12
   

Did Christ ever advocate violence against non-Christians?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 12:37 pm
Setanta please go back and re-read what I said. I don't require you or anybody else to believe me and you are more than welcome to disagree. However, you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I will respectfully request that you put my comments in context as i recommend others put the content of scripture within its current context.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 12:42 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
We do have quite a good store of knowledge as to what the people and culture of the various parts of the Empire were like in the first and second centuries (and later of course) and these do provide important insights into references and/or intent in the early Christian writings even when they are completely unrelated.


Foxfyre wrote:
Still if you go back to the ancient Jewish and Roman manuscripts as well as the oldest available Christian manuscripts, the writings of those late first and second century theologians who were eye witnesses to accounts or personally knew people who were eye witnesses to accounts even though their writings didn't make it into the book, and mix in some knowledge of the history and culture of the time, we can come up with a pretty good idea of the original intent I think.

We are much less likely to misinterpret the intent of a person writing 50 to 100 years ago than we are to miscontrue the intent in hand written notes of 1000 or 2000 or more years ago.


I put no words in your mouth. I quoted what you had written both times. Rather embarrassing to be called out for what you have written, i know. But it is nothing short of a lie to claim somone has ". . . [put] words in my mouth that I did not say." when i have clearly quoted what you wrote.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 12:51 pm
Setanta wote:
Quote:
Late first century theologians and second century theologians would not be eye-witnesses to the life of Yeshuah the Rabbi. Your simple assertion that this is true does not make it true.


In no place at no time anywhere in this thread did I say anyone who wrote scriptures were eye witnesses to the life of Yeshuah the Rabbi (aka Jesus for those not afraid to use his more familiar name.) You may apologize at any time.

I'm not even going to argue with you about your contempt for my take on it as I know from experience it would be futile and only eventually invite further insults. And, as you know, I prefer to discuss things without the insults. I will put you down as another who won't want an autographed copy of the published work when it's out Smile
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 01:07 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Setanta wote:
Quote:
Late first century theologians and second century theologians would not be eye-witnesses to the life of Yeshuah the Rabbi. Your simple assertion that this is true does not make it true.


In no place at no time anywhere in this thread did I say anyone who wrote scriptures were eye witnesses to the life of Yeshuah the Rabbi (aka Jesus for those not afraid to use his more familiar name.) You may apologize at any time.


There is no fear in my refusal to use the made-up name "Jesus." You wrote: "Still if you go back to the ancient Jewish and Roman manuscripts as well as the oldest available Christian manuscripts, the writings of those late first and second century theologians who were eye witnesses to accounts or personally knew people who were eye witnesses to accounts even though their writings didn't make it into the book, and mix in some knowledge of the history and culture of the time, we can come up with a pretty good idea of the original intent I think."

I have nothing for which to apologize.

Quote:
I'm not even going to argue with you about your contempt for my take on it as I know from experience it would be futile and only eventually invite further insults. And, as you know, I prefer to discuss things without the insults. I will put you down as another who won't want an autographed copy of the published work when it's out.


It is not insult to say that you have lied, when in fact you have lied. I put no words in your mouth, and my quotes of what you have written demonstrate that. As for your fondness for making "enemies lists," this is the second time in a few days you have offered to put me on such a list. As you know nothing of me, do not know my name, my residence, my appearance--this is just silliness. I am, of course, a fond devoté of silliness; therefore, you needn't describe that as an insult.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 01:13 pm
Fine Setanta. I will not admit that I said what I did not say no matter how much you try to twist it to make it say what you want. I have no enemies list. I acknowledge those who have chosen to dismiss me. It was a feeble attempt at a joke.

Now please go pick on somebody else. This kind of debate is not entertaining or constructive for me and I choose not to engage in it.
0 Replies
 
dauer
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 01:47 pm
Foxfyre, it may be nitpicking, but on the first page you referred to people from the time of Jesus as orthodox Jews. There was no such thing. This is a modern movement. There were a whole slew of divisions at that time, such as the pharisees, sadducees, essenes, zealots. Pick one. Pharisees is most likely.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 02:04 pm
In my opinion it is all myth. . How much of the Jesus fable is true is anyones guess. But I does make for a good bible story.
0 Replies
 
tcis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 02:24 pm
(Matthew 10:34-36): "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."

To me, this almost seemed to indicate potential violence. At least healthy debate, etc.

Why the mention of "not...bring peace, but a sword."

Is he advocating violence here?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 02:44 pm
dauer, regardless of their particular sect, all the New Testament Jews had their own orthodoxy. All orthodoxy means is adherance to the doctrine or teachings of whatever faith you embrace. Jesus was not orthodox which is what got him in trouble. After his death, his followers delved into a mix of orthodoxy and unorthodox practices.

When I speak of Orthodox Jews of the First Century, I mean something much different than the Orthodox Jews of the Twenty First century. But your point is well taken dauer. It goes back to the point I've been making with this entire thread....what is obvious to me may not be obvious to anybody else without additional explanation. What was obvious to the first century theologians may be be obvious to us reading with Twenty First Century eyes.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 02:51 pm
tcis, the passage you quote is something of a mystery and has never been translated/interpreted to my satisfaction. It is, I believe, what the theologians call apocalyptic writing or a kind of code with meanings different from the actual words used. Most loosely translate it to mean that those who choose to follow Jesus will have hard times of it. If that is correct, it certainly turned out to be true.
0 Replies
 
tcis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 02:58 pm
Foxfyre,

That makes sense. As does ebrown_p's idea that it means spreading the word of Jesus will cause conflict, etc.

What troubles me a bit about all this is when people who follow the Bible find passages they don't particularly like, doesn't fit their ideas, etc., they'll use the refrain: "Oh, that's allegory, it doesn't really mean that, its symbolic for meaning this..." (then they fill in the what they think it "really" means).

Its very difficult to take someone seriously when they want a strict literal reading on some things (10 Commandments, etc.), but then, in other passages, they choose when to call it all "symbolic," and fill in their own interpretation.

I guess this is why there are hundreds of denominations.
0 Replies
 
fortune
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 03:01 pm
This symptom can be found in any major religion.
0 Replies
 
tcis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 03:06 pm
Matthew 12:32 32 "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come."

What is this "sin against the Holy Ghost?" And why would that be a worse, more unforgiveable sin than, mass murder, for example? That seems bizarre.

I have asked this on other threads, received no real reply. I'll take the liberty of posting it here, since you folks seem pretty knowledgeable/reasonable re: the Bible. I actually even asked a reverend friend once, and he said something like "you know, this is something we discussed at college, and we just kept debating it in circles. We haven't necessarily arrived at one clear succint answer...."

Any ideas of what the sin agains the Holy Ghost is?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 03:20 pm
Foxy
What can you possibly know about the Orthodox Jews of the first century. In fact what do you know of Jews of the first century. About as much I would judge as you know about Christians , if that is what they were called at that time.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 04:02 pm
What I know is based on a 30-year personal research project Au and includes a large body of geological, archeological, historical, and theological stuff. I write and teach adult religious curriculum and currently am trying to get some of the field tested material in suitable form for publication. I have a real passion for history of all kinds and for religious history in particular. I am not orthodox and definitely work outside the traditional and conventional box which is why I tell everybody here and everybody in my classes that nobody is expected to believe it. I believe, however, anyone who studies this stuff will come to their own conclusions and most report their faith and confidence are increased.

It probably won't make a religious nut out of an avowed athiest. Smile
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 04:07 pm
tcis, what I believe about the passage that you posted dovetails with the belief that God is totally righteous; i.e. incapable of not being right (aka good, correct, proper, on target etc.) The passage has been translated in various ways including 'blasphemes' instead of "speaking against', etc. In this context, "Holy Spirit" is the essence or presence of God. The phrase is awkward in English - it literally means to attribute evil to the works of the Spirit or in essence, to declare that God does evil. This is an unforgiveable mindset for then, now, forever. It should not be interpreted that anybody who has committed this particular offense is forever damned however. (Some fundamentalist Christians do interpret it that way and I disagree with them.)
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 04:21 pm
Foxy
There are many articles on the roots of Christianity on the web. Try this for size.
http://webbpage.topcities.com/rootstudy.html

I believe in a supreme being I just don't believe in the man made fables of organized religion. You may call it atheism while I call it not being brain washed. The method by which religion holds on to it's congregates. Only I think it is known as faith.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 04:30 pm
Bookmarked the link Au. (I have hundreds of those from all sorts of opinions bookmarked or catalogued.) You are not unique among the world's skeptics. I also oppose any form of brain washing techniques to infuse people with religious belief as I think it is always counterproductive. That isn't what I do. In fact my whole approach to my course material is to lay out ALL the prevailing bodies of thought out there on any given subject without attaching any particular value to any one. It has been fascinating to watch a good deal of agreement among my class members as they choose the theory or explanation that is the most plausible.

Now so far as I know, all my class members are believing Christians. I don't know how a class of non-believers or dedicated skeptics might react to the material. Maybe sometime I'll have a chance to find out.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 04:45 pm
Foxy
Quote:
Now so far as I know, all my class members are believing Christians. I don't know how a class of non-believers or dedicated skeptics might react to the material. Maybe sometime I'll have a chance to find out.


In other words you are preaching to the choir. These people have been preconditioned to believe, I am sure that the response would be considerably different if they were not.
I find it ironic that you who continue to ask for proof on almost every post are so willing to accept religion on faith.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 04:57 pm
I ask for proof on every post? I think I almost never ask anybody for their source, much less proof, unless they are particularly slanderous or I really want to know the source. Are you sure you're thinking of me?

My class is made of mostly very highly educated people from several different church traditions. Much of the material I teach is all new ground for them however. They have been enormously helpful to me in coming up with stuff I didn't think of and in helping fact check some of the technical stuff. Preconditioned to believe. If you knew these people as I do, that would be almost laughable. These people don't believe anything that they do not choose to believe after strong evidence is presented.

I don't know why you feel so strong a need to dispute it Au. But if you think it's all bunk, that's cool. I start every new course section with the disclaimer that anybody is free to reject anything said.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/25/2022 at 11:49:31