Heaven and Earth pass" i.e. when the apocalypse comes.

Chili · 07-10-2005, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus_fr

So Jesus came out of the blue? He wasn't prophesied by the Messianic prophets of the OT?

Only the father knows when the son is coming but the son is predestined by the city of God which is the ancient (incarnate) religious make-up of the believer who in this sense is an ark builder if he remains true to himself. Nazareth may not be on the map, but it is a real city.

It is easy to be a prophet if this manifestation is archetypal as the fruit of the vine. In Judaism it is compared with a fig tree. Hardy called it the Yew Tree but in the end it means that life belongs to the mythology and we are its fruit, whether we realize this or not. At this point let me add that the Law is the heart of the mythology and as responders to the Law are we its heart beat.

Quote:

Actually, the NT gives a contradictory account here. Jesus says that the Law of Moses still holds ("Till heaven and earth pass" Matt. 5:18) and that breaking any commandment of it is like breaking them all (James 2:10). However, Jesus is also shown breaking the law and inciting others to follow suit.

The Law holds for the Jews but Catholics are not Jews. "We have our own [set of] Laws" (John 19:7) and they will convict us just as well. More-so even since we have the confessionals to [temporarily] unload our sins so we may go from there with a renewed courage to break the Law, once again, as we surely will if only a couple of hail Mary's can be the equalizer (this will be the intervening thought that comes to us).

Quote:

That's actually a strong argument against the Bible being theopneustos.

Yes well out of the thousands there is only one that has a trade mark behind
its conclusion from where it is inspired. The rest are just beating their heads against the gates of heaven.

Quote:

As an atheist, I sincerely wish that the modern liberal Christian view was the most coherent and the closest to rational exegesis. But it's not.

I know what you mean but just the opposite is true. Salvation is a mystery that will always be beyond the scope of reason for the seeker.

Quote:

Standard Vatican-style Roman Catholicism is anything but a 'hands off' religion...

True, the Church Militant tows the 'party line' because that must become the antagonist in the grand inquisition of life. The secret here is 'realization' or 'crystallization' of the indoctrinated values that are put to the test. If they bear witness to Truth one epiphany will lead to another and so forth until paradise is fully regained.

Quote:

If I understand your answer correctly, there will be no further sin-offering? No more animal (or human...) should be sacrificed to God?

There never was in Catholicism except for a couple of hail Mary's (unless we cheat there too).

John Kesler · 07-10-2005, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Prometheus_fr:
Jesus has come to 'fulfill' the law but that doesn't mean that it's no longer binding. The whole law is still binding on Christians.

I think that you need to read Galatians 3:23-25, Colossians 2:13-16, Hebrews 8:6-8, and Romans 7:1-6. The NT clearly teaches that the Old Testament/Covenant was done away with and replaced with a "better" covenant--the "New Covenant/Testament." The point that I was making is that the NT's teaching is at odds with the OT which never indicates that the law would be done away and says that the law is "perfect" and should be kept forever.

Thomas II · 07-10-2005, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

He existed as Jew in the myth and he could have been any Jew except that he was not any Jew or it would happen to every Jew.

What would happen to EVERY JEW?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

He came to show how and why the children of Israel did it wrong . . . for they were Jews and because they did it wrong they wanderer and died nonetheless. John 6 is clear on this.

What do you mean with the sentence "for they were Jews"?

What do you mean by "they did it wrong"?

What do you mean by "they wandered and died nonetheless"? When?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Of course he did know but that knowledge was privy to him only in awakening . . . "my time has not come yet" and "it is finished." The Jews did not know but Peter knew and he represents the kind of faith that we need to 'get there' and do the same thing.

Peter? What kind of faith are you talking about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Yes he was psychologically disturbed but for good reason. His disturbance was caused by his faith that was put to the test and brought to understanding in the Gospels 'wherein' he arrived after he went to Bethlehem where he went to give an account of himself (an "account" here is an unconscious surrender of the rational will = a psychological disturbance). He was moved there by faith and by faith only and therein lies the difference between a comedy and a tragedy. That is, his was a comedy and the children of Israel ended upon a tragedy (which he introduced as gehenna and lated became known as hell).

His was a COMEDY? :huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Suicides is an act wherein the wrong identity is killed. It is intuit urge to kill one driving identity in our mind but it is wrong to kill the actual being.

What?? :huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

He was not the Messiah for those who rejected him and any reason to reject him is a good reason to reject him if the Messiah must call us by name to be our messiah.

What??? :huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

We, in Catholicism, accepted him by example and are waiting for the second coming in our life when he calls us by name. Until then do we accept him by the fate of our forefathers just as the Jews deny him by the faith of their forefathers while both of us are waiting for him to come, or to come again.

Interesting is that we use the word "parousia" for the second coming while this words itself predates the first coming when the second coming was inconceivable.

You are WAITING?? What are you waiting for? A whistle? A shout? A courtesy phone?? A K-Mart announcement?

Its gonna be more like:

(Jesus)......"Chili!!...CHILI!!!...What are you waiting for??...
I've been waiting for YOU ALL this time you say you've been waiting for ME!!! What the heck are you doing there??? Get the fuck in the sweet chariot!! Making me wait like this !!! Do you have any idea how long I've been waiting??? Wait until Father hears about this...
You are in a lot of trouble,Mr...
Second coming...Second coming...Yeah, I'll give you second coming!!
Father is gonna be pissed big time!!!...
There might even be a flood...or something"

Johnny Skeptic · 07-10-2005, 12:52 PM

Am I correct that Revelation 1:1 indicates that the writer thought that the end was coming soon?

French Prometheus · 07-11-2005, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

I think that you need to read Galatians 3:23-25, Colossians 2:13-16, Hebrews 8:6-8, and Romans 7:1-6. The NT clearly teaches that the Old Testament/Covenant was done away with and replaced with a "better" covenant--the "New Covenant/Testament." The point that I was making is that the NT's teaching is at odds with the OT which never indicates that the law would be done away and says that the law is "perfect" and should be kept forever.

This interpretation clearly contradicts Matthew 5:18-19 (and James 2:10). It's for every Christian to decide whether Jesus' own words in the Gospels should be trusted or whether Paul's theology is more compelling.

All these contradictions are the reason why various groups of Christians reach opposite conclusions on religious and social issues.

French Prometheus · 07-11-2005, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Only the father knows when the son is coming but the son is predestined by the city of God which is the ancient (incarnate) religious make-up of the believer who in this sense is an ark builder if he remains true to himself. Nazareth may not be on the map, but it is a real city.

If God inspired the OT, then he described the clear signs that would accompany the (first and only) coming of the Messiah. Nazareth wasn't a city in the first century.

Quote:

It is easy to be a prophet if this manifestation is archetypal as the fruit of the vine. In Judaism it is compared with a fig tree. Hardy called it the Yew Tree but in the end it means that life belongs to the mythology and we are its fruit, whether we realize this or not. At this point let me add that the Law is the heart of the mythology and as responders to the Law are we its heart beat.

Same as before: your own very peculiar interpretation which is extremely removed from the Biblical text and any exegesis based on the historical and cultural context. Anyone can make up similar interpretations and justify absolutely every religious system.

Quote:

The Law holds for the Jews but Catholics are not Jews. "We have our own [set of] Laws" (John 19:7) and they will convict us just as well. More-so even since we have the confessionals to [temporarily] unload our sins so we may go from there with a renewed courage to break the Law, once again, as we surely will if only a couple of hail Mary's can be the equalizer (this will be the intervening thought that comes to us).

This is contradictory with what Jesus said in Matthew 5:18-19. Jesus speaks in general terms, there's absolutely no indication that this passage only applies to Jews. If you pick and choose which passage applies to Jews and which passage applies to the Gentiles when there's no such indication then anyone can play this game.

Quote:

Yes well out of the thousands there is only one that has a trade mark behind its conclusion from where it is inspired. The rest are just beating their heads against the gates of heaven.

More of your 'exotic' theology

Quote:

I know what you mean but just the opposite is true. Salvation is a mystery that will always be beyond the scope of reason for the seeker.

The opposite is true because YOU say so? Many other Christians disagree with you. And as much as it pains me to admit it, their interpretation sounds more consistent to me than yours.

Quote:

True, the Church Militant tows the 'party line' because that must become the antagonist in the grand inquisition of life. The secret here is 'realization' or 'crystallization' of the indoctrinated values that are put to the test. If they bear witness to Truth one epiphany will lead to another and so forth until paradise is fully regained.

There never was [any sin offering] in Catholicism except for a couple of hail Mary's (unless we cheat there too).

Your 'exotic' theology again...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-10-2005, 12:52 PM	#58
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Am I correct that Revelation 1:1 indicates that the writer thought that the end was coming soon?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.