Jesus Christ is come in the flesh = God?
- Thread starter Gatekeeper
- Start date
Maybe for the same reason you just did? But the difference I first made a point... that it was sounding like the ole 'do as I say not as I do' or maybe the playground, "well he did it first"... either way, I was straightforward...it appears that upsets you.
Now back to Christians and Jesus Christ as G!d.... your argument as I understand it, is that Christians, while following Christ have co-opted your religion, 1900 years before you were born...and that appears to upset you as well....something that happened 1900 years ago has got your panties in a bunch.
I guess you are all for native american and african slavery reparations then?
but beyond that.... If you think Jesus was a jew (and he was) are you ready to see him as your elder brother and wayshower, the messiah, your saviour? If not....what is your issue?
Now back to Christians and Jesus Christ as G!d.... your argument as I understand it, is that Christians, while following Christ have co-opted your religion, 1900 years before you were born...and that appears to upset you as well....something that happened 1900 years ago has got your panties in a bunch.
I guess you are all for native american and african slavery reparations then?
but beyond that.... If you think Jesus was a jew (and he was) are you ready to see him as your elder brother and wayshower, the messiah, your saviour? If not....what is your issue?
S
Shibolet
Guest
Jesus was not God but a Jew just like any other with the same credits and weaknesses.
Not before I was born but to this very day. There is no way a Christian preacher, from a pulpit, can avoid the Pauline gospel of Replacement Theology because it is the soul of the NT.
HaShem is the Savior of Israel and not a Jewish "ben-adam" which means a mortal man. No one can die so that another be saved. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)
Jesus was not the Messiah as the Messiah cannot be an individual but the collective in Israel. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a people before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37) That's a reference to the Messiah as the anointed one of the Lord if you read Prophet Habakkuk 3:13.
I am not for reparations of any sort because what has been done must be left in the past. I am for the cessation of vandalism of a religion by another which Replacement Theology is.
An interfaith site might just not be the place your posts belong.
Your message is that of hate and extreme prejudice... but you know that...
Then can you explain Romans 11 to me, because I read that to demolish Replacement Theology.
Hallelujah, you should come to church and celebrate with us then....not to convert you, just to show that you accept Christians and their faith without prejudice.
S
Shibolet
Guest
You are reading the wrong text to demolish Replacement Theology. It is rather a promotion of Replacement Theology. Either by lack of knowledge or with wish-thinking Paul was wrong. Elijah never pleaded with God against Israel. Elijah pleaded against Ahab and Jezebel who had killed our prophets. And Ahab did what he did because of his wife Jezebel who was from the Gentiles. Paul's main point in Rom. 11 was to enhance grace to neutralize the works of the Law by charging Israel of having not attained to God's election but another people did it. Perhaps the Gentiles who achieved salvation as a result of the fall of Israel. That the election of the Gentiles was meant to arouse the Jews to envy. And that the Jews being rejected meant reconciliation for the Gentiles who were grafted into the vine of Israel. This is akin to vandalism to mess up with Isaiah 56:1-8 that to be grafted into the vine of Judaism the Gentiles must convert according to Halacha aka Jewish law. Then Paul would warn the Gentiles that, by not sparing the natural branches, God could do worse with the wild ones. Then, Paul offer a chance to the Jews who believe but they have to join the new chosen ones. With this he was eliminating Judaism from the map as enemies of God for rejecting his gospel as he considered irrevocable God's rejection of the Jews and election of the Gentiles.
There is a lot more in this chapter of Paul but I am sure you have an idea of my finds in this text.
S
Shibolet
Guest
Will, have you ever read about the cure of Naaman, the army commander of the king of Aram? The record is in chapter 5 of II Kings. He was a leper and, was sent by his king to Prophet Elisha to be cured. As he was cured, he got so impressed that he converted to Judaism without any further ceremony. Since he was in charge to accompany his master into the temple of Rimmon to worship and offer sacrifices, he, Naaman asked Elisha to forgive him to continue doing this work of his. He had been probably informed that a Jew could not pray in a non-Jewish place. That's why I cannot accept your invitation to celebrate any thing with you in a church. It means that Jews cannot pray in non-Jewish religious place.
Really? That's funny, because for the critics of Replacement Theology, Romans 11 is a key text.
"I (Paul) say then: Hath God cast away his people? God forbid" (v1).
The rest is the unfolding of that statement. Suffice to say, you seem to be the only one who interprets this text as you do, but no surprise there.
I'm Catholic, by the way. We don't hold with supercessionism any more ...
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
What board are we on? Christianity....OK, so I need to restrain my comments.
Shibolet, interesting to see your perspective, but I do think part of your "understanding" is misplaced. I will try to be brief, but I can point to multiple threads of which I was a primary participant in order to expand on what I wish to say.
I don't see Paul as a culprit, as such. Indeed, without Paul, Christianity as we know it would not exist. And since Christianity *does* exist, there is an argument that G!d is OK with that, and may have even played a significant role in preserving it. Christianity would not exist because every Christian church within Israel of the time was effectively wiped out by the Roman army in the sack of Jerusalem, and even the Nazareans and the Ebionites were pushed aside, trivialized and by the time of Nicea were impotent...were it not for Paul, Christianity would be a footnote in history books and nothing more.
Further, far more than Paul, I see the Roman political machine two and a half centuries later playing a far more formulative role than Paul. While there is no "smoking gun" as such, between document analysis and variant renderings of the Gospel texts, certain challenges to authorship of certain books or chapters, and the historical documentation not only of the Nicean Council, but the political antagonism between the Arian and Athanasian camps (not to mention what became the Copts and the Greek/Eastern Orthodox), I think the real culprit you are looking for is a political animal from around 325 AD.
http://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/5750/
This is a link to an extensive thread where I took up the challenge to refute ("where no refutation is possible!") Mr. Garaffa's long standing treatise surrounding the influence (in his view, strongly negative) of Paul on the formative Christian church.
http://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/8875/
This is a link to an extensive thread where I delved into the history leading up to the formation of the Christian church and on into (with brief excursion past) the Council of Nicea wherein the tenants of the faith were sealed into what became the Roman Catholic church.
Out of respect, as a courtesy, and because I am not wanting to throw out any babies with the bathwater, is why I would direct to those threads rather than seem to be "in the face" of Christianity. The same reasoning is why I don't go into the faith specific boards to harp on challenges, rather I bring any challenges into neutral territory.
While you will find some sympathy and agreement from me that the man commonly referred to as Jesus was likely no more than a great teacher and a mere mortal human being, I think it is misguided at best to use that alone as some basis to attempt to undermine Christianity. The threads I linked would expand on that in greater detail.
Shibolet, interesting to see your perspective, but I do think part of your "understanding" is misplaced. I will try to be brief, but I can point to multiple threads of which I was a primary participant in order to expand on what I wish to say.
I don't see Paul as a culprit, as such. Indeed, without Paul, Christianity as we know it would not exist. And since Christianity *does* exist, there is an argument that G!d is OK with that, and may have even played a significant role in preserving it. Christianity would not exist because every Christian church within Israel of the time was effectively wiped out by the Roman army in the sack of Jerusalem, and even the Nazareans and the Ebionites were pushed aside, trivialized and by the time of Nicea were impotent...were it not for Paul, Christianity would be a footnote in history books and nothing more.
Further, far more than Paul, I see the Roman political machine two and a half centuries later playing a far more formulative role than Paul. While there is no "smoking gun" as such, between document analysis and variant renderings of the Gospel texts, certain challenges to authorship of certain books or chapters, and the historical documentation not only of the Nicean Council, but the political antagonism between the Arian and Athanasian camps (not to mention what became the Copts and the Greek/Eastern Orthodox), I think the real culprit you are looking for is a political animal from around 325 AD.
http://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/5750/
This is a link to an extensive thread where I took up the challenge to refute ("where no refutation is possible!") Mr. Garaffa's long standing treatise surrounding the influence (in his view, strongly negative) of Paul on the formative Christian church.
http://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/8875/
This is a link to an extensive thread where I delved into the history leading up to the formation of the Christian church and on into (with brief excursion past) the Council of Nicea wherein the tenants of the faith were sealed into what became the Roman Catholic church.
Out of respect, as a courtesy, and because I am not wanting to throw out any babies with the bathwater, is why I would direct to those threads rather than seem to be "in the face" of Christianity. The same reasoning is why I don't go into the faith specific boards to harp on challenges, rather I bring any challenges into neutral territory.
While you will find some sympathy and agreement from me that the man commonly referred to as Jesus was likely no more than a great teacher and a mere mortal human being, I think it is misguided at best to use that alone as some basis to attempt to undermine Christianity. The threads I linked would expand on that in greater detail.
Well we can't know that for sure, but I take your point. Remember that Peter had already initiated an outreach to the Gentiles, but there can be no question that he Pauline missions had a significant impact on the course of the church.
I think there is some evidence to suggest many of the Christians had 'seen the writing on the wall' and got out of Jerusalem before 70AD. Can't quote you exact references though.
Quite. They were always marginal and there's evidence to suggest they saw Christ purely in Jewish terms, a bit like Shib, and just ignored those elements that went against the grain. They idea that they were 'orthodox' is simply a polemical or romantic notion ...
How do you square that with the State's inability to control Christianity. Time and again the Emperors sought to limit and contain theological dispute and dialogue, and time and again they failed to prevent disputes and schisms – even the kidnap and torture of the Bishop of Rome failed ...
I do agree the Patriarchy of Constantinople arose from a lowly fifth position (after Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria) and set its sights on being top dog, and nearly succeeded, overthrowing the opposition but failing to topple Rome.
http://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/5750/
This is a link to an extensive thread where I took up the challenge to refute ("where no refutation is possible!") Mr. Garaffa's long standing treatise surrounding the influence (in his view, strongly negative) of Paul on the formative Christian church.
I'm sorry, but this is an anachronism. The Church of Nicea, and the later councils, was essentially Greek. The Bishop of Rome was not even in attendance, although he sent two representatives. The Roman Catholic Church didn't appear as an entity until centuries later ... the centre of Christian thought was the east, for nearly a millennia. The filioque was, and is, a sideshow. The Creed inscribed in stone in St Peter's Basilica in Rome is the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople and does not contain the filioque.
I know we've been over this ground before, but I still think the 'problem' is not doctrinal, but pastoral, and kicked in after the 6-7th centuries. The Church started to go wrong when it assumed the material trappings of the Roman Empire. When bishops started to see themselves as princes ... but that had set in, I think, before the East and West began to drift apart ... the Patriarchates are no less 'pompous' than us!
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest regards, Thomas!
Precisely, and all we have left of the other disciples is rumor and innuendo, and occasional localized myth (like Phillip in France and Thomas was it? in India, and Joseph of Arimathea in Wales).
That would essentially be the Ebionites and the Nazareans, already mentioned. Even though they survived through the Bar Kochba period...outside of Israel...they were marginalized and by the time of Nicea, politically impotent. Bottom line with these two groups....you had to first be Jewish before you could be Christian, with everything that entailed.
And we bump up against this a lot in trying to remove Paul and his influences on the early Church. I still have yet to hear what romantic ideal "betterment" of Christianity the removal of Paul would provide? Even Mr. Garaffa never quite got around to fleshing this out, it was always some extremely vague "it would be better" (my term) coupled to a quick change of subject. (I mean, it is so predictable in every discussion I've had on the subject with anyone..."Paul is no good!" "OK, what does Christianity look like without Paul? "I don't know, but Paul is no good...next question please.") Like clockwork.
Now now, my friend. Yes we have discussed this, many times in the past, at great length...much of which is in the history thread. I think trying to shift the "blame" as it were off of Constantine by saying the Council "was essentially Greek" is misleading at best. I do agree the story continues, even long after I left off in the thread, and no doubt under Justinian the Roman church was consolidated (and by this time with full governmental sanction...up to and including military), but the "tipping point" was the first Council at Nicea.
Last edited:
Quite, which meant they get squeezed by the Jews on the one hand and Gentile Christians on the other.
I think that's decided by the degree of romanticism of whoever is proposing what 'their' Christianity would be like!
The 'problem' with Paul is that the Gospels deal with ideas and are easily idealised. Paul was dealing with 'real world' problems, with dissent in the communities, factionism, politics, that sort of stuff, so there's a lot of 'where the rubber meets the road' stuff that's unpleasant to some palates, especially those who like to see Christianity as a free-wheeling utopianism of a kind of proto-hippy thing.
I think its sad that so many can't see the 'mystical' vein that pulses throughout Paul and the Pauline corpus. On that stuff, Paul rocks!
LOL. I know that discussion!
I'm not sure what he's being blamed for, that's my point.
A lot of people give him far too much credit. Nicea was called to settle the Arian dispute, and it failed at that! Athanasius was undoubtedly the champion of orthodoxy, not Constantine. And he was exiled five times in his lifetime by various emperors trying to put a lid on the Arian question.
D'you think? There were somewhere around 250-300 bishops attending, but only a few Latin speakers, representing Italy, Africa, Spain, France and Germany, at least five, but not many more. The 'big names' noted were all Easterners. Arius and Athanasius were Greek. The whole Arian thing blew up in Alexandria. Hilary of Poitiers was 'the Athanasius of the West', and 'The Hammer of the Arians', but whoever brings him up in discussion? Hosius of Cordova presided, in the name of the Pope or in the name of Constantine, no-one is sure ... but Hosius already had a reputation as a theologian of some repute, and I think Constantine was ready to accept any decision the council came to, as long as it was universal.
A tutor once said to me that it must have come as a huge surprise to the Church when Constantine endorsed it, but the bigger surprise was that Christianity survived at all after being elected the religion of state! I suppose we could argue back and forth as to when the tipping point was, 318, 325 ... as I see it doctrinally, the Emperors and the State never determined nor decided what was to be believed, I think it would be very hard to make that stick, but politically/pastorally is a whole different ballgame. But I don't see anything particularly sensational about the canons declared in the early councils.
Perhaps the signal exception is the Iconoclast debacle that afflicted the Greek Church, which was an attempt by the Emperors to curry favour with Islam.
S
Shibolet
Guest
1 - Really! How could Elijah make intercession to God against Israel if God had not cast away His People? (Rom. 11:2)
2 - At his time, Paul declared that the remnant was according to the election of grace. Since the Jews were elected according to the Law, where are they now? (Rom. 11:5-10)
3 - Through the fall of the Jews, salvation is come to the Gentiles. (Rom. 11:11-14) So, they were cast away!
4 - In verse 1 Paul says that Israel has not been cast away. Then in verse 15 he says that the Jews had to be cast away so that the Gentiles be reconciled. Where is he telling the truth or lying, in v. 1 or v. 15?
5 - In verse 20 he says that because of unbelief the Jews were broken off the tree. Then in verse 30 he says that the Gentiles have obtained mercy through the unbelief of the Jews.
6 - Well, now, can you see how Paul worked Replacement Theology? Rom. 11 can cause any one to get confused with denials and affirmations. And the truth gets lost in the middle of these confusions.
Because, as Paul points out, God does not go back on His word or cast away His people. People, on the other hand, often turn away from God.
As for election by grace, or the circumcision of the heart, cf Deuteronomy 30:6.
If you want to read it the way you read it, that's your choice, but it's an opinion I think few scholars would support.
As for election by grace, or the circumcision of the heart, cf Deuteronomy 30:6.
If you want to read it the way you read it, that's your choice, but it's an opinion I think few scholars would support.
S
Shibolet
Guest
duplication
Last edited by a moderator:
S
Shibolet
Guest
Last edited by a moderator: