That's an interesting observation. I'm not sure whether everyone who uses that technique is doing it purposely to make the argument more credible because I've known people who actually believe the Bible (at least the Torah) is an evolving, eternal document that speaks for itself. But, I'm sure that there are many missionaries using that same technique on people knowing exactly what they are doing.
What would American Christians do with Jesus?
- Thread starter Don Allen
- Start date
- Status
That's an interesting observation. I'm not sure whether everyone who uses that technique is doing it purposely to make the argument more credible because I've known people who actually believe the Bible (at least the Torah) is an evolving, eternal document that speaks for itself. But, I'm sure that there are many missionaries using that same technique on people knowing exactly what they are doing.
swansongunsung
Registered
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2010
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 1
Although I am a Christian, I believe, like many people do, that the Christian message has become distorted over time. I also believe that many other religions are based on true beliefs, or even revelations, but these beliefs and revelations have sometimes been misinterpreted.
I am not a Jehovah's Witness. I never have been. Nevertheless I believe they are correct in holding the following belief.
Witnesses believe that the world is under the control of Satan and his demons, that they mislead people, and are the cause of human suffering. However, they do not believe that individual rulers or governments are under Satan's direct control
I believe Jehovah's Witnesses will be rewarded for their especially strong faith, even if they are wrong about many things. They were the only Christian church in Germany to openly resist Hitler and the Nazi's, for example. And they paid a terrible price. They were rounded up and placed in the camps with the Jews and the Gypsies.
I am not a Jehovah's Witness. I never have been. Nevertheless I believe they are correct in holding the following belief.
Witnesses believe that the world is under the control of Satan and his demons, that they mislead people, and are the cause of human suffering. However, they do not believe that individual rulers or governments are under Satan's direct control
I believe Jehovah's Witnesses will be rewarded for their especially strong faith, even if they are wrong about many things. They were the only Christian church in Germany to openly resist Hitler and the Nazi's, for example. And they paid a terrible price. They were rounded up and placed in the camps with the Jews and the Gypsies.
You know what I think this question lacks? A specific America - and a specific Christ.
(disclosure: I'm neither Christian nor American. But I really do believe there are quite lovely things about some forms of Christianity - and Islam and Judaism and all the other isms as well; I'm a sucker for tribes - and can I say right here that I loved my six weeks in America. I heart NY I really really do...)
Also - Swansong; the Calvinists in Holland were pretty good, too.... "The Heart Has Reasons" by Klempner is a wonderful book....
(disclosure: I'm neither Christian nor American. But I really do believe there are quite lovely things about some forms of Christianity - and Islam and Judaism and all the other isms as well; I'm a sucker for tribes - and can I say right here that I loved my six weeks in America. I heart NY I really really do...)
Also - Swansong; the Calvinists in Holland were pretty good, too.... "The Heart Has Reasons" by Klempner is a wonderful book....
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 22,986
- Reaction score
- 1,299
- Location
- Durham, NC
- Website
- www.michaeledits.com
swansongunsung
Registered
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2010
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 1
swansongunsung
Registered
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2010
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 1
A specific Christ? In which way? The Jesus Christ of Nazareth, or the Second Coming? (unless you do not believe in this)
I believe the Christ of the Second Coming will seem very different from Jesus of Nazareth, because he will be instrumental in Armageddon, the final fight against Satan.
In that way (see above - Nazareth, or the Second Coming). Believers tend to believe that their own understanding of Christ and all he stands for is the correct one - and that goes for those who believe he was a non-divine political insurrectionist trying to overthrow Roman rule, as well as those who believe in a more theistic interpretation and the shades in between. So we'd need to know which definition of Christ was appearing, wouldn't we?
But I was only splitting hairs, anyway. From what I've seen of New York, if they found him standing on street corner struggling with a map, they'd come up and say "Can I help you? Where are you trying to get to?" - followed by "That's such a cute accent! Where are you from? You're kidding!" And then if he was a bit lost and hungry as well, they'd probably lead him down to the Edison deli and order a big bowl of the best barley soup in the world and quietly pay the bill on their way out... I'm so in love with New York
Now if he came to Australia, it might be different. If he came to Australia the barley soup at the Edison deli gives way to a beer in a pub, and then god only knows what would happen once he began the thing with the loaves and fishes....
Last edited:
What part of NY are you in? If he came to Manhattan, he'd be ignored. Maybe someone would throw change at his feet. Maybe.
I'm not in New York. I'm in Australia. But I went to New York for the first time last year, and was overwhelmed by how friendly everyone was. I was expecting much more of a Seinfeld kind of welcome.
I think Manhattan-ites just like to sound tough to keep too many people from moving in...
Also - it's not just me. My kids had spent time there over the last few years and raved about it. That's why I went. Then I came back and raved about it too....
There's no point trying to change my mind, I'm afraid. New Yorkers are gorgeous.
Last edited:
swansongunsung
Registered
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2010
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 1
I think the Second Coming is not so far away now. Armageddon too. Strangely enough, Jehovah's Witnesses have started to show unusual behaviour in a few European locations, with regard to a few specific individuals. They are well known for having predicting, in the past, the End of The World on certain specific dates, but they have always got it wrong. This time they are not making any public announcements.
These "specific individuals" are not candidates for the role of the Messiah, or anything like that. Quite the reverse.
I do not believe that Armageddon will be as "bad" as some people fear. It wil not wipe out 99% of the human race, for example. The real cost will be revealed when humanity realizes what Satan has done, using them as his instrument.
Some people are better informed than others. Some of them have even employed the phrase "The Enemy Within" and they have known exactly what they were talking about.
"The Enemy Within"
What could that be about, I wonder? Al-Qaeda? Definitely not. Al-Qaeda may be an instrument, but no more than that.
George W Bush and Tony Blair made the joint decision to go to war in Iraq. The actual decision was made very quickly. They received certain very specific information about Saddam Hussein and his two sons. They prayed. The slept on it. And the following morning their mind was made up. They hoped that WMDs would turn up to "justify" their attack, of course. But WMDs had nothing to do with their decision.
They understood the meaning of the phrase "The Enemy Within" extremely well.
Only God, and Jesus Christ, can save us from this "Enemy Within" and he will. Whether Jesus Christ returns in America, the plains of East Africa or the mountains of the Himalayas, is immaterial.
Just my two cents...
These "specific individuals" are not candidates for the role of the Messiah, or anything like that. Quite the reverse.
I do not believe that Armageddon will be as "bad" as some people fear. It wil not wipe out 99% of the human race, for example. The real cost will be revealed when humanity realizes what Satan has done, using them as his instrument.
Some people are better informed than others. Some of them have even employed the phrase "The Enemy Within" and they have known exactly what they were talking about.
"The Enemy Within"
What could that be about, I wonder? Al-Qaeda? Definitely not. Al-Qaeda may be an instrument, but no more than that.
George W Bush and Tony Blair made the joint decision to go to war in Iraq. The actual decision was made very quickly. They received certain very specific information about Saddam Hussein and his two sons. They prayed. The slept on it. And the following morning their mind was made up. They hoped that WMDs would turn up to "justify" their attack, of course. But WMDs had nothing to do with their decision.
They understood the meaning of the phrase "The Enemy Within" extremely well.
Only God, and Jesus Christ, can save us from this "Enemy Within" and he will. Whether Jesus Christ returns in America, the plains of East Africa or the mountains of the Himalayas, is immaterial.
Just my two cents...
Parade him through the streets in
a tub of Lime Jello?
Hummmm . . . maybe pudding
everyone loves pudding.
Oh wait, in these health conscious times
Low fat yogurt?
a tub of Lime Jello?
Hummmm . . . maybe pudding
everyone loves pudding.
Oh wait, in these health conscious times
Low fat yogurt?
'Bible interprets itself' - explaination.
Paul you had a good comment I felt I should explain.
When I said "the bible interprets itself" I wasn't inferring that it was an entity that performed some kind of mystic reaction. I was referring to the way you can look at any large document and understand that when it makes a statement or uses a term you can be helped in your understanding this by examining that same document in other places to help understand the passage.
(Acts 17:2,3) 2 So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving by references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and [saying]: “This is the Christ, this Jesus whom I am publishing to YOU.”
For this to work a person would have to accept that the bible was one letter penned by some 40 human secretaries recording the divine word as guided by God. (1Tim 3:16)
I believe in truth and that it can be found otherwise there would be no reason for anything because every thing we know would be capricious and arbitrary.
However one cannot discount the role of God in coming to the correct understanding.
(John 6:44) 44 No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him. . .
False information abounds.
(2 Peter 2:1-3) 1 However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. 2 Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. 3 Also, with covetousness they will exploit YOU with counterfeit words. But as for them, the judgment from of old is not moving slowly, and the destruction of them is not slumbering.
(2 Timothy 4:2-4) . . .. 3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.
Paul you had a good comment I felt I should explain.
When I said "the bible interprets itself" I wasn't inferring that it was an entity that performed some kind of mystic reaction. I was referring to the way you can look at any large document and understand that when it makes a statement or uses a term you can be helped in your understanding this by examining that same document in other places to help understand the passage.
(Acts 17:2,3) 2 So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving by references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and [saying]: “This is the Christ, this Jesus whom I am publishing to YOU.”
For this to work a person would have to accept that the bible was one letter penned by some 40 human secretaries recording the divine word as guided by God. (1Tim 3:16)
I believe in truth and that it can be found otherwise there would be no reason for anything because every thing we know would be capricious and arbitrary.
However one cannot discount the role of God in coming to the correct understanding.
(John 6:44) 44 No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him. . .
False information abounds.
(2 Peter 2:1-3) 1 However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. 2 Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. 3 Also, with covetousness they will exploit YOU with counterfeit words. But as for them, the judgment from of old is not moving slowly, and the destruction of them is not slumbering.
(2 Timothy 4:2-4) . . .. 3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.
Actually every fourth sunday, and dressed as a Wicken Buddhist Jew, that way I can be philosophical, yet earthly, while sill getting a chance to wear the little beenie I like so much.
I actually reread this post several times, because the words expressed, and questions raised are literally in another realm of discussion and you sir, need to be publicly commended for the rationalization.
To rephrase not nearly as eloquently, the question becomes: Would any religious hierarchy be able to accept the basic tenets of it's own origin?
...And the answer is unquestionably NO. Because all religions have bastardized their origins to some extent, if not completely.
...So, the true question, (oddly enough we may be seeing the signs of this in the Catholic church) is: Would we ever see a fracture of such magnitude between a religions hierarchy and it's parishioners based upon it's original framework, that a sort of renaissance would literally embrace it's creator and basic original tenets? Phew.... if you can understand what I mean...
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 1,307
- Reaction score
- 124
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what Jesus would actually do if he did come back.
Maybe he would fulfill the prophecies of the New Testament, however, that would be tricky since the prophecies deal with the Roman empire and Roman emperors, and they're gone and probably not coming back.
If he was reborn with the same genetic code but a different environment, I imagine he'd just be a normal little boy. If he came back as a demi-god, he could do whatever he wanted and people would take him pretty seriously.
The answer would depend on whether he was teleported with time travel, or whether he had some clue as to what's going on now, tons of endless questions like that. As it is, you can't say what Americans would do with him unless you know what he'd be doing.
Maybe he would fulfill the prophecies of the New Testament, however, that would be tricky since the prophecies deal with the Roman empire and Roman emperors, and they're gone and probably not coming back.
If he was reborn with the same genetic code but a different environment, I imagine he'd just be a normal little boy. If he came back as a demi-god, he could do whatever he wanted and people would take him pretty seriously.
The answer would depend on whether he was teleported with time travel, or whether he had some clue as to what's going on now, tons of endless questions like that. As it is, you can't say what Americans would do with him unless you know what he'd be doing.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 1,307
- Reaction score
- 124
Does anyone out there still crucify people? He might be arrested and tried for terrorism though, depending on exactly where and what he did. Could end in execution, I guess.
You're right in so much that in order to ponder the question you have to be willing to accept a whole bunch of assumptions. IMO, it's a question of who Christians identify with most, the current church, or the biblical teachings and literal words of Christ. In addition there are certainly political considerations as well.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,698
- Reaction score
- 1,539
- Location
- The City Different
- Website
- www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
Good question, and I think I do understand what you mean. In fact, I think the original Protestants, in their own view of themselves, were doing exactly as you describe -- getting past the hierarchy and back to the roots of Christianity. Of course they soon got into various doctrinal controversies of their own, complete with hurled anathemas and and the occasional persecution. But in spite of that, I think the yearning for renewal, of getting back to the basics of the founder(s), is a frequent lament. How can you preserve the initial fire of an emerging religious movement? Hierarchy and structure are inherently deadening. More than that, they can attract the wrong sort of person to the movement -- the person who thrives on structure and definitions.
Ruv Draba
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,114
- Reaction score
- 1,322
I think that human ideals have changed as we've learned what's available and what's feasible. I don't think that religions hold to their ancient ideals, nor do I think that they should.
For a farmer, Eden was an agrarian paradise -- a self-tending garden where everything was always in season, and you could eat whatever you wanted. But we have supermarkets, in which the greengrocery is already picked, husked, washed, wrapped and ready to serve. And they're next to the clothing stores. Now that more than half the world is urban, many people wouldn't live in Eden these days unless it had cable.
I think our ideas of kindness and equity have changed too. In ancient times, honouring your parents meant never questioning or challenging them unless they broke the mores of the day. If they played favourites, so be it. If they hit you, it was deserved. Life was cheap, law was harsh and parents taught children to fear authority, as they themselves feared authority, and nobody thought it should be different. But nowadays, we'd consider that appalling. Authority that's feared can't be trusted. If it can't be trusted, it should be challenged and overturned. We not only believe that, we teach it to our children. Justice is no longer about maintaining a stable, predictable status quo, but about giving people equity in their own futures.
Unsurprisingly, our notions of morality, ethics, divine authority and paradise have changed to suit these views. So if the ideals and visions have mutated, what's left in common?
I think it's basic human needs -- a desire to love, to be cherished, to be hale and healthy, well-fed and sheltered, to be safe and free of fear, and surrounded by people we recognise and like. Really simple ape tribe-stuff.
Against that backdrop, admonishments like 'be kind to people', 'hold your temper in check' and 'share what you have' will never go out of fashion. They're also admonishments common to virtually all the ancient religions. Really, I think that all that modern religions have in common with their ancient forms is the same thing they have in common with each other.
For a farmer, Eden was an agrarian paradise -- a self-tending garden where everything was always in season, and you could eat whatever you wanted. But we have supermarkets, in which the greengrocery is already picked, husked, washed, wrapped and ready to serve. And they're next to the clothing stores. Now that more than half the world is urban, many people wouldn't live in Eden these days unless it had cable.
I think our ideas of kindness and equity have changed too. In ancient times, honouring your parents meant never questioning or challenging them unless they broke the mores of the day. If they played favourites, so be it. If they hit you, it was deserved. Life was cheap, law was harsh and parents taught children to fear authority, as they themselves feared authority, and nobody thought it should be different. But nowadays, we'd consider that appalling. Authority that's feared can't be trusted. If it can't be trusted, it should be challenged and overturned. We not only believe that, we teach it to our children. Justice is no longer about maintaining a stable, predictable status quo, but about giving people equity in their own futures.
Unsurprisingly, our notions of morality, ethics, divine authority and paradise have changed to suit these views. So if the ideals and visions have mutated, what's left in common?
I think it's basic human needs -- a desire to love, to be cherished, to be hale and healthy, well-fed and sheltered, to be safe and free of fear, and surrounded by people we recognise and like. Really simple ape tribe-stuff.
Against that backdrop, admonishments like 'be kind to people', 'hold your temper in check' and 'share what you have' will never go out of fashion. They're also admonishments common to virtually all the ancient religions. Really, I think that all that modern religions have in common with their ancient forms is the same thing they have in common with each other.
Right, which beckons the famous quote "be true to thine self" and RUV makes a good point as well when he articulates the differences in time and human evolution,,,, and applying religious concepts as best as possible to current standards of living. But, back to you CG, is there not a defining responsibility of hierarchy to preserve those basic concepts of which any religion is founded in much the same way the United States desperately try's to maintain the basic concepts of the "Bill of Rights".. ...Which is where I see Christianity failing with many of it's most ardent subscribers. Because the Church doesn't maintain the structure as written, nor does it interpret, it over the centuries has made wholesale changes based upon the times, as Ruv has suggested. So, could we say, that it is the church hierarchy that may be conflict with Jesus' teachings if he were alive today..
...and think about this for a second, wasn't the Jewish hierarchy at odds with Jesus in his own time??? We really should be drinking.....
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,698
- Reaction score
- 1,539
- Location
- The City Different
- Website
- www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
I think the real issue here is that there isn't agreement as to what those basic concepts are, at least as they are put into practice. There never has been such an agreement, really, which is why already in late antiquity there was a need for councils, agreed-upon creeds, and so on. People were trying to define just what it meant to be a Christian. There isn't any Christian equivalent of the Bill of Rights. There's the Bible, of course, but passages can contradict one another. And, since the Reformation, there hasn't been the equivalent body to the Supreme Court to adjudicate disagreements. Plus, as soon as Constantine declared Christianity to be the official religion of the Empire, politics entered the scene in a big way.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2005
- Messages
- 6,817
- Reaction score
- 2,975
Very late to this thread, and will have to go back and read earlier posts, but to add my opinion to the mix, in answer to your question, when Jesus comes the second time it will be for a different purpose, and in a different sort of persona (for lack of a better word) than the first time. The prophecies in the OT referring to the Messiah speak of a suffering servant as well as a glorious king. Jesus is a Shepherd-King, just as the famous king who foreshadowed him (David). His first advent was conspicuously humble--a baby born in a stable to an unwed Jewish teenager, with only shepherds and stable animals to welcome him. He hung out with prostitutes and tax gatherers, and while He attracted great crowds due to His miracles and the revolutionary things He said, His life modeled that of a 'servant' who washed His disciples' feet, and who was obedient to the Father to the point of death on a cross, so He could redeem the world He loved. In the three years of His ministry prior to His death, His focus was on teaching His disciples who He was as He directed them to the OT prophecies about His life and what would happen to Him, and also teaching them what it meant to be a Christ-follower--giving them a living picture of what Christ-like Love looks like.
But with His resurrection/ascension, He entered His second phase--that of glorious King. He appeared to over 500 people after His resurrection, and told His disciples what to expect in both the immediate and far-off future (persecutions and His second coming). He very clearly told them that His second advent would be as their conquering King, who would finally defeat their enemy and set up His kingdom here on earth. (The prophecies of the NT were thought by some at various times in history to possibly represent the Roman Empire--but scholars agree that the language of the book of Revelation is far too symbolic to say that with any certainty, and there are several other interpretations of what the various prophetic passages might represent.)
He'll come not as a baby the second time (according to Biblical belief), but His 'genetic code' was not even that of a 'normal baby boy' the first time, if you believe the Biblical account. It says he was genetically the son of Mary, but not of Joseph, being impregnated by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin.
- Status