A question for Christians who aren't bible fundamentalists.

[Lark]

Personally, I don't think Jesus' immortality (or lack thereof), effects the credibility, value or importance of what he had to teach.

People getting so caught up in miracles and the immortality of Christ, seem to be losing the forest for the trees.

That's true, I thought about that when reading Kahil Gibran's Son of Man story, at one time miracles had to be recorded to provide plausibility at another they need to be ommitted, how times have changed but it dosnt change the overall message about God and humanity.

 

[Spamtar]

That's true, I thought about that when reading Kahil Gibran's Son of Man story, at one time miracles had to be recorded to provide plausibility at another they need to be ommitted, how times have changed but it dosnt change the overall message about God and humanity.

It does matter.

If Jesus never did any miracles then he and his apostles are frauds. If they are all frauds then the message lacks any credibility...especially Revelations.

(P.S. just to put this in context I believe Jesus was the Messiah and performed miracles. Even if he wasn't he had a good philosophy and IMO a superior one to that illustrated in the Old Testament)

 

[Totenkindly]

If Jesus never did any miracles then he and his apostles are frauds. If they are all frauds then the message lacks any credibility...especially Revelations.

Fixed.
(The specific name is "The Revelation of John.")

Have you been reading Josh McDowell again?

Jesus pretty much refused to offer miracles to people who demanded a sign... he told them the only sign they would be given (essentially his death and resurrection, in traditional interpretation).

Miracles are funny things.

P.S. just to put this in context I believe Jesus was the Messiah and performed miracles.

it's plausible, and would help support his message.

I have no way to tell that, 2000 years later, though.

 

[Nonsensical]

Jesus represents an idea. None/hardly any of it is literal in my opinion. He is a symbol used to manipulate those who listen. But, nonetheless, it is still relevant in our spiritual growth.

I'm not strictly Christian.

 

[Tiltyred]

I believe in miracles. When I decided to buy a residence, I purposely chose a neighborhood in which I'm one of the very few whites. I don't take all of the Bible literally, but I do take responsibility for direct commandments like "If you love me, feed my sheep." And I choose to be accountable as a Christian for such verses as Matthew 25: 41-45 (ESV)
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?'
Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' "
So I cook some Sundays and just let my neighbors know there's food on the stove and they can come over and get a plate, and I give to the ACLU for prisoner's rights, and I give my old clothes and bedding to Goodwill, etc etc.
FWIW

 

[Spamtar]

Fixed.
(The specific name is "The Revelation of John.")

But I was talking about the early Iron Maiden Album.

 

[Lark]

It does matter.

If Jesus never did any miracles then he and his apostles are frauds. If they are all frauds then the message lacks any credibility...especially Revelations.

(P.S. just to put this in context I believe Jesus was the Messiah and performed miracles. Even if he wasn't he had a good philosophy and IMO a superior one to that illustrated in the Old Testament)

That's true too, I was only responding to the previous poster's point about the message/moral philosophy, that can be understood and supported without reference to the over archng significance of the revelation etc.

 

[Lark]

I believe in miracles. When I decided to buy a residence, I purposely chose a neighborhood in which I'm one of the very few whites. I don't take all of the Bible literally, but I do take responsibility for direct commandments like "If you love me, feed my sheep." And I choose to be accountable as a Christian for such verses as Matthew 25: 41-45 (ESV)
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?'
Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' "
So I cook some Sundays and just let my neighbors know there's food on the stove and they can come over and get a plate, and I give to the ACLU for prisoner's rights, and I give my old clothes and bedding to Goodwill, etc etc.
FWIW

I tend to believe the Gospel of Mathew and book of James above all else in the whole of the bible, I've been told that its heretical and possible anti-semitic to do so and I've heard people condemn Mathew's gospel as anti-semitic because of its constant attack upon Mammon but I'm fine with it, it has really clear messages about practicing what it is to be a Christian, likewise James, there's no mistake.

 

[Hirsch63]

...it has really clear messages about practicing what it is to be a Christian, likewise James, there's no mistake.

James is my favorite also. Very practical.

 

[Totenkindly]

James is my favorite also. Very practical.

He was pretty down to earth in his advice.
That's a good thing. Paul gets pretty conceptual at times.

Pretty informative in how they both approached the "faith and works" issue. Both are correct, but I think it's a personality indicator based on which focused on which.

 

[Spamtar]

II've heard people condemn Mathew's gospel as anti-semitic because of its constant attack upon Mammon but I'm fine with it, .

It sounds like those people who attack Mathew's gospel as anti-semitic beacuse of the attack upon Mammon are the ones who are anti-semitic.

 

[Hirsch63]

He was pretty down to earth in his advice.
That's a good thing. Paul gets pretty conceptual at times.

Pretty informative in how they both approached the "faith and works" issue. Both are correct, but I think it's a personality indicator based on which focused on which.

I tend to lean very heavily towards works. Presumably your doing the work because you have faith. And I'm ambivalent about Paul...James is considered the brother of Jesus by some....and I find his book very consistent with the words of Jesus I have read.

As for type...well I guess this is the place for that! Any guess?

 

[Totenkindly]

I tend to lean very heavily towards works. Presumably your doing the work because you have faith. And I'm ambivalent about Paul...James is considered the brother of Jesus by some....and I find his book very consistent with the words of Jesus I have read.

As for type...well I guess this is the place for that! Any guess?

I see Paul's conceptual focus on grace as a necessary abstraction so that people don't think you can "earn your way" into heaven and also prevent people from being treated as unbelievers just because they do not follow some religious practice such as circumcision. Forgiveness and salvation is bequeathed by God, in Paul's thinking, not part of a machine where we can put in a quarter and "get" a prize each time.

However, James is very astute when he says that real faith will evidence works. It doesn't mean much to claim to be a duck if you habitually talk, act, and think like a goat.

I always saw Paul as (i)NT(j) and James as an S of some sort... potentially ISFP. He's very concerned about the impact of our personal behavior on other people and evidencing our works. Definitely an N vs S dichotomy at the least here.

It sounds like those people who attack Mathew's gospel as anti-semitic beacuse of the attack upon Mammon are the ones who are anti-semitic.

That's weird. Matthew seemed the most traditional to me... with a clear sense of God as an authority/king and Jesus as having moral authority because he is God's son. He also focused on lots of prophecies to "prove" Jesus' descent from God.

Mark very much focused on "what Jesus did" (the "active" Jesus / the doer).

 

[Hirsch63]

I see Paul's conceptual focus on grace as a necessary abstraction so that people don't think you can "earn your way" into heaven....not part of a machine where we can put in a quarter and "get" a prize each time.

However, James is very astute when he says that real faith will evidence works. It doesn't mean much to claim to be a duck if you habitually talk, act, and think like a goat.

I will presume (yet again) that an all knowing creator will be able to "divine" your intentions through either faith or works...either way it would not hurt to do the works...James was Jew (as was Jesus)...with their faith undergoing significant change holding on to fundamental practice may have seemed to keep them anchored?

I do look at Mark as something of a lawyer...but also the gate to the Quelle source and I comprehend Thomas to be a vital part of that. I don't believe in the litmus test of Nicea which seems to occupy a similar place as circumcision (i.e. you must prove it by this). I'm a bit of a Cathar I expect.

 

[Totenkindly]

I will presume (yet again) that an all knowing creator will be able to "divine" your intentions through either faith or works...either way it would not hurt to do the works...James was Jew (as was Jesus)...with their faith undergoing significant change holding on to fundamental practice may have seemed to keep them anchored?

Possibly. I can imagine for people undergoing such a radical shift in understanding what it meant to be holy and accepted by God that any stability that could be preserved would be helpful.

I see the words as less to help God figure out who was who (because I would presume deity to already know) and more to help PEOPLE understand where they fell and then be able to self-correct.

If you think grace means you can just waltz in the front door of heaven and that you're fine, you won't be correcting any bad behavior. If you think works are more important, you'll be cleaning up your act.

 

[Hirsch63]

If you think grace means you can just waltz in the front door of heaven and that you're fine, you won't be correcting any bad behavior. If you think works are more important, you'll be cleaning up your act.

Works are tangible, to heal to help...Faith is very convenient as a way of avoiding works which are often going to be difficult. This is why I wrote that either way it doesn't hurt to do the works...Works are an outward witness actual corporeal sacrifice...Faith can be insular. As you suggested though they work best brought together.

 

[Lark]

He was pretty down to earth in his advice.
That's a good thing. Paul gets pretty conceptual at times.

Pretty informative in how they both approached the "faith and works" issue. Both are correct, but I think it's a personality indicator based on which focused on which.

I think the faith and works thing is a red herring dating to the reformation.

Its clear that salvation, justification, election, whatever you want to call it (I know they arent exactly the same thing but its a different topic) is an unconditional gift from God, after all if he is the author of all things he doesnt really need anything and there's nothing you could possibly offer him, he is the ultimate difficult to buy for person as he has everything already.

I personally err on the side that this life and any possible after life are gifts from God, he also experiences creation through us, not simply the one time that he was incarnate as a human being in the form of Jesus, but through each of us, its a reciprocal deal and every gift relationship known in history is a reflection of it.

However, if you would model the behaviour of God and Jesus then you would likewise be as giving to others and exhibiting the same generosity and I believe you would because that's what a gift relationship is, there's no such thing as a free lunch when someone gifts you something there's an unspoken obligation to give back, often to give more than you first received. Right up until and even at the inception of the welfare states in the west this was the norm.

I believe that Paul laid such an emphasis upon faith because he was carrying on Jesus' ministerial effort to move away from scriptural legalism, the point was not to be like any one of the many, many diverse and disparite elements splitting hairs over scripture, either to provide for get out clauses or to create minimums and maximums, so you can behave in a token economy kind of way like "fair weather friends".

 

[Lark]

Mathew to my mind is traditional and a good bridge between traditional Judahism and Christianity, Jesus was meant to be the messiah of the Jews after all, I do think there is a lot of practical direction and a lot about judgement and consequences of this life which I like.

It is considered anti-semitic because of the amount of condemnation which is directed against money, money makers, usury etc. and how historically significant those things became for anti-semites within Christendom because of scriptural literalism most Christians could not engage in he sorts of money lending or pawn brokering which travelling or wander jews could, prior to the reformation they were both vital to some economic pursuits and reviled and loathed for profiting from their position.

Its a very contradictory thing though because a lot of law prohibited Jews doing anything else, so when they engaged in money lending and were condemned for it there was no other opportunity over to them.

I'll confess that I appreciate both Mathew and James because they are anti-materialistic and hate avaratiousness, although I dont know that their mindsets could come to typify an entire society. Gift relationships are generally between closely bonded individuals, such as family and friends, sometimes they can be costly to those involved and if you take the welfare state as an example on a greater scale the reciprocity doesnt hold.

 

[Spamtar]

^Ok thanks for elaborating. I still don’t subscribe to their connection as it would be unlikely for Mathew to foresee this type of persecution and avarice and materialism for all people is an even greater threat now than ever.

If I were to pick a favorite book of the NT would have to admit that John a more interesting read (essentially the Divinity of Jesus). However, Mathew, Mark and Luke tend to corroborate each other more and therefore seems more reliable as far as historic accuracy. Luke is refreshing because he seems to incorporate more women in the account…but guess my favorite is Mark.

 

[Totenkindly]

If I were to pick a favorite book of the NT would have to admit that John a more interesting read (essentially the Divinity of Jesus). However, Mathew, Mark and Luke tend to corroborate each other more and therefore seems more reliable as far as historic accuracy. Luke is refreshing because he seems to incorporate more women in the account…but guess my favorite is Mark.

John is considered to be a separately written account. There's been a lot of conjecture that Luke and Matthew used Mark's shorter account as a basis for their own.

(I personally like Luke's thorough nature that tries to explain a lot of the detail comprehensively while at the same time I enjoy John's abstracted and metaphorical language. The other two books never really appealed much.)