Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Bendee, Oct 28, 2006.
Sorry, didn't mean to offend.
Jesus' life and words will never cease to be an inspiration to very many people. It is the universal power of Christ to reach all people, imo.
The problem would be any religion trying to set it's own limit upon the universal power of Christ, dictating what Jesus is allowed to be?
He would condemn the hypocrites and (of course not all) the religious professionals and overturn the temple money tables of every generation, imo.
That's when I get sparky. Sorry all.
I'm sure, were He here, he'd roll his eyes and say "Chill."
The fact is that without the Catholic Church, for all it's faults, we would have no Jesus and no New Testament. Imo
Well I don't know. Perhaps I mean within the scripture. If anyone say wants to have Jesus but without the death on the cross and resurrection, or without the Holy Spirit, it is necessary either to reject chunks of the New Testament or else to provide alternative textual evidence?
The New Testament Jesus is the Jesus we have -- unless the Isa bin Maryam of the Quran -- which actually says little about him?
People want the parts of Jesus that they want, and reject the parts they don't want. But without textual evidence, imo. Not referring to this discussion thread.
The New Testament is the most complete account we have.
There is also all the NT Apocrypha, it's not hidden, especially nowadays it's available to anyone, but the majority of scholars question much of its value, I believe?
Or an alternative text interpretation, but imo you get into assumptions, anachronisms and all manner of issues.
Limit the universal power of the.Christ?
Did I do that? I mean if he has universal power...how could I even be capable of that?
Imo the only reason there are two religions is the first didn't satisfy everyone. The only reason there are dozens of religions and thousands of denominations and sects is the others did not speak to this individual or that.
Our Matrix fellow...as irritating as he was proved us that! The inquisition proved it ks of no benefit to try to force people into belief.
Some don't grow from the beliefs of their ancestors...others do...
The value as a genre that sheds a general light on the currents at play at the time is highly regarded, it provides a great deal of insight into the age in question.
As a commentary on Christianity however, the apocryphal literature is not highly regarded as a viable commentary.
From a traditional Christian perspective, yes, of course it does.
Because you are free to make choices. A lesser god might have made sure you stayed within the guidelines, but not the God of Scripture, clearly.
That's not really an argument, though.
Or, that this individual or that would rather they spoke in a way that suited them.
No, but equally the Office of the Inquisition was a far greater protector of the innocent than the alternative, which was trial by a local magistrate who might have only a shallow grasp of theological principle. Read the scholars on the Inquisition and you'll see how often and how many chose to be tried there than by the secular courts, and invariably they were acquitted.
The Catholic Church, for example, ruled against condemning people as witches and condemned those who did.
The Protestant churches, however, went a bit overboard in places.
Nah ... Just because its new doesn't make it right.
Truth is timeless.
The above is not against Unity though ... well maybe the first bit, but then you'd agree to that ... we should take this elsewhere if we're going to discuss generalities.
You are a very broad person, imo.
I meant that what people write or say does not change what Christ really is. The source is the Jesus of the gospels, or the Jesus son of Mary of the Quran who did not die on the cross and resurrect -- or to some extent the mostly dubious apocrypha.
The words and life of Jesus will always be interpreted and commented on in very many ways, for continuing millenia -- the meanings and translations of words from one language to another -- and what they really mean.
The problem would be selecting only parts of the gospel narrative and ditching the rest of it. The gospel Jesus is the Jesus we have -- the whole narrative --unless (valid) textual evidence can be presented to show a different Jesus?
But from an historical point of view, they provide fascinating insights into alternate receptions of Christian subject matter. For example, there is quite a bit of literature that explores the topic of Jesus' family - most of it probably fabricated, but it goes to show that people, even believers, were curious about his brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, nephews and so on. The Gospel accounts are frustratingly vague and terse in this respect.
The infancy Gospels also try to plug a hole in Jesus' biography. People wanted to know!
While a 4th or 5th century text about James the Just will not be canonical, it shows how Christianity engaged with this personality, exploring possible biographies, political views... and some of the apocrypha were actually based on (limited by the circumstances) research, often drawing on Josephus for historical background.
The prequels did not hold up...lol
As is so often the case
Indeed .. well you all know what I think about the particular relevance of cannonical texts as opposed to some non-cannonical texts ..
.. Jewish interpretations against "Christian" interpretations etc.
Simply .. no!
I prefer unity .. The oneness of God, the Most High, and the unity of the human race.
Alas, that was not decreed in our life times.
It will get worse before it gets better, unfortunately.
What goes up must come down.
Nations rise and fall ..
..and due to the increasing global nature of the world, we are now approaching apocalypse..
The good news is that mankind will eventually live in peace and prosperity and be on "one page"
How do you see that as happening?
Who is ready to give up their beliefs to accept the one belief? The Bab tried? Are billions ready for a new interp of final prophet? Or thru other than Jesus? Of G!d and Allah and Krishna as one? What will change secularists?
I mean blue, red and green are different...we gonna fight over that or merge them all...or can we be allowed to be different? Have different favorite colors, different tastes in food and clothes, different beliefs?
As always, some people find truth, and others don't.
There are always reasons for this. The life of this world is a great temptation.
Most of us want a big ranch, a big house and car, and a large income for life.
Many of us will turn away from truth in order to obtain it .. others might not.
No .. it won't all be "merged". The apocalypse occurs because of increasing enmity as this is a finite world with finite resources.
It is not possible for us all to keep our privileges of luxury lives .. imbalance causes distress and confusion.
Many of us are beginning to lose the plot .. bigtime .. civil war and world war eclipse world co-operation
and nationalism rises exponentially.
Almighty G-d in his Mercy, will send Jesus back to the world at an appointed time.
He will be a unifying force which will separate righteousness from evil.
The righteous will eventually succeed and prosper. The world will see a global situation of peace and prosperity after
a period of extreme unrest and hardship.
Separate names with a comma.