Niatero
*banned*
They merged together somehow. It might not be possible to rule out one way or the other with current historical methods.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Biblical Mary!
- Thread starter actsfourthirty
- Start date
Niatero
*banned*
Agreed.
Niatero
*banned*
If that's your definition, what you mean by "mother of God," I don't see any problem with it. If I have a problem with it, it would be with some practices associated with it, that I don't think are justified by it.
I do have a problem with saying "Jesus is God." The Nicene Creed doesn't say it those words, and for a good reason. It's confusing, misleading, needlessly divisive, and lazy or misinformed, to say it that way.
Last edited:
So you clearly don't believe or understand the Bible. Why is that?
But the Bible says this...
"I and the Father are one." John 10:30
"If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” John 14:7
Should I believe you or God's word?
Niatero
*banned*
I’m not disagreeing with any of that. Look again. Don’t you think it’s better to use the actual words of the Bible, and not treat paraphrases as if the are the actual words of God? Don’t you think there could be a reason why the Bible never says “Jesus is God” in those words?
Same with the stories about Abraham and Moses, the enslavement in Egypt and exodus, the conquest of Canaan, etc. None of that literally happened.
Niatero
*banned*
I said that I agreed with that, but actually it’s an open question for me whether or not some parts of the gospels were written by the apostles. I think that John could possibly have been written by one of them, and it seems likely to ma that at least part of the synoptics were written by another. If not, then by someone who heard the story directly from one or more of them.
Why those exact words? People would be just as confused as they are now. The trinity is a hard concept to understand. For example, when Jesus said "if you have seen me you have seen the Father" it is confusing unless a person understands the trinity.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
All of the gospels were written by multiple authors, having their writings spliced together. The idea that they were ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was merely an oral tradition of the early church, with no grounding in actual history. I understand that for many Christians, it is very difficult to make the break from oral tradition, so if you want to disagree, I understand.
The following videos are produced by a scholar with the Community of Christ, as restorationist denomination. I'm not so much interested in his denomination as I am impressed by his scholarship. He received his Masters from the University of Michigan, and, his areas of expertise are Medieval and ancient Western history. You wrote that you thought John could have been written by the Apostle John. This scholar presents the case in "Who wrote the Gospels" that John is actually written by three different authors, the earliest version being what scholars refer to as the Book of Signs. The second video by him, "Recovering the Signs Gospel," deals specifically with this.
Last edited:
Niatero
*banned*
Okay. I don’t want to argue about it. I just think it’s wrong to argue against people saying that Jesus is not God.
Niatero
*banned*
Does he also have degrees in psychology, sociology, and cultural anthropology?
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
You seem to be unaware that I'm a Jew. For me, the New Testament is not part of my Bible.
I have studied the New Testament for many reasons. I live in a Christian culture, and Biblical literacy is a part of being an educated person, as is the importance of learning the foundations for the paradigms of western thought. I also enjoy studying Christianity simply because I enjoy studying all religions -- religion is one of my major hobbies. And finally, I have spent most of my life on these sort of forums, which are dominated by Christians, and I have researched a great deal simply in order to reply to the topics that are generated.
With regards to the Tanakh (what you call the Old Testament), my understandings are very liberal. My Judaism is highly influenced by the Haskalah, the Jewish enlightenment. So things like sciences such as archeology and textual criticism are very important to me, as is the importance of good solid logic.
However, having a liberal understanding is not the same as not believing. Let me give you an example. I'm sure you agree that there never was a historical Good Samaritan, yet at the same time you firmly believe in its lesson that we should be compassionate to all people regardless of their ethnicity etc. And so liberal Christians who understand that the gospels are legends, still believe in them because they believe the lessons they teach. In the same way, it cannot be said that I do not believe the legend sections of the Tanakh, since I accept the lessons that they teach.
For whatever its worth, I was not always liberal in my understanding of the sacred texts. I grew up quite the literalist, believing in a six day creation etc. What changed me was simply my education over the course of my life, the evidence piling higher and higher, until I simply had to concede. Sometimes it was painful to let go of my previous ideas. But in the end, my faithfulness is not to my traditions, but to evidence. Again, echoes of the Haskalah.
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I agree with both of your points.
First, I think his reasoning is pretty basic and logical: IF Jesus is God (I disagree but lets assume for the sake of argument), then if follows the Mary is the mother of God. His point that mother is not the same as creator is a distinction that answers the objections that Protestants bring up.
And I agree fervently with your second point as well -- there is a huge problem in saying Jesus is God. I agree that the Nicene Creed, at least as I have read it in English translations, is not always worded very clearly. This is especially true when you consider that it is impossible to translate Homoousios into English, and this is the very word that the theology of the Trinity rests upon.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Paul ordained via his authority as an Apostle, I reason that this was something the Apostles did in general. Further, an overseer such as Timothy (episkopos aka bishop) inherited this ability to ordain presbyters.
Acts 14
23 And when they had ordained them elders (presbyteroi aka presbyters) in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
Titus 1:5
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders (presbyteroi aka presbyters) in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Thank goodness for Biblegateway.com. LOL
Niatero
*banned*
One if the bishops who signed it did so reluctantly for the sake of unity, and wrote a letter of explanation to his constituents about how and why he agreed to adding that word into it. He interpreted it as having the same qualities and capacities rather than as a substance. He believed that it’s impossible to know anything about God’s essential reality, so “essence” could only mean qualities and capacities as manifestations of the essential reality.
Many believe Titus to be pseudepigraphic and I see no reason to view any claim found in Acts as necessarily true, but your faith is touching. LOL
Niatero
*banned*
You might be someone that I can talk to about this. It would be nice to have someone to talk to about it.
There's a theory that the in the Greek that is translated as "the Word was God," the word "God" functions as what is called an adjective in English. Considered in the context of the whole Christian Bible, I would take that as saying that it was like God in every conceivable way.
When Peter says that Jesus is the anointed one, the son of the living God, and Jesus praises him for it, I take that as referring to the king that God told David He would raise from his descendants, saying "I will be his father and he will be my son." It has nothing to do with the way that Jesus was conceived.
There's a theory that the earliest Christians worshipped Jesus. I personally think that it was actually Jesus who taught them the practices that looked like worshipping a god. In the gospel stories, he is a god as much as any Greek or Roman god and even more, with more authority and power over human lives than any of them, besides being real. I don't think he actually claimed to be anything that was outside of the range of Jewish thinking, but some Christian followers either didn't understand that or didn't think that others could, so they tried to explain how the Christians could be worshipping Jesus and God at the same time without that being two gods, using Greek philosophy, telling themselves that Greek philosophy was actually inspired by Moses. Different ones explained it in different ways, and various factions formed around those. That led to public feuding which threatened the ambitions of Roman emperors, which they tried to repress with an agreement signed by some of the bishops. That failed miserably the first time, but maybe halfway succeeded on the second try.
The Nicene creed might possibly not be outside of the range of Jewish thinking, as it was understood by some people, but one problem now is that in the minds of many people, possibly most of them, it has been replaced by the Trinity triangle, which totally mangles it and oversimplifies it to fit it into a cute, clever and easily remembered diagram, and all the feuding is about that instead of what the Nicene Creed actually says.
(later) I know that it's inaccurate to talk about "Jewish thinking" in the time of Jesus, but I can't remember what to call the religious system.
(later) Oh. Maybe it isn't "Jewish" that's anachronistic, but only "Judaism."
Last edited:
Matthew 12 begins with the apostles charged with unlawfully eating grains and with Jesus healing a withered hand on the Sabbath. Many of the Jews viewing these actions were upset. But Jesus declared, "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath". A few of the Pharisees were so upset by this blasphemy they went away, plotting to kill him.
Jesus now has to explain how he could be the "Lord of the Sabbath". Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of a prophecy in Isaiah, that is, he is the Messiah.
As proof that he is the Messiah, Jesus heals a blind and mute man and drives demons from a possessed man. Each time, many remain unconvinced and demand even more signs. Worse, some Pharisees said his power came from demons.
Jesus tells them "But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."
Jesus claims to be the "lord of the Sabbath" and the Messiah. He has declared the "kingdom of God" is here.
Now, the obvious question is, Who will come into his kingdom? The crucial question is answered next when Jesus says "For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
The whole of Matthew 12 is best read together. At any rate, Jesus is not being rude to his mother and brothers. He has made a stunning declaration that all will be allowed into the kingdom, the Samaritans and the Gentiles and all who follow Jesus.
Sorry, but I disagree.
Matthew and John were eyewitnesses, with Matthew the tax collector being one of the twelve apostles. As a tax collector, he knew how to read and write and likely used wax tablets to write down what Jesus said. This was standard behavior for pupils of a famous rabbi.
About John: all the newest archaeological evidence, the stunning finds in Jerusalem, not to mention and the Dead Sea Scrolls, suggests that John was most certainly a Jew. He must have lived in Jerusalem or visited it frequently before the burning of the temple in order to know the facts he had.
Also, as one wag put it, the start of John's gospel so exactly copied the rule of the community that a teacher would have failed him for plagiarizing.
So...the old liberal belief that John was late is gone forever.
Riesner in "Jesus as Preacher and Teacher" insists that "In my opinion, one cannot overstress the importance of the synagogal teaching system as a background for the formation and transmission of the Gospel tradition. The synagogues provided even in small Galilean villages such as Nazareth a kind of popular education system. Many Jewish men could write and write...in comparison with other peoples of the Roman empire the level of Jewish education was rather high."
Jews may have lived in a stuffy, half forgotten part of the empire, but I would have pitted their IQ's against any other group and expected them to come out on top.
Ancient education emphasized memorization. Josephus was allowed to progress in school due to his ability to memorize. It was claimed that Seneca could recite 2,000 names he had only heard once, a few moments before. ("Wax Tablets of the Mind").
But the students never relied on their memories alone, as wax tablets were used throughout the empire. Students of famous rabbis used wax tablets or ostraca. (See "Torah in the Mouth) Of course when Jesus spoke some in the audience used wax tablets. Of course the gospels were based on these.
I wish I had more time.