I've become an Evangelical Universalist

[shawn]

Actually, Dondi, the whole concept of hell got me thinking long ago that if such doctrines were true, then this does not speak very well for the creative abilities of God.
Could such a powerful Creator actually screw up the making of people so badly that such a disposal bin is necessary?
One would think that He would have better system thought up and would not make such faulty things.
The whole "roast in torment forever " bit is also an obvious fear mongering trick.
In Jewish tradition the idea I got from the Rabbi I studied with was that there was a period of time, at most a year (in our subjective time) which a soul may spend in such a spiritual correctional facility and further that when they were sent back into the world they may have an additional sentence of having to live as a creature or a plant or such or have some really bad karma to deal with (my paraphrase).
So the world is the "world without end" and there is no heaven persay either, but rather, existence is it. It is the realm of LIFE. And if you look at the sky you will see it goes on pretty much forever with uncountable numbers of galaxies with even more habitable places (many mansions).

 

[wil]

BNAI NOACH or children of Noah if you will.
Which predates all the modern major religions.

Namaste Shawn,

I'm gonna need some help here. Predates all modern religions? Can you help me with the modern line? (Abrahamic you are saying...Hindu as well?) And what are the books and tenents of this religion? Are they found in any other location other than the books that modern scholars think were written and edtited by numerous authors (prior to the translations and edits of the last 2000 years), books that the story says were written by one man?

As I see it (awaiting understanding) is the only validation of this ancient religion is in the modern religion?

 

[Saltmeister]

I guess I viewed your long post as some kind of retort.

I took it the wrong way thinking that must be how you think that how I think, which isn't entirely the case. But I think you don't think I think that way, by now (I think).

Do my posts appear as retorts? I have no idea. I just say what I say. Maybe sometimes I'm not even talking about the previous poster's opinion. Not particularly or specifically anyway . . . My posts are usually supposed to be detached, impersonal and general, not addressed to anyone in particular.

But you may have noticed that I've been rather critical of fundamentalist Christianity in the last year or so. Maybe two years. Sometimes when another of these topics, or similar and related topics come up, it's another opportunity to pick on the "Fundie Christianity" straw man. But I feel safer that it's a straw man, because then at least I'm not really hurting anyone.

Sometimes what I mean by fundamentalist Christianity is interchangeable with institutional Christianity.

When I see someone frequently using words like, redemption, salvation, sin, forgiveness, saved, righteous, lord, saviour, free will, predestination, repentance, etc., I think to myself, "hey that person has been institutionalised." It's when they start talking about a religion in technical jargon, like Christianity is some kind of machine with parts and components.

I personally would prefer to speak of Christianity with more creative and imaginative expressions, because I believe that the ultimate meaning of Christianity is not restricted to such literary expressions. I believe there is more freedom and flexibility in Christianity than to have to restrict ourselves to a small literary framework.

I believe in a rather fluid and loose form of Christianity that does not rest in any particular theme, at least not all the time. I believe Jesus was many things to many people. That is not to say I believe in forming a concept of him that is completely foreign to what the written tradition suggests. He was a teacher, he spoke of sin, he was crucified but he also said and did other things. He spoke against injustice and wasteful living. He also spoke against judgmentalism, fundamentalism and legalism.

You are teaching a false gospel whether you understand that or not.

I didn't get the impression Dondi was teaching anyone anything but merely letting us know his views. Hey, it's not like we're all going to agree with him.

Yeah, let's start a new church. Dondi will be the pastor. Dondi will set Christianity back to the truth.

Many false doctrines have come out with taking scriptures out of context.

The original context has been lost. This condition has persisted ever since Christianity separated from Judaism. I believe the reason why we keep having these debates and disagreements is because the very group of people that would have helped us understand our own traditions better has been kept out of the process of interpreting them.

But here I'm not talking specifically about hell. I believe Jesus only ever gave vague descriptions. There isn't even a guarantee that Jesus was talking about the same thing in each instance, since he often described things figuratively. Many of his descriptions were in response to a question. His disciples asked him a question and he gave an answer.

Personally, I wonder if it even matters if "hell," whichever "hell" you might imagine, is eternal. The general message from Jesus was to just beware of the unknown.

What difference does it make anyway? Is this going to help me to be a better person? Although it's intriguing and often even exciting, I don't think probing the mysteries of hell are often constructive.

It's great arguing about this stuff when it's fun and exciting, but if you're serious about being dead-sure about hell being eternal, hell being a single, well-defined place, no thanks! I don't think God even wants us to take it seriously in the way some people do. I don't think God cares. Maybe it's true that it's eternal. Maybe it's true that it's the worst place you could possibly imagine. Maybe it isn't. We could be arguing about this for another hundred years and it wouldn't make a difference to the world, let alone your very own relationship with God or those other hundred in your church.

Meanwhile, millions of people in Africa die from disease and starvation, all because we were arguing about something that might not even be that important in the long term.

What do you think Jesus would have done?

I'm not saying this is a pointless topic. Not at all. I'm enjoying it. I think it's been a great discussion. I think it'd make a good debate. But don't kid me on it being more important than the people in Africa who have been struck down by disease and poverty.

I say that because I believe Jesus cared more about people than the rules that people make for religion. That includes the question of whether or not hell is eternal.

I see it when I read the New Testament. It's not all cold logic.

Trust Him and stop trying to find the answers to your doubts on your own.. and I know you are doing that because you even said you came to this site seeking. Stop searching here GOODNESS SAKES…

This place is about people discussing, sharing ideas, sharing knowledge and thinking. I don't believe that going to church is any better as a place for finding the Truth. The believe the Truth can be found anywhere. If it's going to be the Internet, so be it.

This place is dangerous for trying to find truth.

The way I see it, nowhere is safe. There is danger everywhere, religiously and spiritually. A person's own church can be just as dangerous. It is not dangerous in the sense that their minds may be corrupted and contaminated with "outside" ideas, but dangerous in the sense that what they are told to think and believe imprisons, confines, enslaves and holds them captive. By being held captive, a person can be prevented from discovering the Truth.

I am not saying you are in that situation, but the question of whether a person is in a dangerous situation depends on the nature of the environment to which they expose themselves. I am not here to tell Dondi to adopt any particular way of thinking, nor even the encourage it. Nor is he here to tell me what to think. I am satisfied that Dondi simply decided to ask himself the question.

It amazes me everytime I see Christians say that and start asking sincere questions.. it’s the dumb sheep walking away from the shephard into a pack of wolves.

To say that the Internet is more dangerous is to think that the ideas fed to you in one's local community aren't any more "dangerous." But if you were to do that, you'd never be able to compare your local world to the global world. Sure, the Internet is full hundreds of ideas that are so different to the ones to which you're familiar, but that doesn't mean that the ideas you are taught in your local community are more correct and less dangerous.

Sometimes this protectionist attitude reminds me of the very people Jesus opposed: the fundamentalists, the legalists, the Pharisees. If you keep telling Dondi what to think, what will he do when you're not around? Dondi has to think for himself. He has to learn to choose what is right for himself. I believe he can become a better Christian in the process.

In a rather twisted way, I think this is the problem plaguing many Christian communities. It is the fear of thinking. I never said anything about embracing other religions or adopting their concepts. I don't do that. Even within Christianity, thinking isn't evil.

A baby bird has to learn to fly one day. My fear is that many Christian communities are full of baby Christians that remain baby Christians for decades. They never learnt to fly. They don't reach their full potential because their leaders keep holding them back.

Their leaders tell them, "Don't touch this, don't touch that."

I assume you know the Bible well enough to know where I got the words in the last paragraph. It's what I call legalism.

 

[shawn]

Namaste Shawn,

I'm gonna need some help here. Predates all modern religions? Can you help me with the modern line? (Abrahamic you are saying...Hindu as well?) And what are the books and tenents of this religion? Are they found in any other location other than the books that modern scholars think were written and edtited by numerous authors (prior to the translations and edits of the last 2000 years), books that the story says were written by one man?

As I see it (awaiting understanding) is the only validation of this ancient religion is in the modern religion?

We can go back a ways into history and then things get murky and obscured by mythology and just sheer lack of information.
Predates all Abrahamic would be the most accurate.
The idea of the Bnai Noach is that it is not about "religion" as we define it or understand it. It is, in a sense, a "proto-religion", but it is a covenant between two parties more than anything else.
There have been many who have followed this path through the millenia and they were those who did not get on the religious bandwagons of the day as they saw that one did not need such baggage to be spiritual or in tune with the Creator.
There are a few basic concepts, which the "modern" religions have taken and expanded upon to the nth degree.

 

[Saltmeister]

But if you spend some time doing word studies you will find that the meaning is actually "RENEWED" and not "NEW". So the original covenant is not void at all.

Interesting.

And what are the books and tenents of this religion? Are they found in any other location other than the books that modern scholars think were written and edtited by numerous authors (prior to the translations and edits of the last 2000 years), books that the story says were written by one man?

As I see it (awaiting understanding) is the only validation of this ancient religion is in the modern religion?

As far as I know, Noahidism doesn't have a book specially dedicated to it. The idea of Noahidism as an agenda came first from Judaism. It's not really a separate religion. It has its basis in the Bible/Tanakh/Old Testament itself. A person is a Noahide if he follows the Seven Noahide Laws.

If you're a Christian it is very likely that you already have the book that contains information on what it means to be a Noahide (Noachide sorry).

Christianity could be thought of as the First Noahide movement, especially in the first century when Judaism still had a big influence on its direction. Islam could be thought of as the Second Noahide movement, started not by Judaism itself or any of its members, but by an outsider to both Judaism and Christianity. Islam was an attempt to unite adherents of all Abrahamic faiths.

Just like Christianity failed to bring justice to the world, Islam failed to unite Jews, Christians and Muslims. They have instead fought one another. It's a big shame that it has come to this.

If a Noahide can be accepted as one of God's people, then ultimately we could discard the idea of all people having to be either Jews, Christians or Muslims. Simply adhering to the Seven Noahide Laws would be sufficient. Ultimately, this would eliminate the need for Judaism, Christianity and Islam as "mandatory faiths."

But I am not saying we should discard all three traditions altogether. I am sure many people would be against that. Besides, Judaism, Christianity and Islam came into this world for a reason. Each has its distinct mission and purpose. That mission and purpose needs to be fulfilled.

Some people should continue to be Jews, Christians and Muslims.

I was involved for several years after I concluded that Christianity was in error.

I don't have much against the Noahide movement, except for the part that is anti-Christian.

 

[shawn]

It is not that Christ is not respected for what he did, it is that there is other perspectives on what that was exactly.
I am not anti-Christ in my perspective, but I don't have the same idea of him and what he did that you do.

Consider this:
Jesus was reported to have been engaged in a reform of the existing mode of religion, to bring it back to its roots if you will, to get the spirit of it back in the forefront rather than the letter of the Law.
This can be seen in his summarizing of the laws and commandments into The golden rule.
If he was caught up in being religious as modern christians seem to be then there should be some precedent seen in the masters ways surely?!

Also, Christianity is not Noach-ide as it does violate the whole idolatry bit.

 

[Dream]

Ok, I did not realize there was really ~really~ a group that actually called themselves noachides. I did but I didn't really think it was an actual thing. I thought it was more of web site or something, and actually I'd no idea it was an anti christianity movement. Are you sure about that? Obviously if it is a hasidic outreach for seekers (and it has that feel), then it will reflect a certain zionist flair. The rare noahides that I've read comments from don't really seem to be experts on christianity, so I doubt they can be anti christian. Maybe they are not complimentary, but not anti. The whole thing does seem a little odd; but its supposed to be a positive movement. Do you feel that the noahides are very informed people, shawn? I feel like they are a little underfed, though not intentionally. That is what happens when you rely upon someone else to take care of you. You have to feed yourself sometimes. Maybe I am just getting a bad impression?

 

[Saltmeister]

It is not that Christ is not respected for what he did, it is that there is other perspectives on what that was exactly.
I am not anti-Christ in my perspective, but I don't have the same idea of him and what he did that you do.

Consider this:
Jesus was reported to have been engaged in a reform of the existing mode of religion, to bring it back to its roots if you will, to get the spirit of it back in the forefront rather than the letter of the Law.
This can be seen in his summarizing of the laws and commandments into The golden rule.
If he was caught up in being religious as modern christians seem to be then there should be some precedent seen in the masters ways surely?!

If you're replying to my last post, I didn't mean that Noahidism as a whole was anti-Christian.

I wasn't talking about the movement nor the ideology. I believe early Christianity was a kind of Noahide movement.

What I meant was that many Noahides were anti-Christian, to the point that they demonise and vilify Christianity. Many of these Noahides were either former Christians, or simply shunned Christianity because of things they didn't like about it.

I think it would be rare to find even the most anti-Christian Jewish scholars/thinkers demonising and vilifying Christianity the way some of these Noahides do (considering that the modern-day Noahide movement was started by Judaism). They go even further than the adherents of the religion that started the movement in terms of venomous attacks on Christianity.

Many Jewish scholars/thinkers have thought up ways of rationalising the idea of Christians being Noahides in principle. What acts as a barrier is of course the doctrine of the Trinity. This potentially violates one of the Seven Laws regarding monotheism, idolatry and association of partners with God. But considering that Trinity is controversial among Christians due to the absence of even an explicit definition or declaration in the New Testament, this actually helps tip the balance in favour of Christians being Noahides.

With Muslims it's somewhat easier because of their idea of a simple God. God is just God. No arguments.

But as far as I know, Christianity isn't supposed to get in the way of being a Noahide and being a Noahide isn't supposed to get in the way of being a Christian.

 

[Joedjr]

Hi,
The quick outline on the Seven_Laws_of_Noah
I seem to remember there was also a discussion of these ideas somewhere in acts. Possibly a minimum requirement for gentiles to be part of a new group of Jewish believers.
Joe

 

[Dream]

Hi,
The quick outline on the Seven_Laws_of_Noah
I seem to remember there was also a discussion of these ideas somewhere in acts. Possibly a minimum requirement for gentiles to be part of a new group of Jewish believers.
Joe

Its an intriguing idea Joedjr. One thing about it though that came up as a result of Ahanu's John the Baptist thread is that some of the dead sea scroll discoveries and nag-hammadi manuscripts indicate otherwise. They show an early Jewish movement using similar ideology and terminology to the preaching of John the Baptist as mentioned in the gospels. It suggests that Christianity is a form of Roman period Judaism or post-temple Judaism. The Noachide movement is not supposed to be anything like Judaism. Its focused on a much smaller set of laws. Definitely -- or else probably not the same thing.

 

[Saltmeister]

Also, Christianity is not Noach-ide as it does violate the whole idolatry bit.

I don't believe it does at the very core. Strip away the politics and some of the things that have been introduced in the last 2,000 years and I think it'd come out clear of it.

"Son of God" as many have suggested many times was a title for a very important person.

If you say that because of the Trinity, well, that idea didn't become prominent until the third and fourth centuries.

The Gospel of John may appear to suggest that Jesus is God because it says that the Word is God but there are a number of ways to work around this so as to suggest otherwise. A counter-suggestion is to say that the Word was Judaism before Jesus came, but subsequently, because God wanted the purpose of Judaism fulfilled in Jesus' life and sayings, Jesus' life and sayings became embodiment of the Word, the Logos, replacing Judaism.

Logos is a literary construct. It is a literary device. The intention was never to say that a human being was God, but rather to say that a human being was projecting God. When the author of the Gospel of John said the Word was God and that the Logos became a human being he was not trying to say that the Logos was really a human being or that the Logos that was God was human, but rather the life and sayings of a human carried God's will, and that will was equal to God Himself, as if God was active directly on the face of the earth.

When Jesus prays to God, he is no longer the Word/Logos, or no longer projecting the Word/Logos but a regular human being projecting regular human concerns and fears. He is no longer following the mission given to him by God, but taking a break.

Some of the later Christians confused this with thinking this meant Jesus was the same as God when the author meant something else entirely. That's one possible theory. The influence of this group of Christians grew until finally, by the fourth century, there were enough of them to seal in the belief that this was what the passage always meant.

History was rewritten from the point of view of the victors and it became "orthodoxy."

I don't know if this is why you think or say what you did, but from experience, this is the motivation.

 

[lunamoth]

Or more precisely, an Evangelical Universal Reconciliationist.

Huh? What?

Basically, I believe in the evangelical fundamental message of salvation, including the doctrine of hell (though not necessarily in a literalist form), only I do not believe Hell is permanent.

I also believe this to be scripturally supported.

And so, what do you think about that?!

Hi, Dondi.

Thank you for sharing with us this new step in your walk with God. I lean toward the universalist heresy myself, the only caveat being that I don't know what hell is other than separation from God, and that is something we choose. But, I can't put myself in the Universalist camp because that seems to me to be telling God His own business. I do, however, trust that God is completely good and just. One way or another all shall be well.

I am also an evangelical Christian in that I believe that the main distinguishing thing about being a Christian is that we are called to take God's love and reconciliation out into the world.

The one lesson I am trying to learn is to not throw stumbling blocks in front of anyone, and instead focus on the attractive love of God.

Best wishes,
luna

 

[Joedjr]

Hi Dream,

Its an intriguing idea Joedjr. One thing about it though that came up as a result of Ahanu's John the Baptist thread is that some of the dead sea scroll discoveries and nag-hammadi manuscripts indicate otherwise. They show an early Jewish movement using similar ideology and terminology to the preaching of John the Baptist as mentioned in the gospels. It suggests that Christianity is a form of Roman period Judaism or post-temple Judaism. The Noachide movement is not supposed to be anything like Judaism. Its focused on a much smaller set of laws. Definitely -- or else probably not the same thing.

I haven't followed Ahanu's John the Baptist thread, so maybe I need to check it out. But: I have read some of the Dead_Sea_scroll writings from the translation by Martinez and Tigchelaar and Nag_Hammadi_library from James M. Robinson and don't see too much of current Christianity coming from either. If by what you mean as Christianity is Catholicism then the note of Roman period Judaism I maybe can see something there.
I don't get where you are going with Noahide law, for me it's a real and valid pov. The agreement between Paul and the other apostles does seem to mimic these 7 laws quite closely, would you not agree?

 

[Dream]

Hi Dream,
I haven't followed Ahanu's John the Baptist thread, so maybe I need to check it out. But: I have read some of the Dead_Sea_scroll writings from the translation by Martinez and Tigchelaar and Nag_Hammadi_library from James M. Robinson and don't see too much of current Christianity coming from either. If by what you mean as Christianity is Catholicism then the note of Roman period Judaism I maybe can see something there.
I don't get where you are going with Noahide law, for me it's a real and valid pov. The agreement between Paul and the other apostles does seem to mimic these 7 laws quite closely, would you not agree?

The agreement actually was all of the elders or at least the Christian elders of Jerusalem including the apostles. Their reason for meeting at all were the wild rumors about Paul that he taught Jews to stop being circumcised and to abandon Moses. If we go by Paul's letters, then he never did that. People debate it, but in Acts 21:19-22 it says he did not. I think that the agreement was really not necessary, just ointment for common understanding between brother Jews. The gentile Christians had already been instructed not to do those things.

I'm actually not commenting on Noahide laws. I'm saying that I do not see a relevant community of 'Noachides' that want to be called that. There are churches, but those don't like to be called Noachide, and also I really don't think churches were ever just some pet Jewish project. I see what you're saying about the various minimal conditions stated in Acts that they are similar to the Noahide laws. But also I see that the number of laws is arbitrary, and only their content is what matters. Noachides say seven, but Acts says 5 or 6. Whats in a number or in a name?

The noachides -- I do not see how their community is going to work. Someone calling themselves a 'noachide' and not 'christian' decides to visit a synogogue or church. It can be a very nice visit, but it cannot be their home. If you think its easy to fit into just any community, then you've got a lot of money indeed. That means finding a community is a problem. They also are focused upon just 7 laws. I do not think that is going to work. They will have to broaden their focus to stay relevant.

 

[Joedjr]

The agreement actually was all of the elders or at least the Christian elders of Jerusalem including the apostles. Their reason for meeting at all were the wild rumors about Paul that he taught Jews to stop being circumcised and to abandon Moses. If we go by Paul's letters, then he never did that. People debate it, but in Acts 21:19-22 it says he did not. I think that the agreement was really not necessary, just ointment for common understanding between brother Jews. The gentile Christians had already been instructed not to do those things.

Actually I think it is important. In the beginning Paul was the only apostle that got very liberal with how he saw to include gentiles into the faith. The meeting was necessary to come up with a consensus or way to face the new converts, just as things are today when a major idea is to be added or subtracted from a religion.

I'm actually not commenting on Noahide laws. I'm saying that I do not see a relevant community of 'Noachides' that want to be called that. There are churches, but those don't like to be called Noachide, and also I really don't think churches were ever just some pet Jewish project. I see what you're saying about the various minimal conditions stated in Acts that they are similar to the Noahide laws. But also I see that the number of laws is arbitrary, and only their content is what matters. Noachides say seven, but Acts says 5 or 6. Whats in a number or in a name?

I agree somewhat, the important thing is the ideas behind them.

The noachides -- I do not see how their community is going to work. Someone calling themselves a 'noachide' and not 'christian' decides to visit a synogogue or church. It can be a very nice visit, but it cannot be their home. If you think its easy to fit into just any community, then you've got a lot of money indeed. That means finding a community is a problem. They also are focused upon just 7 laws. I do not think that is going to work. They will have to broaden their focus to stay relevant.

You can correct me if I'm wrong but they seem to have been around for some time now. Not too sure their trying to get to mega church status. Sometimes it's ok to be with a small circle of like friends. I think the bible instructs that one's prayer is heard whether you're in a large group or alone.
These 7 laws seem to be a good foundation for life, do you agree? This Christian forum area might not be the best place to discuss this though. Noahide laws have been around longer than Christianity. (Well that could be debated now also, John tells us that the word was in the beginning and that the word is Jesus Christ.) Jesus, who was instructed in the law, from a reading of the NT, seems to be a very learned individual, he would also know these 7 laws. Either way I don't think that Jesus Christ would disagree with them.

 

[Dream]

You can correct me if I'm wrong but they seem to have been around for some time now. Not too sure their trying to get to mega church status. Sometimes it's ok to be with a small circle of like friends. I think the bible instructs that one's prayer is heard whether you're in a large group or alone.
These 7 laws seem to be a good foundation for life, do you agree? This Christian forum area might not be the best place to discuss this though. Noahide laws have been around longer than Christianity. (Well that could be debated now also, John tells us that the word was in the beginning and that the word is Jesus Christ.) Jesus, who was instructed in the law, from a reading of the NT, seems to be a very learned individual, he would also know these 7 laws. Either way I don't think that Jesus Christ would disagree with them.

I don't know Joedjr. I apologize if I've been unfair in my statements about noachide movements. They seem not to be an anti christian movement, though I guess its possible. Also they are not a pet project. Their name is directly borrowed from the Talmudic, which is what the rabbis have to offer when somebody asks about anything. A rabbi must chose carefully how to answer questions so as not to endanger an individual's soul. This is apparently related to tzim tzim. uh. Essentially, the closer you get to ultimate holiness, the brighter and more destructive the light becomes even as it is more pure. The light is referred to in I Tim 6:16 the innapproachable light which the Sovereign lives in. (I keep going off on this light tangent, and its getting embarrassing.) One way of looking at it is that the rate at which you learn is one determinant of your success. There is a too fast and a too slow.

 

[Saltmeister]

Noachides say seven, but Acts says 5 or 6. Whats in a number or in a name?

I think they're just bundled together for the sake of understanding.

The noachides -- I do not see how their community is going to work. Someone calling themselves a 'noachide' and not 'christian' decides to visit a synogogue or church.

They've certainly got more acceptance in Judaism. It was, after all, a movement initiated from Judaism.

But I am not saying a regular, non-Christian Noahide should go and visit a church. There is a sense of professional jealousy and paranoia among Jews, Christians and Muslims as to what the other two traditions are doing. Jews feel threatened when people convert to Christianity or Islam and vice versa with Christians and Muslims. A lot of Christians see the Noahide movement as a threat.

But if we are all part of the same family, there should be no need for antagonism, professional jealousy or paranoia. As Paul says, there is no difference between Jew or Gentile. Likewise there is no difference between Jew, Christian or Muslim. We are all Noahides.

It's like what democracy did to Europe and European colonialism. World War II was the climax of imperialism and colonialism. It was a time when people's focus was on national pride. But after the war, after all their fears had been realised, their anger expressed, something else took over. Nationalism went out the window. Freedom, individualism and democracy were more important. All the democracies became united against a new enemy: communism.

Perhaps there will be a day when it will no longer be important that a person is Jewish, Christian or Muslim. We are all God's people. Noahidism, like democracy, doesn't "dictate" to us what to think and believe. It's just the bare minimum for a shared identity. It is not to say that the three traditions are dictatorial in nature, but nobody should feel as if they must adopt any particular tradition.

They also are focused upon just 7 laws. I do not think that is going to work. They will have to broaden their focus to stay relevant.

My idea is that some will choose to just be Noahides. Others will want to supplement it with Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

This Christian forum area might not be the best place to discuss this though.

I think it is very relevant for Christianity, given that it has a lot to do with the politics of early Christianity. I think it'd be more meaningful to discuss it here than say, the Judaism forum or some Noahide site. Until now, most people have thought of it as something separate from Christianity. I think it makes more sense to consider how relevant it was to early Christianity and what it means for us today.

The idea is not to think of being Noahide as "un-Christian" but to consider how you can be Christian and Noahide at the same time.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Hell as a temporary state of affairs seems to be one area of agreement with Hindu and Buddhist religions.

 

[Dream]

They've certainly got more acceptance in Judaism. It was, after all, a movement initiated from Judaism.

I will be very tempted to make lots of posts if you start talking about BenNoach, but but that is problematic as I actually don't know what the people are like. Contrary to a movement initiated from Judaism I think that lots of disillusioned ex Christians mobbed some Jews with questions that shocked them, so they started quoting Talmud. Consider this: As a movement initiated by non Jews, the responsibility is not upon the Jews to take care of the members. The members should take care of themselves. But--if it is really a movement initiated by Jews, then there are going to be problems, because now Jews have to take care of non Jews. It is not easy to take care of someone else's kids.

Hell as a temporary state of affairs seems to be one area of agreement with Hindu and Buddhist religions.

Extremely good example of the popular conscience acting as a compass away from extremisms. To support the notion you can quote Paul "Romans 2:14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law."

(As usual Netti you are putting a thread back onto its rails.)

 

[shawn]

I don't believe it does at the very core. Strip away the politics and some of the things that have been introduced in the last 2,000 years and I think it'd come out clear of it.

"Son of God" as many have suggested many times was a title for a very important person.

If you say that because of the Trinity, well, that idea didn't become prominent until the third and fourth centuries.

The Gospel of John may appear to suggest that Jesus is God because it says that the Word is God but there are a number of ways to work around this so as to suggest otherwise. A counter-suggestion is to say that the Word was Judaism before Jesus came, but subsequently, because God wanted the purpose of Judaism fulfilled in Jesus' life and sayings, Jesus' life and sayings became embodiment of the Word, the Logos, replacing Judaism.

The things that Jesus said can never replace Judaism and he denied such himself. Judaism is a covenant. It is OLAM=perpetual.

Logos is a literary construct. It is a literary device. (No, it is a vibration, another way of saying consciousness) The intention was never to say that a human being was God, but rather to say that a human being was projecting God. (Anyone can be a projector for God)When the author of the Gospel of John said the Word was God and that the Logos became a human being he was not trying to say that the Logos was really a human being or that the Logos that was God was human, but rather the life and sayings of a human carried God's will, and that will was equal to God Himself, as if God was active directly on the face of the earth.

(That is very different from the interpretations I have heard from many denominations both modern and historically)

When Jesus prays to God, he is no longer the Word/Logos, or no longer projecting the Word/Logos but a regular human being projecting regular human concerns and fears. He is no longer following the mission given to him by God, but taking a break.

Some of the later Christians confused this with thinking this meant Jesus was the same as God when the author meant something else entirely. That's one possible theory. The influence of this group of Christians grew until finally, by the fourth century, there were enough of them to seal in the belief that this was what the passage always meant.

History was rewritten from the point of view of the victors and it became "orthodoxy."
(With this I totally agree. Past events have always been manipulated to achieve present goals)

I don't know if this is why you think or say what you did, but from experience, this is the motivation.

Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
Jesus was a man.
Yes, he most likely had a very intimate relationship with the creator, but what he said was that anyone could do the same and even greater things would manifest.
God cannot be stuffed into the skin of a man no matter how hard you try.
Even all of humanity, fully aware and intimately linked into a massive gestalt including all of the life-forms that exist, and still you are far from what God is.
Jesus was a man.
He showed people a path and many truths, but he was not "God" in the fullest sense of the word.
Remember.....anyone can be A messiah.
You do not have to have signs and wonders accompanying your birth to be a manifestation of the Divine other than the fact that you were born and are alive, what a wonder.
I see that you have a much more thoughtful version of what christianity is and I am not saying you are wrong at all. I am just adding my ideas to the mix