FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-15-2007, 09:34 AM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
[Jesus saves us from] The prison of selfishness.
Am I correct that it doesn't actually say that anywhere in the NT, but that, in your opinion, one can (clearly) infer that from the whole oevre? If so, why didn't anyone make that more explicit, did they lack the language or concepts?

Gerard Stafleu
gstafleu is offline  
Old 02-15-2007, 11:26 AM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Spain
Posts: 2,902
Default

What does Jesus save us from?

God, of course.





(Romans 5: "much more shall we be saved by [Jesus] from the wrath of God...")
Gundulf is offline  
Old 02-15-2007, 11:37 AM   #23
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneInFundieville View Post
Jesus saves us from killing goats at church on Sunday mornings.
Saturday mornings.

Which brings up another thing Jesus saved us from: being stoned to death for doing yardwork on Saturdays.
Mageth is offline  
Old 02-15-2007, 11:55 AM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gstafleu View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamera
[Jesus saves us from] The prison of selfishness.
Am I correct that it doesn't actually say that anywhere in the NT, but that, in your opinion, one can (clearly) infer that from the whole oevre? If so, why didn't anyone make that more explicit, did they lack the language or concepts?

Gerard Stafleu
Hi Gerard,

I think maybe Gamera had in mind something like Matthew 16:25,
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Jake
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 02-15-2007, 12:17 PM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

According to 1 Timothy 2:15, women are saved by having children. But only if they
persevere in the faith with charity, holiness and modesty, meaning to keep their mouths shut. Because woman caused the Fall in the first place by carrying on with talking snakes. I find this entirely sexist and repugnant, and Christians should be ashamed of promulgating such views.


Here is the entire passage.

A woman better listen to the instruction in silence, in entire submissiveness. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; For it was not Adam who was allured, it is the woman who, allured, made herself guilty of transgression. She nevertheless will be saved while becoming a mother, if she perseveres with modesty in the faith, charity, and holiness. 1 Timothy 2:11-15

Jake Jones IV
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 02-15-2007, 12:25 PM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
I think maybe Gamera had in mind something like Matthew 16:25,
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Aha, gaining the world and losing your soul, that kind of thing. OK, that was part of Jesus teachings. It just seems to me that the word "Saviour" has a more universal meaning. I'm not the only one who thinks that what we need saving from is from the results of the Fall of Man, am I?

The reason I think of it that way (although I doubt if many share this view ) is that I see the apple-snake bit in Genesis 2 as a screw-up of Jewish mythology. Usually in origin myths the creation of man and the concomitant discovery of procreation is seen as something positive, while in Gen 2 it is portrayed as negative. This means that hence forth life is an eternal guilt trip, a view that persists to the present day (sorry ). Combine this with the fact that the Jews had managed to turn their god into a useless piece of total transcendence, and you can see that saving from that situation is a pressing necessity. So, we reinstate him back on earth as a walking-talking human who then makes the supreme sacrifice and thus erases the apple-snake bit, and voila, all of a sudden life is peachy.

Gerard Stafleu
gstafleu is offline  
Old 02-15-2007, 12:43 PM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gstafleu View Post
Aha, gaining the world and losing your soul, that kind of thing. OK, that was part of Jesus teachings. It just seems to me that the word "Saviour" has a more universal meaning. I'm not the only one who thinks that what we need saving from is from the results of the Fall of Man, am I?

The reason I think of it that way (although I doubt if many share this view ) is that I see the apple-snake bit in Genesis 2 as a screw-up of Jewish mythology. Usually in origin myths the creation of man and the concomitant discovery of procreation is seen as something positive, while in Gen 2 it is portrayed as negative. This means that hence forth life is an eternal guilt trip, a view that persists to the present day (sorry ). Combine this with the fact that the Jews had managed to turn their god into a useless piece of total transcendence, and you can see that saving from that situation is a pressing necessity. So, we reinstate him back on earth as a walking-talking human who then makes the supreme sacrifice and thus erases the apple-snake bit, and voila, all of a sudden life is peachy.

Gerard Stafleu
I see what you are saying. It takes a new myth (Jesus) to erase the bad effects of the old myth (the Fall). That is so true on many levels.
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 02-15-2007, 02:11 PM   #28
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
I think this is what early Christianity was all about. It wasn't all this silly heaven/hell nonsense. I think it was mystical in nature and focused on exactly what you are saying here. I read the gospels as a new age (the new age of Pisces back then) mystical message that reinforces this view, while neatly tying in Judaism and Pythagoreanism.

I lean toward the idea that the gospels are a constructed message of this form, which makes me doubt Jesus was a real character.
I agree that the gospels were written at a particular time in a particular culture and hence used a particular vocabulary (such as sin) to describe what it was doing.

This is the Emerging Church position -- that the church must constantly "emerge' and distinguish itself from the culture that tries to assimilate it and fix its meaning in cultural norms.

I basically agree with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church
Gamera is offline  
Old 02-15-2007, 02:18 PM   #29
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gstafleu View Post
Am I correct that it doesn't actually say that anywhere in the NT, but that, in your opinion, one can (clearly) infer that from the whole oevre? If so, why didn't anyone make that more explicit, did they lack the language or concepts?

Gerard Stafleu
Well, others have. Kierkagaard, Bultman, and the Emerging church movement to name a few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church

I would say that it is explicit in the gospel, but ignored by institutional Christianity. Hence:

John 15:17 - This I command you, to love one another.

Romans 13:8 - Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

1 Peter 1:22 - Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart.

1 John 3:11 - For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another,

1 John 3:23 - And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.
Gamera is offline  
Old 02-15-2007, 02:22 PM   #30
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
According to 1 Timothy 2:15, women are saved by having children. But only if they
persevere in the faith with charity, holiness and modesty, meaning to keep their mouths shut. Because woman caused the Fall in the first place by carrying on with talking snakes. I find this entirely sexist and repugnant, and Christians should be ashamed of promulgating such views.


Here is the entire passage.

A woman better listen to the instruction in silence, in entire submissiveness. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; For it was not Adam who was allured, it is the woman who, allured, made herself guilty of transgression. She nevertheless will be saved while becoming a mother, if she perseveres with modesty in the faith, charity, and holiness. 1 Timothy 2:11-15

Jake Jones IV
1 Tim 2:15 is a very difficult passage. It could mean something like, women were are saved by childbearing, meaning the childbearing of Mary.

As to the rest, the argument made by the Emerging Church movement is that these are exactly the kinds of cultural norms the Church has to emerge from. Even Paul was caught up in the culture of his time.
Gamera is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:11 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.