Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 58
  1.    #1  
    Background
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Who exactly is the "unlearned" here? And that must make you the "learned"? You must be kidding me, and now you are going to explain it to those of us "interested in learning"?Thank you "learned" one, for teaching us all what Jesus meant when he stopped the citizens from stoning the adulterer, and for teaching us all that Jesus was free of sin. I feel much more "learned" already.

    And "authorizing the execution?". I think you will have to forgive my ignorance if I say it seems pretty clear to me that Jesus was being ironic when he said, "let the one who is without sin cast the first stone".
    It is reasonable to characterize Jesus' response as a use of irony. However, that conclusion ignores some key factors:
    1. The religious leaders were looking to entrap Jesus
    2. For Jesus to ignore "Moses' Law" would have immediately invalidated His claims to be the "Messiah (i.e. a successful entrapment)
    3. Sanctioning the lawful execution would have undermined His message regarding the kingdom (also a successful entrapment)
    4. Jesus acknowledged the appriopriateness of the stoning (point 2), while calling attention to the additional sinful characteristics that both merited judgment and necessitated grace/mercy (point 3).
    Last edited by shopharim; 07/11/2006 at 10:57 AM.
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Background

    It is reasonable to characterize Jesus' response as a use of irony. However, that conclusion ignores some key cultural facts:
    1. The religious leaders were looking to entrap Jesus
    2. For Jesus to ignore "Moses' Law" would have immediately invalidated His claims to be the "Messiah (i.e. a successful entrapment)
    3. Sanctioning the lawful execution would have undermined His message regarding the kingdom (also a successful entrapment)
    4. Jesus acknowledged the appriopriateness of the stoning (point 2), while calling attention to the additional sinful characteristics that both merited judgment and necessitated grace/mercy (point 3).
    The point is. Many people have read the same books you have, and have come to a different conclusion ( Jews, Muslims, Hindus, even many protestants ) most of the world in fact.

    You are entitled to your own interpretation, but attempting to convince others of your specific religious belief, and calling those with a different view "unlearned" comes close to religious zealotry.

    With respect to your 4 points. As a non-Christian, who reads a lot about Jesus from an historical perspective, I can tell you that claims that Jesus would have supported capital punishment, or even that Jesus claimed to be God or the Messiah are not credible, again from an historical perspective.
  3. #3  
    I think you're taking it a bit too personally, blaze. He wasn't talking about people with a a "different interpretation" but about people who aren't "learned" in that specific interpretation.

    Let me try to clear this up. The original posts, I believe, were discussing the fact that the Bible had specific tenets against homosexuality. To this, the response was that those of us who believe in the Bible should not just read only one part of the Bible but the whole thing which, by the person’s account, included killing gays. Now, anyone who is “learned” in the historical Christian perspective would know that the Levitical laws pertained only to the Biblical nation of Israel and, as such, no longer apply. That the Christian church has taught this for 2000 years is a fact, not an interpretation. So, since people were trying to mischaracterize the Christian perspective of the Levitical laws, it would stand to reason that they are either unlearned about the perspective or just being malicious. In that light, I think shopharim was being gracious.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I think you're taking it a bit too personally, blaze. He wasn't talking about people with a a "different interpretation" but about people who aren't "learned" in that specific interpretation.

    Let me try to clear this up. The original posts, I believe, were discussing the fact that the Bible had specific tenets against homosexuality. To this, the response was that those of us who believe in the Bible should not just read only one part of the Bible but the whole thing which, by the person’s account, included killing gays. Now, anyone who is “learned” in the historical Christian perspective would know that the Levitical laws pertained only to the Biblical nation of Israel and, as such, no longer apply. That the Christian church has taught this for 2000 years is a fact, not an interpretation. So, since people were trying to mischaracterize the Christian perspective of the Levitical laws, it would stand to reason that they are either unlearned about the perspective or just being malicious. In that light, I think shopharim was being gracious.
    Mischaracterize the Christian perspective? Who said anything about the Christian perspective? Or mischaracterizing it? You made that part up.

    Shopharim said
    Quote Originally Posted by Shopharim
    I am familiar with Biblical text that states such.
    NRG responded to the quote and said
    Quote Originally Posted by nrg
    The bible also says we should kill homosexuals. Why pay attention to just one section of it?
    Sopharim responded to that and said.
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I did not explore this before, and in fact have avoided making biblical reference on the topic in the past, because such mention often serves as an invitation to the unlearned to rail against the text based on specific quotes most often evaluated out of context. However, to leave this contextless assertion standing as such is a disservice to those who may be interested in learning.

    I'll provide a summary, and offer to continue more in depth discussion in another thread.

    You will find text admonishing capital punishment for various deviations from the intended sexual order. Interestingly, several other mentioned variations are likewise shunned in our culture (most notably, incest). You will also find that death is not the goal. Rather the threat of death is--with the intent of serving as a deterrent. This is illustrated by Jesus addressing a mob who is prepared to execute a woman caught in the very act of adultery. Jesus acknowledges her guilt and authorizes the execution on the condition that the precedings be initiated by the one without his/her own sin. Finding no one eligible, the execution is stayed. He who was eligible--Jesus Himself-- opted to forgive her and admonish her not to sin again.
    Shopharim was the one "teaching" us the Christian perspective, and describing those of us who do not subscribe as "unlearned".
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    ........Now, anyone who is “learned” in the historical Christian perspective would know that the Levitical laws pertained only to the Biblical nation of Israel and, as such, no longer apply. That the Christian church has taught this for 2000 years is a fact, not an interpretation........
    Perhaps. On the other hand, that many who self-identify as Christians behave as though the New Testament had never been written is also fact. That many appeal to Leviticus for their justification of persecution of others is a fact. "By their fruits shall you know them."
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/11/2006 at 05:33 PM.
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #6  
    I'm not a Christian, so my opinion would be seen as meaningless here.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Mischaracterize the Christian perspective? Who said anything about the Christian perspective? Or mischaracterizing it? You made that part up.
    No, blaze, shopharim was specifically talking about his perspective and his perspective is a Christian perspective. Furthermore, when someone asks a rhetorical question pertaining to why Christians hold to a belief that homosexuality is wrong (historically considered a New Testament teaching) but don’t hold to the teaching that practicing homosexuals should be put to death (a Levitical law) then they are either unlearned about the Christian perspective or are deliberately mischaracterizing it. The same holds true when someone tries to compare the suposed dichotomy between the intention of Levitical laws with actions of Jesus Christ saving the woman from being stoned.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Shopharim was the one "teaching" us the Christian perspective, and describing those of us who do not subscribe as "unlearned".
    Yes, shopharim was trying to teach his perspective. He said nothing about those who don’t subscribe to it being unlearned.
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    The point is. Many people have read the same books you have, and have come to a different conclusion ( Jews, Muslims, Hindus, even many protestants ) most of the world in fact.

    You are entitled to your own interpretation, but attempting to convince others of your specific religious belief, and calling those with a different view "unlearned" comes close to religious zealotry.
    Admonishment accepted and appreciated.

    I was not intending to suggest that those who do not agree with me are unlearned. For in fact, I count my self among the unlearned in many regards. And having come to that conclusion about myself, I now make effort to quote text in context. That is often missing from those who throw out texts for dramatic effect rather than for discourse (in my opinion).
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74

    With respect to your 4 points. As a non-Christian, who reads a lot about Jesus from an historical perspective, I can tell you that claims that Jesus would have supported capital punishment, or even that Jesus claimed to be God or the Messiah are not credible, again from an historical perspective.
    hmmmm. (My unlearnedness is showing)

    how would you summarize the "historical perspective" on Jesus?
    Is it safe to say that the primary sources of this perspective are non- or extra-biblical? Or do students of the Bible not perceive claims to Messiahship?

    I can see how/why thoughts on capital punishment could be questioned, especially if the notion of Jesus being divine is not accepted. But, I'm a bit perplexed on the Messianic claims.
  9.    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I'm not a Christian, so my opinion would be seen as meaningless here.
    Oh share it anyway

    Seriously, I value your input.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I was not intending to suggest that those who do not agree with me are unlearned.
    For the record, it didn't sound that way to me.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I'm not a Christian, so my opinion would be seen as meaningless here.
    I am not a "Christian" either. That is to say, I do not believe in a messiah or that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. I am not a religious person. I do not engage in collective prayer, do not believe that prayer is effective, do not believe that the creator/deity expects, much less demands, prayer, or that community prayer is in any way superior to private prayer.

    On the other hand, I am a christian. That is to say, I accept the teachings of the New Testament, particularly that part of the testament that is set in the voice of Jesus of Nazareth. (I do not hold much with Paul.) I believe that Jesus was an effective teacher and that his teachings have value to me, the individual, and the community. I believe that Jesus was a remarkable ethicist, that much of what he taught was counter-intuitive, and that "What would Jesus do?" is a powerful ethical test. Would God that more of those who self-identify as "Christians" would use it.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    No, blaze, shopharim was specifically talking about his perspective and his perspective is a Christian perspective. Furthermore, when someone asks a rhetorical question pertaining to why Christians hold to a belief that homosexuality is wrong (historically considered a New Testament teaching) but don’t hold to the teaching that practicing homosexuals should be put to death (a Levitical law) then they are either unlearned about the Christian perspective or are deliberately mischaracterizing it. The same holds true when someone tries to compare the suposed dichotomy between the intention of Levitical laws with actions of Jesus Christ saving the woman from being stoned.
    Huh? That is the part you are making up! NRG Made no comments about Christianity, or "the Christian Perspective" he said
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    The bible also says we should kill homosexuals. Why pay attention to just one section of it?
    Granted, if somebody had asked such a question, it would make your actually credible.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I'm not a Christian, so my opinion would be seen as meaningless here.
    That's the point. One single religion does not "own" the books of the bible.
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Admonishment accepted and appreciated.

    I was not intending to suggest that those who do not agree with me are unlearned. For in fact, I count my self among the unlearned in many regards. And having come to that conclusion about myself, I now make effort to quote text in context. That is often missing from those who throw out texts for dramatic effect rather than for discourse (in my opinion).
    hmmmm. (My unlearnedness is showing).
    No problem, sorry as well, sometimes I just notice that we tend to talk about Biblical texts in terms of the Christian interperetation, as if there were no other.
    Last edited by theBlaze74; 07/12/2006 at 07:14 PM.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    how would you summarize the "historical perspective" on Jesus?
    Is it safe to say that the primary sources of this perspective are non- or extra-biblical? Or do students of the Bible not perceive claims to Messiahship?

    I can see how/why thoughts on capital punishment could be questioned, especially if the notion of Jesus being divine is not accepted. But, I'm a bit perplexed on the Messianic claims.
    I don't pretend to be a biblical scholar, I read some books once in a while, some by Dominic Crossan & others, and watch the History Channel.

    Yes, the biblical works are all used in uncovering Jesus from an historical perspective. The difference with respect to the "Historical Jesus" is that the leanings of the author are factored in as well, as are the cultural realities of the time.

    Crossan points out that Jesus' movement was not the "jesus as messiah" movement, but "the kingdom movement" meaning, the kingdom of god, or "if god were in charge instead of Ceasar, this is what he would do". It was a socio political movement, with Jesus as the center.

    I don't have this in front of me but, claims of Jesus professing to be the messiah may likely be written off under the historical interperetation as an embellishment added by the author of the work, who worshiped him. Much the same way the stories of the north Star, the angel gabriel, the wise men, the virgin birth were thought to be not credible given the fact that jesus was unknown historically until his mid 30s after he began his ministry.
  15.    #15  
    I ask your pardon for my delayed response.
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Yes, the biblical works are all used in uncovering Jesus from an historical perspective. The difference with respect to the "Historical Jesus" is that the leanings of the author are factored in as well, as are the cultural realities of the time.
    It is reasonable to assess an author's credibility. In so doing, it is not enough to view what the author has to gain by making such claims. One should examine what the author had to lose. Their messianic assertions contributed to their ostracism, persecution and execution.
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Crossan points out that Jesus' movement was not the "jesus as messiah" movement, but "the kingdom movement" meaning, the kingdom of god, or "if god were in charge instead of Ceasar, this is what he would do". It was a socio political movement, with Jesus as the center.
    What source, other than that of the potentially impuned authors, speak of Jesus in terms of leading a kingdom movement?

    Note, I'm not arguing against this particular conclusion. Most assuredly it was a Kingdom movement. But the movement as recorded in the Bible is replete with messianic inferences.
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74

    I don't have this in front of me but, claims of Jesus professing to be the messiah may likely be written off under the historical interperetation as an embellishment added by the author of the work, who worshiped him.
    This assertion creates a contradiction for the critic. Jesus' teachings and deeds, as recorded in the Bible, are full of messianic references. This is why I asked about other sources of info on the kingdom movement. Any effort to remove the messianaic claims (both stated and implied) from the biblical account, would leave no kingdom movement to speak of.
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Much the same way the stories of the north Star, the angel gabriel, the wise men, the virgin birth were thought to be not credible given the fact that jesus was unknown historically until his mid 30s after he began his ministry.
    Understandable. The circumstances surrounding His birth are extraordinary. it's worthing noting from a accuracy standpoint that while the writers were not eyewitnesses, they lived with eyewitnesses.

    More importantly, those factors are key to "proving" Jesus to be the Messiah. But, they are inconsequential in determining whether Jesus claimed to be Messiah.
  16. #16  
    Crossan compares styding Jesus to studing microscopic particles that can only be seen by observing how particles around them react. Remember that there are no first hand accounts of Jesus' life or words in the Bible. And remember that the Bible was not sealed until a few hundred years ago, and choices about which accounts of Jesus would be considered gospel, and which would be considered heretical, were made by white Italian men until that time.

    I don't have exact examples in front of me of historical accounts of Jesus, not included in the Bible, but sureley you agree they exist, granted, most of what we know about Jesus is included in the new testament.

    In short, it seems to be the consensus from an Historical standpoint that reports that Jesus himself claimed to be god, or the messiah, are not credible, as well as accounts of Jesus' birth since the historical figure known as Jesus was unknown until his 30s, and obviously his rising from the dead. These are uniqe perspectives held only by Christians.
  17.    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Crossan compares styding Jesus to studing microscopic particles that can only be seen by observing how particles around them react. Remember that there are no first hand accounts of Jesus' life or words in the Bible.
    This came up before, but we did not track it down. Who is considered to be the authors of the gospels of Matthew and John? Who is considered to be the author of Peter's letters? Johns letters" Jude's letters? The Rvelation?
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    And remember that the Bible was not sealed until a few hundred years ago, and choices about which accounts of Jesus would be considered gospel, and which would be considered heretical, were made by white Italian men until that time.
    not clear on the relevance of these. But, we can examine the criteria used to assess what would be included in the canon of scipture. And we can compare the translated text to the manuscripts from which the contents were taken.
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74

    I don't have exact examples in front of me of historical accounts of Jesus, not included in the Bible, but sureley you agree they exist, granted, most of what we know about Jesus is included in the new testament.
    that most of what we know is from the new testament is why I think the critics have a dilemma. To minimize the messianic concept the authrois ae impuned. But those same authors are relied upon for the very thesis.
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74

    In short, it seems to be the consensus from an Historical standpoint that reports that Jesus himself claimed to be god, or the messiah, are not credible, as well as accounts of Jesus' birth since the historical figure known as Jesus was unknown until his 30s, and obviously his rising from the dead. These are uniqe perspectives held only by Christians.
    The messianic claims are apparent to the religious leaders of his day (at least accoding to the new testament).
  18. #18  
    Just to make a correction, even during the Protestant Reformation, there was never any doubt among the vast majority of the Church about which books were to be considered the "Gospels". That's important when discussing the "true Jesus" since most of that what written about His life and sayings comes from the four Gospels. Those four Books were pretty much known about since the end of the First Century and officially agreed upon in the Council of Nicaea.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    This came up before, but we did not track it down. Who is considered to be the authors of the gospels of Matthew and John? Who is considered to be the author of Peter's letters? Johns letters" Jude's letters? The Rvelation?
    If your view of Jesus is that he is a God, then it is likely that you would think God wrote all the books that support the version of the truth that you have chosen to believe.

    If you are an historian, you might conclude that the author of John for example was Hebrew named John who lived 90 to 120 years after Jesus.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Just to make a correction, even during the Protestant Reformation, there was never any doubt among the vast majority of the Church about which books were to be considered the "Gospels". That's important when discussing the "true Jesus" since most of that what written about His life and sayings comes from the four Gospels. Those four Books were pretty much known about since the end of the First Century and officially agreed upon in the Council of Nicaea.
    not "gospels" hoovs ... gospel
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions