ForumGarden

Is the Roman Catholic Church the one true church, following in the steps of St Peter. And all other churches Anglican ect - wrong? Will there ever be again a One United Christian?

capt_buzzard wrote: Is the Roman Catholic Church the one true church, following in the steps of St Peter. And all other churches Anglican ect - wrong? Will there ever be again a One United Christian?Why does the true church have to be a denomination? I think the true church is people. I think Christ has saved, true heart followers in every denomination.

If you're looking for unity in a humanly organized religion- that will never happen. But unity in Christ among His people is an accomplished fact. We might not agree on all the details, but the details don't save us- Christ does!

That's why it's called "Christianity" instead of "Churchianity."

In the first century after the ascension of Christ there was a sense of unity that hasn’t existed since. The new believers in Yeshua the Messiah and the Orthodox Jews worshiped together in the same synagogues. The new believers had meetings in homes to celebrate and openly discuss their beliefs but they didn’t quit worshiping with the unbelieving brethren. They disagreed on a huge issue but that didn’t stop them from practicing Judaism as they had for thousands of years.

Their unity, combined with the excitement and enthusiasm of the new believers, caused a quite a problem for the Roman Government. They were a growing force to be reckoned with. In order to maintain political power, Constantine required a new religion that mixed his belief in the sun god with Judaism and belief in Yeshua. We see what resulted in the Christian religions of today.

According to Crossan a world renound expert on Jesus and the Christian history. Divisions in the early church began very shortly after Jesus left the scene.. "The Birth of Christianity" John Dominic Crossan.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Abba Eban, former Ambassador to the United States from Israel hosted a series called “Civilization and the Jews” that won the Peabody Award. In that series the relative peace between the new believers and Judaism was documented. It has also been documented by other experts. It isn’t a popular position to take because it creates a huge problem for replacement theology.

Can there be one unified church in the world? I doubt that will happen but we can all learn to live with each other in peace if we would dump this exclusivism nonsense. That is the source of strife. We can learn to respect and get along with each other. In affirming ones own faith it is not necessary to denigrate that of others.

Shalom

Ted :-6

I don’t know how there can be one unified church if there is going to be belief in more than one god. I share your hope for our being able to believe without making part of that belief, a list of those who are wrong so we can be right. It doesn’t even make sense. The way to learn how to recognize counterfeit money is to study the real thing, not by studying counterfeit money. I believe in the One I call the One True God. For me, it is profitable to study the God I believe in. Then, if I come across someone who wants to know my God, I will be equipped to make the introduction. Even though this is what I believe, from time to time, I find myself in the fault finding game.

Clint :-6

I believe as do many theologians today that all of the major great religions of the world are in fact worshiping the one true God. They may call him/her by different names but all are metaphors for the one true Divine origins of all life.

I will not call them wrong, ever. They have responded to the Divine in the only way that their culture and history teaches.

Think of God as a great underground river that cannot be damed or stopped or changed as far as direction goes. Along that river there are many wells; Christian, Muslim, Judaism etc. All of these wells are tapping into the same source the one true Divinity. Matthew Fox "Natural Grace".

This is not something new for me. I have believed this for years but Matthew Fox has given me the language and the metaphors to express my thoughts.

Shalom

Ted :-6

If I am to be true to the God of my salvation, then I must reject the idea that the gods he calls false are anything more. I don’t know how He will mercifully deal with those who are victims of their culture. I have confidence that because of His unfailing mercy He has made provision for them.

I think we quickly come to a point where we see that we don’t have much common ground. I see much more literal meaning in the Bible than you do and I refer to it as the final authority. Your position that the Bible is midrashic gives you license to cite any source that satisfies you, ultimately making you or a theologian you choose the authority.

You state your Belief in the Risen Lord. That makes us part of the same family. I’m thankful for that.

Shalom

Clint :-6

Of course the Bible is midrashic. That is exactly how the ancient Hebrew wrote and interpreted the sacred writings. It can be nothing else. If one wants to get back to the meanings and messages intended then one has to understand the nature of Midrash and its use of metaphor.

If we do not do that then are we not in fact reading into it what we wish and not what the authors wished or intended?

Shalom

Ted :-6

Ted,

I have read statements by you in which you say the Bible has no historic value. To me that is a statement intended to discount the Bible’s value. To say that the Bible wasn’t written with the INTENT to record history is a true statement. Even though its purpose isn’t the same as a history book, it contains history that is accurate and its purpose would be diminished if the history it contains was found to be grossly inaccurate.

Do I think Pauline letters are to be read as though they are lawful instruction by God? No. They must be read with the understanding that reading them is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. Paul’s writings must be read with the intent of further understanding what Jesus taught.

Dr. Luke, on the other hand, writes intending to create a record. His writing can be read with confidence that what he records is accurate.

David writes for the record but much of his writing is poetic with a message as well as historic.

To paint all three writers with the same brush doesn’t make sense. In my view, to say none of what they write is literal or historically correct is to diminish the value of what was written.

You assert your position that the Bible is totally midrashic when you don’t like what you are hearing about the Bible. You talk about what a wonderful book the Bible is, yet I seldom see you use it as the source for what you believe. What other source is there for information on the “Risen Lord” you and I claim for salvation? Is the account of His resurrection midrashic? If it is how do you place salvation faith in it?

How can there be a unified church if there isn’t a point of agreement. If just leaving each other alone to believe whatever is “unified” then I don’t understand the word. Should we take everything all religions believe, mix it all up in a big pot and serve it as truth? How could that work? Wouldn’t it make more sense to follow the Burien example until the truth is obvious to everyone? How can we come to the truth corporately if no one believes they possess the truth?

Ted wrote: According to Crossan a world renound expert on Jesus and the Christian history. Divisions in the early church began very shortly after Jesus left the scene.. "The Birth of Christianity" John Dominic Crossan.

Shalom

Ted :-6Umm... there was a church before Jesus left the scene? Maybe I'm mis-reading you.

As to Will there ever be again a One United Christian Church, there is. The Closed and Exclusive Brethren are Christians. Nobody outside of the Closed and Exclusive Brethren is a Christian. Christianity is a United Church.

Jiperly wrote: Yea, there was- called Judism.

The oringial split was between the Jews who did not believe Jesus was the son of God and those who did.My apology, I thought we were talking about schisms within Christianity. I never thought of the Jewish faith as a schismatic offshoot of the Christian Church.

Clint :-6

There is some history in the Bible but precious little. It is not the history that is important but the message that is presented.

Midrash was a style of writing and interpreting. If we read the Bible without understanding that are we not in fact in danger of reading into the Bible what the authors never meant or intended? Sorry but I can't do that. I want to know what was intended and meant.

Is the Crucifixion story Midrash? Yes, most of it. However, this does not deny the death and resurrection of Jesus. "Liberating the Gospels" John Spong.

Each of the Gospels was written by separate writers who were writing what the church had come to believe about Jesus at the time of the writing. The writing is a mixture of history remembered and historicized metaphor. "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time" Marcus Borg.

As far as the writings of David go, I presume you are speaking of the Psalms. Actually David wrote few if any of them. Though I suspect he wrote some of them. According to B. W. Anderson in "Understanding the Old Testament"z p545 "Despite the fact that only 73 of the 150 Psalms are attibuted explicitly to David".

David was an historical character but archaeology shows quite clearly that he was not the leader of the great kingdom described in the Bible. He was in fact a local War Lord. Finkelstein and Silberman "The Bible Unearthed"

You asked about what authority then do we have for the Risen Christ as the Messiah. Very simply we have the experience of the Risen Christ to which the Bible attests. It is the experience and living in a loving, developing relationship with the Risen Christ that counts.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Spot :-6

The church split shortly after Jesus left the scene. It seems clear enough to me. The early church began with the disciples shortly after Jesus left the scene and almost immediately there were splits. "The Birth of Christianity" J. D. Crossan.

"Nobody outside the Closed exclusive brethern is a Christian". Pardon my bluntness but that is pure bunk. When someone or one group claim exclusivity my only response is to laugh. Have I got news for them.

"Christianity is a United Church". I can guarantee you that we all wish it were so but it is not fully united. Some groups or churches claim exclusivity clearly showing that there is not total unity.

Christianity was not meant to be an exclusive religion is was and is inclusive. The idea of exclusivity was one of the heresies of the reformation though it did exist before the pseudo-religions became more prevalent..

Shalom

Ted :-6

Ted wrote: The church split shortly after Jesus left the scene. It seems clear enough to me. The early church began with the disciples shortly after Jesus left the scene and almost immediately there were splits. "The Birth of Christianity" J. D. Crossan."Split" is a word I associate with an inability to share communion. It would apply only to heretics, before the Orthodox/Roman division. Acts discusses doctrinal differences between the Jerusalem church and Paul's Asian churches. I've never seen a suggestion that anyone would refuse to share communion before, say, the Constantine expansion. Perhaps we need to agree what "split" means? I'm sorry I haven't a copy of anything by Crossan here to hand, but I'll have to rely on you for more detail.

Ted wrote: "Nobody outside the Closed exclusive brethern is a Christian". Pardon my bluntness but that is pure bunk. When someone or one group claim exclusivity my only response is to laugh. Have I got news for them.Well, yes. I merely put forward the view of the Closed and Exclusive Brethren. Were I a member I would, of course, not be talking to you.

Ted wrote: Christianity was not meant to be an exclusive religion is was and is inclusive. The idea of exclusivity was one of the heresies of the reformation though it did exist before the pseudo-religions became more prevalent.I wonder whether I'm misunderstanding exclusive... I'll have a try, anyway. I'm sure you'll be expecting a question on the meaning of John 14:6, if exclusive means the "only true" religion. Try as I might, I can find no alternative meaning than one of exclusivity. Whether it dates from a lot later than other sections of John I don't know, but anyone treating the Bible as the inerrant Word of God is going to have trouble viewing their religion as inclusive.

If exclusive means something else, please put up a sentence expanding on the phrase.

Spot :-6

I was using the term split in a broader context of disagreements concerning doctrine etc and not referring to communion. Though with the RC stance on the Eucharist I have to question whether or not in the RC church the table is the tableof Rome or the table of God. I am tending towards the former. As the table of Rome it has no interest for me whatsoever.

As far as the Bible being the inerrant word of God, I do not accept that in any way shape or form. The Bible is man's response to his experiences with the Divine and was not dictated by God. It becomes for us as Christians the "Word of God" by virtue of the fact that God speaks to Christians through the very human words of the bible and not by virtue of its authorship. "The Bible and the Common Reader" by Mary Chase and by personal confirmation of myself with Dr. N Wagner-archaeologist and Hebrew expert.

In fact the Bible is composed of myth, legend, folk tale, short story, poetry, philososphy, theology and some kernels of history spread throughout. The Pentateuch itself was passed on in several forms by oral tradition for hundreds of years before it was finally committed to writing during the Babylonian Exile. Ibid.

The Bible is essentially midrashic which makes great use of metaphor. I would further contend that if this fact is not taken into account when reading the sacred scriptures one is in fact reading into the Bible what one wants to and not what the authors meant or intended. "Liberating the Gospels" John Spong. Further supported by Marcus Borg and Crosssan.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Ted wrote: In fact the Bible is composed of myth, legend, folk tale, short story, poetry, philososphy, theology and some kernels of history spread throughout. The Pentateuch itself was passed on in several forms by oral tradition for hundreds of years before it was finally committed to writing during the Babylonian Exile. Ibid.Indeed. I wouldn't disagree with any of that. The best introduction I know to the precursor texts of the Bible is "Unauthorized Version : Truth and Fiction in the Bible" by Robin Lane Fox. But I have no doubt that there are better texts I haven't yet met.

Ted wrote: The Bible is essentially midrashic which makes great use of metaphor. I would further contend that if this fact is not taken into account when reading the sacred scriptures one is in fact reading into the Bible what one wants to and not what the authors meant or intended. "Liberating the Gospels" John Spong. Further supported by Marcus Borg and Crosssan.We seem to have a slight problem in that I have no access to the works you refer to. Just on a very simple level, and sticking to the one verse that is far and away my biggest problem, what is your opinion of what the authors meant or intended by John 14:6? Just to help other readers of the thread, it's the verse that says: Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." In what way did the authors mean anything but that Jesus is the sole means of grace or salvation available in the whole of creation? It's not a trivial question, I've stopped calling myself a Christian solely on account of this verse.

Jiperly wrote: In those words? No.

The Christian Chruch believes in Christ as the Son of God- so Judism isn't an offshoot from the Christian Church, because they do not believe Jesus was the Son of God. Moreso, The Christian Church is an offshoot of Judism, because that one man managed to devide the two religions(which, since then, many divides within both religions have happened since)My continued apology, I still think we were talking about schisms within Christianity.

Spot :-6

First of all any good academic library that has a theological section will contain those books. However, several of those authors as available at Chapters.

Now to John. First of all it is highly unlikely that Jesus in fact said those words. They are the words put in the mouth of our Lord by John who was expressing what the church of his time had come to believe concerning Jesus.

I also happen to agree with that verse. The word "way" is used numberous times throughout the Bible including the OT. Every time it is used it is used to express way as a path or route. Jesus has more then adequately shown us the way by his life and his actions as well as the words that in fact go back to the historic Jesus. Jesus has shown us the way and that way is clearly expaned on in Micah 6:8; Matt. 22:34-40; Matt 25:29ff and a host of others throughout the Bible is you wish me to go further.

I have no problem with your disagreeing with me. However, the Bible exhibts both internal and external discrepencies that cannot be explained away though some do a beautiful dance in hoping that it will. The inerrancy of the Bible can neither be supported by history or archaeology or science. But then that was not its purpose. Its purpose is to teach many profound truths that do not and have no need to relate to history or archaeology or science. The inerrancy of the Bible is one of the heresies of the reformation. Up to that point the church knew the Bible for what it was.

As a result of the reformation great misuses of the sacred writings have occurred time and time again and continue to occur.

Myth etc can be used every bit as much as history to teach truths. In fact in many cases it does a far better job.

J D Crossan, Marcus Borg, John Spong, Finkelstein and Silberman, Mary Chase and others.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Spot :-6

As for schisms in the Christian Church, they exist. The extremem fundamentalists don't agree with the fundamentalists who don't agree with the moderately liberal, who don't agree with the more radical liberal and none of then seem to agree with the RC church which does not agree with the Eastern Orthodox.

We have one church here on this island that thinks it is better then the rest and in fact will have nothing to do with them whatsoever. I guess they think they have the hot line to above and will probably ask for the own little compound in "heaven".

Then of course the Christian church misleadingly thinks they are the only ones worshiping the one true God. Exclusivity is an afront to the very message of Yeshua of Nazareth. Inclusivity is in fact what our Lord wanted.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Ted wrote: Now to John. First of all it is highly unlikely that Jesus in fact said those words. They are the words put in the mouth of our Lord by John who was expressing what the church of his time had come to believe concerning Jesus.Ah. Now, I have no problem with that at all. My problem comes with my inability to claim to be a Christian when in the company of fundamentalists who *do* demand literalism and inerrancy, and who scream "deviant" at me every time I try to suggest what you have just put into such elegant words. They are become so numerous, and so vociferous, and so aggressive, and so insistent, that I practice my faith in isolation these days, devoid of fellowship.

Shalom

Spot :-6

Spot :-6

I understand. I get that on the forums I am on all the time. To put it gently that is the error of fundamentalism and has been since the reformation. I believe it to be an heresy. I also know of some who refer to the fundamentalists as followers of a pseudo-religion. I personally haven't reached that point yet but I can see where such a thought comes from and how it fits in.

I know of one theologian who put it this way (paraphrased) The reformers usurped the term Christian and created their own religion. Again I wouldn't go that far but it is there.

Stick to what you believe. Continue your search as I did. Over the years my Christian faith has made a 180 degree turn. Read lots, study commentaries and such books as written by Crossan, Borg, Fox, Spong etc. They are real eye openers.

BTW our clergy presented a sermon on that text and said the same thing that I have been saying for years. I was so pleased I almost shouted out AMEN. But I kept it to myself internally and said "We've finally arrived." It was exciting and illuminating.

If you have a loving transforming relationship with the Risen Lord you are a Christian and no one except God has the right to judge otherwise.



Shalom

Ted :-6

Did I miss a post - or why is no one asking the question of spirituality as opposed to religion? Most early religions stated a worship to the forces of nature and then that became a belief in an entity. What happened? Carl Jung studied physics and religion. His basic philosophy went on the physics side. Energy (that which is always firing in our brain) does not end - it is transformed into another form of energy - the "collective unconscious". He believed the "eternal" life might be contained in an atomic stream - energy. Look at Newton's laws.

Ted,

If the Bible is not TOTALLY midrashic as you say, then Roman Catholicism and its offspring are practicing heresy. If they see the midrash thread as broken, there will be nothing left to hold on to. I’m reminded of the visit Jesus received from Nicodemus. High church theologians have been perplexed by born again types for a long time. This is nothing new. There is much more to the Bible than what academia can shed light on.

If you can remove the possibility that God has the ability to get words on paper accurately you can make it up as you go. That is exactly what happened at the end of the first century and the simulation has continued. You are right when you say the Christian faith has done a 180. Roman religion is the source. The reformation was an attempt to undo the damage that was done. It just didn’t go far enough.

We do have to consider the Bible based on the times and culture it was written in. Action that may have been required 4,000 years before Christ in order to prevent a greater tragedy may not fit the norms of today. When we read that God said to do something 6,000 years ago that we wouldn’t consider right by our standards today, we can’t say that God was unjust or that it was unjust and covered up by false reporting. There is no greater arrogance than to say God is wrong. We have to consider (as you so often point out) when, where and why something was done, and many times we don't have all of those answers yet.

In spite of your vast education and all of your educated friends and the many references you cite, you don’t know everything. We have to rely on a thing called faith. I have faith that God has made his word available to me in the form of the Bible and many other mediums as well. The fact that we don’t understand all of it yet speaks to how vast and awesome God is. How can an intellegent person say, “I don’t understand, therefore it isn’t so”.

Clint :-6

There are many things in the Bible that we do understand and they are atrocities and are not from God. God's justice is distributive justice not retibutive justice. Borg.

There are many things said in the Bible that are simply incorrect and in fact lead to very serious situations here on earth. i.e. "Be fruitful and multiply." We have almost multiplied ourselves out of existence. Another ons is to have dominion over as if we can control all things on earth. We have "dominioned many species into extinction. These are the "Word of God"? NOt at all.

Numbers 31 has god apparently okaying war crimes. Justice in God's eyes does not change with the times. That is not the "Word of God". An interesting god who would countenence the deaths of innocent children and the rape of women. To accept that as the "Word of God" is to lower God the level of the mythical Satan.

The Psalm that allowed the Hebrews to dash the childrens brains out on the rocks is not "The Word of God"

The law that allows parent to have misbehaving children stoned to death is not the "Word of God".

I find it incredible that a loving God who has and is the very nature of justice would enjoy the deaths of thousands of Egyptians as they drown in the Reed Sea.

Then we have the issue of Joshua stopping the sun for a day. God does not need to intervene in the natural laws of the universe which he created. That is pure myth and nothing more.

These are all the results of a misplaced and ill conceived reformation that one could consider a blasphemy. And that I am very serious about.

The Bible in the words of Paul even condones slavery and that was used to justify slavery in the so called "Bible Belt" of the US. The "Word of God"? Hardly.

We must learn to discern the messages of God in Scripture from the very human words of the Book.

The Bible becomes the "Word of God" by virtue of the fact that God does speak to us through the Bible not by virtue of its authorship.

If we see in Jesus the very nature of the one true God then I see none of the above in any of Jesus' teachings. We see a God of justice and compassion in this Jesus; one who said that the greatest commandment was love.

To accept all of the Bible as coming from God is both demeaning to God and an afront to the message of Jesus as the Christ. It is to in fact believe in a god with a multiple personality problem and nothing less.

You thought my "Jesusolatry" was offensive. When I consider the above, hardly. BTW that word comes from a very devout Christian, one M. Fox.

If you want to accept the Bible as the inerrant "Word of God" then be prepared to defend a lot of atrocities. And it doesn't wash to say that we just don't understand. We understand quite well.

That being said, I do have a great reverence for the sacred scriptures because there is much wisdom in them as well as the fact that God does speak to us through them but not only through them. He speaks to us in other ways as well. One of them is the commons sense that He gave us to use and whose misuse is a sin as far as I am concerned.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Ted wrote: To accept all of the Bible as coming from God is both demeaning to God and an afront to the message of Jesus as the Christ. It is to in fact believe in a god with a multiple personality problem and nothing less.The trouble is, Ted, that the Church isn't just you and me, it's all those who have gone before, and they (simple souls) were quite sure you are wrong. Rather than declare them obsolete, I'm prepared to declare Christianity moribund and past its use-by date. We have a new religion, it's just like the old one except we have abandoned inerrancy, we can even call it Christianity, but it's not the same Church. I feel divorced from that mass of the faithful who knew better than I do.[/QUOTE]

Spot :-6

I have no problem with those who have gone before. They believed as they understsood and I firmly believe that God understands and accepts that. They did their best.

Now, out of the ashes the Phoenix rises. That is why I read John D. Crossan, Hans Kung, Marcus Borg, John Spong, Matthew Fox and a host of others and continue to search the sacred scriptures. The old paradigm no longer fits. The developing new paradigm makes use of all of the knowlege that we have accumulated and will accumlate as evolution continues.

The one thing that cannot be destroyed is the experience of the Risen Lord or the Divine. It is through this experience and living in a loving, developing relationship with this Risen Lord or if you will the Divine that the Christian faith will indeed carry on in new and developing traditions that will continue to develop and change as evolution continues.

All is not lost it is simply changing to meet the times and our fund of knowledge and our evergrowing ability to conceptualize. However a definite definition or description of the Divine will always elude us because the human language no matter how complex it gets will never be equal to that challenge.

How much there is to learn and how short the time!

Shalom

Ted :-6

Ted wrote: I have no problem with those who have gone before. They believed as they understsood and I firmly believe that God understands and accepts that. They did their best.I have too much respect and love for them to think that they have arrived at Heaven's Gate only to be re-educated into modern ways of thinking. Were they to speak with me, they would disapprove mightily of my revisionist dogma, though I agree that they and I share the same faith in the same God. Perhaps I say that my Christianity is of a totally different Church to theirs because I cannot face their disapproval. The divorce is primarily built of my knowledge of their likely response to my abdication of their ideals.

As for the remainder of your post, Amen to that.

Spot :-6

I too have great respect for my forebears and their beliefs. However, I do not believe that they will be disappointed. They will see in the ultimate reality that they were correct and that we are as well. Our beliefs are based on many things: history, culture, belief systems, fund of knowlege, ability to conceptualize, language (a very important one), and a host of others that I probably have forgotten to mention.

Since we are dealing in metaphor we will all find that none of us got is all right because of our humanity and its limitations. But all will share in the glory that awaits us, whatever that may be. Only God knows that. At best we metaphorize and speculate. What really counts is not what we believe. It is neither dogma or doctrine that counts but our relationship with the Divine and whether or not we followed the will of the Divine One as expressed in many parts of the Bible. A good concise one is Micah 6:8 where we are clearly told what God requires of us: (Paraphrase) "To do justice, love kindliness and walk humbly with your God." This clearly fits with the Great Commandment of Matt. 22.

Dogma and doctrines are the trappings of man added to help us understand in the past. Now we realize that it is relationship which counts and not dogma and doctrine.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Spot :-6

So don't be surprised when you meet folks of all the great faiths at the great banquet with all the saints who have gone before. This is too much for the fundamentalist but God is the God of everyone not just the Christians. He is inclusive not exclusive.

How dare any of us tell God who can and can't be participants in His great glory. That is why we are cautioned not to judge anyone.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Ted

How can you possibly find fault with “be fruitful and multiply”? Without it, it is very likely that neither of us would be here to have this discussion. I have discovered that most people who find fault with being fruitful, think they would exist in spite of it because of their extreme value to God and mankind. To take that statement to task is to say that if God didn’t say it, he didn’t want those of us living today to be here. If he did say it, then you are saying he was in error because he doesn’t know the planet’s capacity to support life. I also find that most people who want to limit the earth’s population want to do it because they fear losing their lifestyle. I believe God said it, and knew then as he does now, exactly how it will all work out.

The instruction to have dominion is not a problem if you interpret what was said correctly. Having dominion in the original language means to manage and care for the earth. It is clear in God's instructions for farming that he intended more intense environmental management than we have seen in thousands of years. Men have twisted the words to their advantage. That doesn’t make the words wrong.

The term “slave” translates to something like employee. Paul taught that employees were to submit to their bosses. The Bible also teaches that "slaves" were to be respected and cared for. The word ‘submit’ is “upotasso” in the Greek, which means to arrange ones self under another. Arrange one’s self…not to be arranged or forced. Paul clearly understood that submission is voluntary and cannot be forced.

You say you respect the Bible but rather than validate it and search it's wisdom, you focus your time and effort on finding fault with it. Somehow, you present that as a positive thing to do. :-2



Shalom

Clint :-6

"Be fuitful and multiply" was great when the earth's population was minimal. Now to follow that as the "Word of God" is abslutely irresponsible. It is this statement that is supposedly from God that has got us into the situation where we now find ouselves on the brink of an ecological disaster. The world is overpopulated. The artificial food production is ruining the ecology. For example in parts of the American mid west they have irrigated for so long that the minerals in the water have made the soil totally unproductive. Churches have taken that "be fruitful and multiply" to the extremem in opposing birth control and thus we are in a real mess.

According to the lexicon " douleia" is the word used and it definitely means "slave:" one that is subordinate and subject to his master. This is the "Word of God". Hardly. And it has been used throughout the centuries to justify the owning of slaves. Hardly from God but simply a cultural issue and an obscene one at that.

". . . and fill the earth and subdue it." That is precisely the problem we have today we have subdued it to the point of catastrophic results. We have to learn to live with nature not to conquer it. Mother earth is now fighting back with holes in the ozone layer, land that is no longer productive, climate change that may bring about catastrophic events. NASA has now admitted that their tests show that there is such a fact as global warming.

I do have respect for the sacred writings but how am I supposed to validate out and out atrocities as if they come from God. That is demeaning to God himself and to the very message of Yeshua of Nazareth.

Anyway I think I have answered what you asked. I will be posting more as I go through and find other atrocities such as Num. 31.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Ted,

Again, you have taken the word and read the worst possible interpretation into it. There is more than one meaning to the word “subdue” (kaw-bash’). In the positive sense, it means to subjagate. God wants mankind to take charge of the earth. He did not intend for man to harm the earth in the process and his word doesn’t indicate that at all. If mankind has improperly applied God’s word, how is that the fault of the word?

Being fruitful and multiplying is, in your human, fallible, judgment a bad thing. Neither you nor I have the insight, overview or wisdom to know if the earth is overpopulated. The number of people on earth is up to God. My wife and I chose to limit the number of children we had and my children have done the same. I will not pass judgment on people who don’t limit their offspring. Over the years I have come to believe that taking control of that natural process was probably the wrong thing to do. In all of God’s creation, only mankind hinders the opportunity for more of its species to experience life.

The world population is so great, in part, because we live longer. Is that a bad thing too?

One more point on the population. The greatest concentrations of people on the planet are where the Bible isn’t used for guidance. You can’t blame the Bible or the people who read it for a perceived overpopulation.

With regard to the word “slave” (doo’-los in Rev. 6:15) Strong’s defines it as voluntary or involuntary. Vines, speaking of it generally, says it means bondage but it most frequently indicates subjection without the idea of bondage. I checked it in several places where the word is used and came up with the same thing. So, again, you have the opportunity to put a good light on it or a bad one. Unless the context is clear enough to remove doubt I'll choose the good light.

Paul called himself a bond servant of the Lord. That was clearly voluntary and in my view, very positive.

Shalom

Clint wrote: In the first century after the ascension of Christ there was a sense of unity that hasn’t existed since. The new believers in Yeshua the Messiah and the Orthodox Jews worshiped together in the same synagogues. The new believers had meetings in homes to celebrate and openly discuss their beliefs but they didn’t quit worshiping with the unbelieving brethren. They disagreed on a huge issue but that didn’t stop them from practicing Judaism as they had for thousands of years.



Their unity, combined with the excitement and enthusiasm of the new believers, caused a quite a problem for the Roman Government. They were a growing force to be reckoned with. In order to maintain political power, Constantine required a new religion that mixed his belief in the sun god with Judaism and belief in Yeshua. We see what resulted in the Christian religions of today.I know that Clint. And you are right.

Clint :-6

"The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible" p 888-889.

"Slavery existed in remote antiquityin the Near East. Slaves were acquired: 1. by capture, especially in war (Num 31:9; II Kings 5:2' Jos. War iii/ 4, 1; vi 9,2). 2 By birth from slaves owned(Gen17:12. 4. In payment of debr: thieves unable to make restitution, and though contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic law, a debtor, or his children, being sold as slaves (Ex 22:3; II kings 4:1; Neh. 5:5,8; Amos 2.6; Matt 18:25). 5. Among theHebrews there was also the voluntary sale of ones's self or one's daughter {lovely} on account of poverty (Es. 21:2,7; Lev 25:39,47)

The price of a slae varied, of course . . ."

"Christianity avoided a sudden reversal of established usage, ( I Cor 7:21) , urged the slave to obey his master (Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-25; I Tim. 6:1-2; I Peter 2:18-21), and sent the runaway slave voluntarily baack to his Christian master (Philemon 10-16. Bu it also promulgated principles that improved the conditions of slaves in the Roman Empire. It recognized the equality of slaves and master in God"s sight {Lovely} (I Cor 7:21-22: Gal. 3:L28; Col 3:11. It exhorted the master to treat his slaves considerately, reminding him that they had rights that God would maintain (Eph 6:9; Col. 4:1)."

I could have copied out much more but it is quite clear that the OWNERSHIP of slaves was condoned and encouraged. This is the "Word of God". No it is the pure unadulterated word of man acting in the Name of God.I have also checked "Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible and the "New Bible Dictionary:.

It seems pretty plain to me that a slave was a slave was a slave. He was owned by someone. We can couch it in all the nice words we like but slavery is slavery as rape is rape as murder is murder.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Ted,

As I began to attempt another reply to your assertion that the Bible is a cover-up for mans sin, I realized a couple of things.

1. Telaquapacky’s response to your charges about Numbers 31 was right on the mark. My two cents in addition to what he said is just that.

2. I attended a wonderful teaching this morning in which I began to think that your issue isn’t with the Bible. I think your issue is with the sovereignty and character of God. You don’t seem to believe that God could impart his message through a written document made up as the Bible is. You sound to me like you will not accept that God could do something that would offend your personal beliefs about what is right and what is wrong.

I believe that God is the Creator and Sustainer of earth and all that is within it. I believe that as God, he can give and take life as he pleases. He makes the rules…not me. If he commanded Moshe to take slaves, then so be it. Maybe it was better for them to be slaves than whatever the alternative was. We don’t have the overall vision of what was going on at the time. God, as the Creator, Sustainer and Owner of all, has the right to remove a group of people if he sees the need, and he has the right to do it any way he sees fit. It is not for us to judge his actions.

I understand that God’s action, in that specific instance, isn’t instruction to anyone to do it again. We take the account of what happened as a lesson that God is sovereign and able to bring whatever force to bear in any way that HE sees as justified.

Once God’s power and sovereignty is questioned by us then everything he does is subject to our judgment. We become the judges of God when it must be, and is the other way around.

-Does God have the ability to get his word to me in writing? Yes, he can do ANYTHING.

-Do I have to understand it or agree with it in its entirety for it to be true? No.

-Does God have to measure up to my standards? No…I have to measure up to his.

-Can I measure up? No, not without the Perfect Sacrifice.

-The Perfect Sacrifice...there we go again...how could God do such a thing?

Shabbat Shalom

Clint :-6 2.

I attended a wonderful teaching this morning in which I began to think that your issue isn’t with the Bible. I think your issue is with the sovereignty and character of God. You don’t seem to believe that God could impart his message through a written document made up as the Bible is. You sound to me like you will not accept that God could do something that would offend your personal beliefs about what is right and what is wrong.

I do not question the sovereignty or character of the God that I have come to know and follow and the one with whom I have transforming relationship that I see manifested in Jesus as the Christ. In not reading the Bible as it was written in Midrashic style with great use of metaphor it is you who are reading into it what you wish.



I believe that God is the Creator and Sustainer of earth and all that is within it. I believe that as God, he can give and take life as he pleases. He makes the rules…not me. If he commanded Moshe to take slaves, then so be it. Maybe it was better for them to be slaves than whatever the alternative was. We don’t have the overall vision of what was going on at the time. God, as the Creator, Sustainer and Owner of all, has the right to remove a group of people if he sees the need, and he has the right to do it any way he sees fit. It is not for us to judge his actions.

If you will remember God has written His laws in our hearts. We know and understand His laws. We understand His sense of Justice as we see it in the fullness of God displayed in Jesus as the Christ. Now you are telling me that God is one who says do as I say not as I do. You are telling me tht God would in fact break His own laws. As God He can commit murder, war crimes etc. So you are accusing God of breaking his own laws and commandments. Okay, I suppose for you. But not for me.



Does God have the ability to get his word to me in writing? Yes, he can do ANYTHING.

-Do I have to understand it or agree with it in its entirety for it to be true? No.

-Does God have to measure up to my standards? No…I have to measure up to his.

-Can I measure up? No, not without the Perfect Sacrifice.

-The Perfect Sacrifice...there we go again...how could God do such a thing?

"Does God have the ability . . ." One would presume so but he will not contradict himself in anyway and you are suggesting that he has contradicted himself.

"Do I have to understand . . ." It would be wise to understand what the writers said and meant. The words in the Bible are the very human words of the writers as they expressed their experience of the Divine.

"Does God have to measure up . . ." No but one would presume that God would measure up to His own rules and laws and not disobey what he has told others to do.

"Can I measure up . . ." In fact it is not that we can or do measure up. It is not belief, dogma or doctrine that is important. What is important is living in a loving developing, transforming relationship with the Divine.

This whole notion of "Original Sin" is simply not the case. We, each of us are born with choices to make. At times we make good choices and at times lousy choices That is where living in this developing relationship is important. It is where we learn to live as Jesus lived.

As for the "Perfect Sacrifice" that is open to many interpretations of which yours is but one. In fact there are about 5 or 6 interpretations.

However this whole issue is based on the theistic idea that somehow God is out there somewhere where this is simply not the case. God as Paul said is the "One in whom we live and move and have our being." That means both that we are in God and God is in us.

Imagine the silly story of God going into the Garden and asking Adam and Eve "Where are you?" "Why are you hiding?" Didn't God know where they were? Of course the story is myth at any rate so the answer doesn't matter. What matters is the profound truths the story is trying to get across.

Shalom

Ted

:-6

Ted,

We could carry this on for ever. You could say I don’t have it right then, I could say you don’t have it right. I could keep digging for reasons you are wrong and you could keep doing the same. Why don’t we just settle this by you admitting I’m right?

Actually, life is picking up speed and I’m not going to be able to spend much time here for a while. I also have realized that we are engaged in a futile exercise.

I would, however, like to address one issue. You said:“If you will remember God has written His laws in our hearts. We know and understand His laws. We understand His sense of Justice as we see it in the fullness of God displayed in Jesus as the Christ. Now you are telling me that God is one who says do as I say not as I do. You are telling me tht God would in fact break His own laws. As God He can commit murder, war crimes etc. So you are accusing God of breaking his own laws and commandments. Okay, I suppose for you. But not for me.”

It is HIS LAW that is written on our hearts. It isn’t written one way in one place and another way on our hearts. We are to respond to His law no matter where it is written. Just because I pay attention to the law as it is written, doesn’t mean it isn’t written on my heart as well. It is. Also, God is the judge of all. He will decide if he has broken his own law or not. I'm not going there. Our issue is with whether or not what we read is God's word or man's excuses. I'm just not smart enough to sort it out and I don't think you are either (no offense intended). So I will accept what I don't understand. When I read, I will pray that he will help me understand what I am unable to understand, because it is me that is limited, not him.

Paul sat at the feet of the great Jewish Rabbi Gamiel and became on of the greatest scholars of the time himself. Paul said:

“When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling; and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” 1 Cor. 2….

I’m no Paul, yet I try to do what he didn’t do. When I do spend time here, I think I’ll spend more time arguing politics. I won’t be in near as much danger of creating a stumbling block for someone.

Shalom

Clint :-6

"Why don't we just settle this by you admitting I'm right"? LOL.

As for the rest. As you wish.

I will continue my studies that have been approved by many clergy and many in my church. It is amazing just how much agreement I have.

Shalom

Ted :-6

I think continued study is what's required of everyone who reads the bible and wishes to make it a part of their life. The only "wrong" is to think one has it all "right". Oh, and believing something because you were told to is kind of wrong too.

koan :-6

I would concur with that 100%.

Shalom

Ted :-6

koan wrote: I think continued study is what's required of everyone who reads the bible and wishes to make it a part of their life. The only "wrong" is to think one has it all "right". Oh, and believing something because you were told to is kind of wrong too.
I agree also. As a point of clarification though, I don’t believe or study what someone else has told me to believe or study.

Ted wrote: Clint :-6

Of course the Bible is midrashic. That is exactly how the ancient Hebrew wrote and interpreted the sacred writings. It can be nothing else. If one wants to get back to the meanings and messages intended then one has to understand the nature of Midrash and its use of metaphor.

If we do not do that then are we not in fact reading into it what we wish and not what the authors wished or intended?

Shalom

Ted :-6
You are so wrong. Do you really think that God is incapable of clear and precise speaking? There is absolutely nothing midrashic about the ten commandments, or anything else about the law, or Torah. Nothing midrashic at all about prophesy. The only midrashic books could be Song of Solomon, Psalms and Proverbs. Maybe the Apocrypha as well. Why do insist on placing the whole text under the name 'midrash'? You are sooooooooo wrong!!!