Christianity basically is not about good vs evil but about living forever and p

[ad_orientem]

No it doesn't Hope.

 It teaches "everyone" can have a relationship with the creator if they buy into their particular brand of theology.

That's not just true for mainstream Christianity, but also Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons as well.

The thing that qualifies you for that relationship, isn't Jesus, but believing in the theology of the group.

" mainstream Christianity" defines part of the theology that you have to believe in, as an example is the trinity.

If Sassy believed in the trinity, she wouldn't get called a heretic by other Christians.

That's because belief in theology is taken more seriously than believing in Jesus.

Wrong. You can't have a relationship with someone if you don't know who they are. Thus if one doesn't believe that Christ is God or in the Trinity then one believe in another Christ, another God, that is, a false Christ and a false God. That means there is no relationship.

Well the God in question is the "Jewish" one.  I'm not so sure all Christians know that one.

Yet they claim to have a relationship with him/her.

Seems to me you need to think about that before commenting.

What the Jews believe is quite irrelevant. When they killed our Lord Judaism essentially became nothing more than an apostate sect.

[trippymonkey]

WRONG - TOTALLY RELEVANT as Jesus claimed to be THEIR, ie THE JEWISH, Messiah.
By their OWN given standards He was NOT !!! Sorry

Nick

[ad_orientem]

WRONG - TOTALLY RELEVANT as Jesus claimed to be THEIR, ie THE JEWISH, Messiah.
By their OWN given standards He was NOT !!! Sorry

Nick

The Gospels themselves testify that the Jews didn't believe in him. They are therefore irrelevant, they are no longer his people, which ultimately was confirmed when God, through the Romans, destroyed the Temple etc.

[trippymonkey]

Sorry friend but What Rubbish.
You should now be a Muslim as Islam says all are lies about Jesus if you use THIS VERY weak line of defence ?!?!!??

[ad_orientem]

Sorry friend but What Rubbish.
You should now be a Muslim as Islam says all are lies about Jesus if you use THIS VERY weak line of defence ?!?!!??

Eh? I don't follow. All I'm saying is, that from a Christian perspective what the Jews believe is irrelevant, having put to death their Messiah and God. Judaism is apostate. What the Pharisees believed and what modern Judaism believes is not the faith of Abraham, who in at least two theophanies encountered the Most Holy Trinity (the three angels) and a figure of Christ (Melchisedech).

[trippymonkey]

Friend
Have you ever read the OT???
Do you actually know the criteria for The Messiah?
By your very answers here, you're calling practically ALL Jews absolute liars & cheats ?

[torridon]

What the Jews believe is quite irrelevant. When they killed our Lord Judaism essentially became nothing more than an apostate sect.

I don't think that is right. An apostate is one who relinquishes his faith for another (or none).  In the case of practicising Jews they are demonstrating their faithfulness to their own religion, steadfastly refusing to abandon it in favour newer claims such as christianity. The Jews think of themselves as a people with a special place in God's heart, and a unique relationship expressed through their Covenant, something which cannot be superseded or replaced.  You calling Jews apostates is about as valid as Mormons calling mainstream christians apostates.

[ad_orientem]

Friend
Have you ever read the OT???
Do you actually know the criteria for The Messiah?
By your very answers here, you're calling practically ALL Jews absolute liars & cheats ?

Yes, I have read it many times over. The OT clearly speaks of Christ, especially the Septuagint. The Jews even doctored the Hebrew version to counter Christian claims.

[ad_orientem]

What the Jews believe is quite irrelevant. When they killed our Lord Judaism essentially became nothing more than an apostate sect.

I don't think that is right. An apostate is one who relinquishes his faith for another (or none).  In the case of practicising Jews they are demonstrating their faithfulness to their own religion, steadfastly refusing to abandon it in favour newer claims such as christianity. The Jews think of themselves as a people with a special place in God's heart, and a unique relationship expressed through their Covenant, something which cannot be superseded or replaced.  You calling Jews apostates is about as valid as Mormons calling mainstream christians apostates.

These are all things we have to decide ourselves, of course, but from a Christian perspective Judaism did essentially apostatise as I said, having rejected and put to death their Messiah and God.

[trippymonkey]

So I was right when I said you're calling ALL Jews liars & the OT that you desperately need ironically, is doctored & fake.
Of course NONE of this can be used 'against' you or 'YOUR' version of Christianity ?

[ad_orientem]

So I was right when I said you're calling ALL Jews liars & the OT that you desperately need ironically, is doctored & fake.
Of course NONE of this can be used 'against' you or 'YOUR' version of Christianity ?

Many of the Fathers testify to the fact that the Jews, in the light of Christianity, rejected the Septuagint which before was widely accepted by the Jews, and changed some of the prophecies, such as the "virgin" one from Isaiah. The Jews clearly understood the OT incorrectly, as our Lord himself testifies to in the Gospel.

[BashfulAnthony]

... merely what they believe they saw. And note of course that what someone sees is neither oral nor literary but visual.

So you are taking the discussion onto eye-witness accounts, eh?

In part. But of course this is critical, as even if the propagation of information from one person to another is faultless (which I would contest whether we are dealing with oral or literary traditions) the quality of the original information remains key.

If someone misremembers that the car that passed them was blue, perfect propagation merely perpetuates that misremembering.

And even within an oral tradition you need to understand what is being propagated - it is knowledge or beliefs/stories. The two aren't the same, although may be related (or not). And there is a well accepted difference between oral histories and oral traditions - the former being factual recall (whether correctly or misremembered) passed on to another person as being a factual record. The second being based on telling of traditional stories etc that may or may not have a factual element to them. Clearly the propagation of belief falls into the latter category, so even within an oral tradition the stories relating to Jesus passed on for decades and eventually written down may never have been intended to reflect factual historical accuracy, rather passed on as statements of belief through oral tradition.

Unfortunately, much of this is irrelevant. Hope (and you to an extent) makes the mistake of assuming that the early Christians were keen to keep the historical story accurate, but what evidence we have shows this is not the case. Paul is the only early Christian writer we have left and he insists that his gospel comes from revelation, not oral transmission. Paul met Peter and James but never once does he back up any of his own teachings by claiming they were passed on to him by Peter or James.

Paul's writing shows that he sets no store by the historical accounts that might have existed as opposed to his revelation and by extension neither  does his audience — the early church.

Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered  (and had the time)  it is easy to offer alternative views  -  especially if one googled as much as he does.

[floo]

So I was right when I said you're calling ALL Jews liars & the OT that you desperately need ironically, is doctored & fake.
Of course NONE of this can be used 'against' you or 'YOUR' version of Christianity ?

Many of the Fathers testify to the fact that the Jews, in the light of Christianity, rejected the Septuagint which before was widely accepted by the Jews, and changed some of the prophecies, such as the "virgin" one from Isaiah. The Jews clearly understood the OT incorrectly, as our Lord himself testifies to in the Gospel.

So Christians could equally have misunderstood the NT!

[Nearly Sane]

My mate Kevin, lovely bloke, Jewish, and never killed anyone, Lord or otherwise.

[ad_orientem]

Friend
Have you ever read the OT???
Do you actually know the criteria for The Messiah?
By your very answers here, you're calling practically ALL Jews absolute liars & cheats ?

Yes, I have read it many times over. The OT clearly speaks of Christ, especially the Septuagint. The Jews even doctored the Hebrew version to counter Christian claims.

The early Christians favoured the Septuagint, which they considered inspired in and of itself, and the Jews doctored the Hebrew in light of that. Otherwise the scriptures, including the OT, belongs to the Church.

[Hope]

Unfortunately, much of this is irrelevant. (1)Hope (and you to an extent) makes the mistake of assuming that the early Christians were keen to keep the historical story accurate, (2)but what evidence we have shows this is not the case.

What evidence do you have for the truth of either of the claims in this post, Jeremy?  I have regularly stated that the historical (chronological) order of events wasn't something that the Gospel writers were concerned with, preferring rather to illustrate their message by reference to events that took place.  It is also likely that Jesus did the same type of miracle and teaching combo on more than one occasion over his 3 year ministry, so that slightly different locations or numbers or other details don't necessarily mean that they aren't legitimate records.  What evidence do you have that this isn't the case?

Paul is the only early Christian writer we have left ...

So you dismiss the generally accepted dating of Mark's Gospel as between 60-70 AD - a period that also includes Paul's possible letter to the Colossins (scholars are split 50-50 over hether he authored this)

... and he insists that his gospel comes from revelation, not oral transmission. Paul met Peter and James but never once does he back up any of his own teachings by claiming they were passed on to him by Peter or James.

So, ... do you think that the meeting they had (iirc they had 2 different ones if you look at the various documents) made no mention of Peter and James' experiences with Jesus.

Paul's writing shows that he sets no store by the historical accounts that might have existed as opposed to his revelation and by extension neither  does his audience — the early church.

But Paul's audience was, to an extent, different to that of Matthew, Mark and John at least.  Luke, as someone explicitly writing for a Greco-Roman audience, probably had, at least in part, a similar audience to Paul.  Furthermore, some of Paul's audience would have already heard the Gospel from another source before Paul arrived on the scene, and even those who hadn't he spoke to long before writing to them.  His purpose therefore, wasn't to go over the historical events that make up the Gospels again, but to take his audiences' existing knowledge of these and apply the lessons Jesus drew out of them to his audiences' lives.  Not a single word of the Pauline epistles 'set no store by the historical accounts'; rather, they built on them.

[Hope]

Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered  (and had the time)  it is easy to offer alternative views  -  especially if one googled as much as he does.

Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!

[BashfulAnthony]

Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered  (and had the time)  it is easy to offer alternative views  -  especially if one googled as much as he does.

Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!

It would be interesting, if it was possible, to go for a week, say, without anybody being able to google about anything.  I wonder how threads would develop them?

[Nearly Sane]

Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered  (and had the time)  it is easy to offer alternative views  -  especially if one googled as much as he does.

Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!

Do you really think ad_o got that by googling?

[BashfulAnthony]

Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered  (and had the time)  it is easy to offer alternative views  -  especially if one googled as much as he does.

Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!

Do you really think ad_o got that by googling?

I don't know, but he should be prepared to say, if he has a source.

[ad_orientem]

Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered  (and had the time)  it is easy to offer alternative views  -  especially if one googled as much as he does.

Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!

Do you really think ad_o got that by googling?

I don't know, but he should be prepared to say, if he has a source.

From the scriptures, the ancient liturgies and Fathers.

[BashfulAnthony]

Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered  (and had the time)  it is easy to offer alternative views  -  especially if one googled as much as he does.

Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!

Do you really think ad_o got that by googling?

I don't know, but he should be prepared to say, if he has a source.

From the scriptures, the ancient liturgies and Fathers.

Perhaps you could be more specific.

[ad_orientem]

Friend
Have you ever read the OT???
Do you actually know the criteria for The Messiah?
By your very answers here, you're calling practically ALL Jews absolute liars & cheats ?

Yes, I have read it many times over. The OT clearly speaks of Christ, especially the Septuagint. The Jews even doctored the Hebrew version to counter Christian claims.

The early Christians favoured the Septuagint, which they considered inspired in and of itself, and the Jews doctored the Hebrew in light of that. Otherwise the scriptures, including the OT, belongs to the Church.

The Septuagint was a Greek copy of books originally written in Hebrew.

It's in Greek, so no one doctored the Hebrew.

There were some pretty poor translations from Hebrew into Greek , and my understanding is that non Hebrew literate Christians used it to attack Jews.

For anyone who is interested, the next link goes to Judaism outreach and gives the Jewish POV on it.

( well about the translation of Virgin anyway)

For example, in his preface to the Book of Chronicles, the Church father Jerome, who was the primary translator of the Vulgate, concedes that in his day there were at least three variant Greek translations of the Bible: the edition of the third century Christian theologian Origen, as well as the Egyptian recension of Hesychius and the Syrian recension of Lucian.1 In essence, there were numerous Greek renditions of the Jewish Scriptures which were revised and edited by Christian hands. All Septuagints in our hands are derived from the revisions of Hesychius, as well as the Christian theologians Origen and Lucian

Accordingly, the Jewish people never use the Septuagint in their worship or religious studies because it is recognized as a corrupt text.


http://outreachjudaism.org/septuagint-virgin-birth/

🌹

Of course they'd say that but the Fathers, such as St. Irenaeus, testify to the fact that the Jews in response to Christian use of the Septuagint not only rejected it but also changed the Hebrew text so as to make it less Christological. One example I have given is the "virgin" prophecy from Isaiah which was deliberately changed in the He rew version.

[jeremyp]

Unfortunately, much of this is irrelevant. (1)Hope (and you to an extent) makes the mistake of assuming that the early Christians were keen to keep the historical story accurate, (2)but what evidence we have shows this is not the case.

What evidence do you have for the truth of either of the claims in this post, Jeremy?

The post you are quoting here already explains that.

Paul is the only early Christian writer we have left ...

So you dismiss the generally accepted dating of Mark's Gospel as between 60-70 AD

I'm talking about the period before the first gospel was written. I though that the fact that we were talking about the transmission of traditions orally made that obvious.

... and he insists that his gospel comes from revelation, not oral transmission. Paul met Peter and James but never once does he back up any of his own teachings by claiming they were passed on to him by Peter or James.

So, ... do you think that the meeting they had (iirc they had 2 different ones if you look at the various documents) made no mention of Peter and James' experiences with Jesus.

Of course I think they would have talked about Jesus, but Paul never claims Peter or James as the source for any of his teachings. Whenever Paul feels it necessary to back up his ideas with some authority, it is always direct from the Lord through Paul by revelation, it's never "this was told to me by Cephas who was present when Jesus said it". Furthermore, the fact that Paul justifies his words by citing his own revelation rather than eye witness testimony of Peter and James tells us that the people to whom he was writing placed more weight on revelation than third party testimony.

Given the above, why would any of them care about transmitting oral history accurately?

[jeremyp]

Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered  (and had the time)  it is easy to offer alternative views  -  especially if one googled as much as he does.

Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!

It's interesting that it is the Christians here that sneer at doing research.