More than periodically we are confronted with the claim that Islam is a violent religion. Two issues seem to drive this response: violent jihad and honor killings (or other forms of "justice"). I have had to confront this in my own Sunday school class.
My first thought is always that honor killings, at least, are not a part of Islamic culture but are a hang over from the tribal culture in some areas where Islam predominates. I strongly suspect that violent interpretations of Jihad can be traced to the similar sources. This is not to deny that Muslim writings do not contain verses that can be used to support of atrocities. They may even be more common than in Christian writings. However, there are enough calls to stoning or polygamy in the Christian scriptures that the fact we manage to ignore them indicates that human kind is not in thrall to Law. We pick and chose. Which parts of the Quran are ignored in Indonesia or Nigeria?
Given that Islam grew and evolved within certain cultural milieu, how has Christianity's historical path affected its current "culture"? Was there a specific difference between spreading through the cultures of 7th/8th C North Africa, Middle East and Asia Minor versus spreading in 1st-4th C Roman Empire? A difference between conquering local populations versus "co-opting" the Imperial machinery?
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Friday, April 22, 2011
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
QOD - Situational Piety
"On land I worship Christ, but at sea I worship Thor."
Helgi the Lean, early Icelandic settler
Thursday, January 28, 2010
I love Christian Book Stores
First let me say that the Family Christian Book Store is lame-o-city! It's almost as if the aisles are extra wide because there are too many books that they are afraid to stock. Now, admittedly, I was there looking for Jim McGrath's The Burial of Jesus. One look told me that I was not going to find it. But I thought I would poke around anyway.
There, right next to the study guides, was the Apologetics section. They are still peddling Josh McDowell, he he. But The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict could not distract from the glory that is One Minute Answers to Skeptics ...
What do they do with the 58 seconds after muttering, "Is, too!"
There, right next to the study guides, was the Apologetics section. They are still peddling Josh McDowell, he he. But The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict could not distract from the glory that is One Minute Answers to Skeptics ...
What do they do with the 58 seconds after muttering, "Is, too!"
Friday, January 25, 2008
A Child-Like Faith
This is yet another example of why Dr. James McGrath is one of my favorite bloggers.
A child-like faith, on the other hand, is not one that simply accepts everything - those who think it means that have presumably forgotten what it was like to be children. On the contrary, a child-like faith will be simple and honest, and blurt out that the emperor has no clothes on when all the adult adherents of Biblical inerrancy, or imperial clothedness, are quietly persisting in denial.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
The Huckster
While driving to work this morning, my wife called me on the cell phone. She wanted to know if I had herad Mike Huckabee's interview on NPR just then. I had caught the end of it while flipping stations. The portion I heard involved Huckabee decrying the damage done by 527 organizations to the candidate they are intended to help. My lovely partner was impressed with how he not only talked sense but just how genial and nice he came across. I agreed, of course. Not only because she is right 95% of the time but because Huckabee is very charming in an interview.
Rewind to Christmas 2007. Mike Huckabee's famous reason-for-the-season ad and the bookcase. Some pointed out that the lit portions of the bookcase in the background were intended to not-so-subtly superimpose a cross with the candidates image. On MSNBC's Morning Joe program, Huckabee laughed it off claiming that he was also blinking a secret message to Evangelicals in Morse Code. He was very witty, charming and earnest through it all.
It was during that interview that my highly attuned Manipulation Alarm (patent pending) started going off. Yes, Mike Huckabee is cute and probably a sincere and nice guy. Bowling anyone? That said, it is apparent that he is also a skilled speaker and has honed his ability to disarm critics over his whole life. No one is this glib by accident. Even if unconsciously (he's no Romney), Mike Huckabee has probably learned that he will be more successful if he can lull people into a less defensive posture by appearing witty and charming. He bumps up against the line of Slick so tightly that you can barely see daylight through the gap.
Okay. So I am pathologically sensitive to being manipulated. I am too sensitive. Perhaps, but I refuse to believe that his campaign staff was so obtuse and unprofessional that they did not notice a giant glowing cross in their Xmas video. I also point you to his squirrelly Fair Tax plan of replacing the income tax with a 25%+ national sales tax and monthly rebate checks to every citizen while claiming that the current system is too bureaucratic and susceptible to fraud.
Finally I draw your attention to the item below. Even if your are not scared shitless by the prospect of amending the U.S. Constitution to bring it in line with Washington's view of God's Will, the fact that Huckabee is tossing this red meat to his theocratic supporters ought to expose his aw-shucks farm boy routine for the act that it is. Huckabee is a politician and play acting in a politician, while common, is no virtue.
Rewind to Christmas 2007. Mike Huckabee's famous reason-for-the-season ad and the bookcase. Some pointed out that the lit portions of the bookcase in the background were intended to not-so-subtly superimpose a cross with the candidates image. On MSNBC's Morning Joe program, Huckabee laughed it off claiming that he was also blinking a secret message to Evangelicals in Morse Code. He was very witty, charming and earnest through it all.
It was during that interview that my highly attuned Manipulation Alarm (patent pending) started going off. Yes, Mike Huckabee is cute and probably a sincere and nice guy. Bowling anyone? That said, it is apparent that he is also a skilled speaker and has honed his ability to disarm critics over his whole life. No one is this glib by accident. Even if unconsciously (he's no Romney), Mike Huckabee has probably learned that he will be more successful if he can lull people into a less defensive posture by appearing witty and charming. He bumps up against the line of Slick so tightly that you can barely see daylight through the gap.
Okay. So I am pathologically sensitive to being manipulated. I am too sensitive. Perhaps, but I refuse to believe that his campaign staff was so obtuse and unprofessional that they did not notice a giant glowing cross in their Xmas video. I also point you to his squirrelly Fair Tax plan of replacing the income tax with a 25%+ national sales tax and monthly rebate checks to every citizen while claiming that the current system is too bureaucratic and susceptible to fraud.
Finally I draw your attention to the item below. Even if your are not scared shitless by the prospect of amending the U.S. Constitution to bring it in line with Washington's view of God's Will, the fact that Huckabee is tossing this red meat to his theocratic supporters ought to expose his aw-shucks farm boy routine for the act that it is. Huckabee is a politician and play acting in a politician, while common, is no virtue.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Needs More God?
I admit that I was intrigued with Mike Huckabee. Maybe a "real" Christian - you know, one who cares about the poor and junk - would show all those nut jobs how Jesus meant for it to be done.
Now it turns out that Huckabee is going around saying that the United States Constitution should be amended to come into line with "God's standards." He just lost me big time! Even the blog at Christianity Today is taken aback.
The sad thing is that he is so glib and witty that he will try to laugh it off on al the cable shows.
Now it turns out that Huckabee is going around saying that the United States Constitution should be amended to come into line with "God's standards." He just lost me big time! Even the blog at Christianity Today is taken aback.
The sad thing is that he is so glib and witty that he will try to laugh it off on al the cable shows.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
A Virtue
"What on earth gives Christians [the] right to assume that love and self-sacrifice have to be called Christian virtues? They are virtues, full stop."
Philip Pullman, quoted in Christianity Today
Philip Pullman, quoted in Christianity Today
Monday, April 9, 2007
Pillars
Just noticed that the citation from Luke 8:49-55 in my previous post lists the disciples whom
Jesus trusted to enter Jairus' house to witness a dead-raising and that they are none other than Peter, John and James - later identified by Paul in Galatians as "those reputed to be pillars." Nice tie in, Luke!
One could argue that Luke was working from Paul's letter, that he had personal knowledge, that the names of the pillars were generally known, or that these names were part of the legends surrounding the Jerusalem church that later circulated at the end of the first century. Not too hard to guess who will make which claim, right?
In any case, this is an interesting connection that I never hit upon before.
Jesus trusted to enter Jairus' house to witness a dead-raising and that they are none other than Peter, John and James - later identified by Paul in Galatians as "those reputed to be pillars." Nice tie in, Luke!
One could argue that Luke was working from Paul's letter, that he had personal knowledge, that the names of the pillars were generally known, or that these names were part of the legends surrounding the Jerusalem church that later circulated at the end of the first century. Not too hard to guess who will make which claim, right?
In any case, this is an interesting connection that I never hit upon before.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
On Resurection
Just listened to a sermon including the claim that the idea of a person raising from the dead was so alien to the Jesus' followers that they would ignore the Jesus' repeated claims that he do just that - raise from the dead. The problem with this argument is that there are well-known cases in both the Jewish scriptures and Jesus' ministry of people coming back to life. In fact, in at least one case, the chief Apostles accompany Jesus when the miracle occurs. A quick search on BibleGateway.com reveals five cases of the dead raising prior to Easter.
1 Kings 17:19-23 Elijah raises the son of a widow at Zarephath
There was further claim in this sermon that the Marys' and Apostles' assumption that Jesus' body would be found in the tomb was good evidence that the Resurrection was historical. A better interpretation is that it is actually evidence for the later addition to the story once Jesus return in Glory to overthrow the Roman occupation failed to occur. You see, the disciples more likely were very much expecting Jesus to be Resurrected and return to bring about a Messianic reign. When it did not occur, that was when they became disappointed. Some sort of appearances later (I'm betting on a series of visions, like Paul's) rekindled the ministry with a new purpose and direction and the empty tomb and Resurrection stories were added to the Passion narrative. Can't prove this but it demonstrates this bit of purported evidence can be explained with an equally (if not more) plausible series of events.
1 Kings 17:19-23 Elijah raises the son of a widow at Zarephath
19 "Give me your son," Elijah replied. He took him from her arms, carried him to the upper room where he was staying, and laid him on his bed. 20 Then he cried out to the LORD, "O LORD my God, have you brought tragedy also upon this widow I am staying with, by causing her son to die?" 21 Then he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried to the LORD, "O LORD my God, let this boy's life return to him!"2 Kings 4:32-35 Elisha raises the son of the Shunammite woman
22 The LORD heard Elijah's cry, and the boy's life returned to him, and he lived. 23 Elijah picked up the child and carried him down from the room into the house. He gave him to his mother and said, "Look, your son is alive!"
When Elisha reached the house, there was the boy lying dead on his couch. 33 He went in, shut the door on the two of them and prayed to the LORD. 34 Then he got on the bed and lay upon the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As he stretched himself out upon him, the boy's body grew warm. 35 Elisha turned away and walked back and forth in the room and then got on the bed and stretched out upon him once more. The boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes.2 Kings 13:21 A corpse comes to life upon touching Elisha's bones
21 Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man's body into Elisha's tomb. When the body touched Elisha's bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.Luke 7:12-15 Jesus raises a widows only son
12As he approached the town gate, a dead person was being carried out—the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the town was with her. 13When the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her and he said, "Don't cry."Luke 8:49-55 Jesus raises Jairus' daughter
14Then he went up and touched the coffin, and those carrying it stood still. He said, "Young man, I say to you, get up!" 15The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother.
51When he arrived at the house of Jairus, he did not let anyone go in with him except Peter, John and James, and the child's father and mother. 52Meanwhile, all the people were wailing and mourning for her. "Stop wailing," Jesus said. "She is not dead but asleep."John 11:38-44 Jesus raises Lazarus.
53They laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. 54But he took her by the hand and said, "My child, get up!" 55Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up. Then Jesus told them to give her something to eat.
38Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39"Take away the stone," he said.Even if none of Jesus' disciples were familiar with the Jewish scriptures (as if!) they would have witnessed Jesus raising at least three individuals from the dead. If you take these stories at face value, then the possibility of resurrection, especially when Jesus was involved, would have been very immediate and real.
"But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days."
40Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"
41So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me."
43When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" 44The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Jesus said to them, "Take off the grave clothes and let him go."
There was further claim in this sermon that the Marys' and Apostles' assumption that Jesus' body would be found in the tomb was good evidence that the Resurrection was historical. A better interpretation is that it is actually evidence for the later addition to the story once Jesus return in Glory to overthrow the Roman occupation failed to occur. You see, the disciples more likely were very much expecting Jesus to be Resurrected and return to bring about a Messianic reign. When it did not occur, that was when they became disappointed. Some sort of appearances later (I'm betting on a series of visions, like Paul's) rekindled the ministry with a new purpose and direction and the empty tomb and Resurrection stories were added to the Passion narrative. Can't prove this but it demonstrates this bit of purported evidence can be explained with an equally (if not more) plausible series of events.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
The Trap
One of the annoying things about attending church when you are an ex-Christian is that all your old habits of action and thought come back all too readily.
When I first decided to join the choir at my wife’s United Methodist church, I had to decide whether I would “pretend” to be a believer or not. When the first opportunity to participate in the Eucharist (notice the effortless use of Episcopal terminology) came, I decided NOT to take communion and had to stand there in the choir loft and let all the other singers squeeze past me. That was going to look odd if it happened every month. I was attending this church to not only provide my children a united parental front (my wife and I had already settled on the fact that the kids would be raised with church, with me or otherwise) but also to do some soft networking in preparation for the coming Generational Crisis. Anyway, it was then that I decided that I was in for the proverbial pound rather than pretending I could limit the cost to a penny. I started tithing, taking communion, and reciting the Apostle’s Creed and Lord’s Prayer. I had been a devout Episcopalian (oxymoron?) from the ages of about 14 to 20, so I knew and was comfortable with all the “moves” required during a liturgical worship service.
Perhaps activating those long quiet mental pathways have caused other disused parts of my brain to re-awaken. It all started this past Palm Sunday. The choir has been all psyched for Holy Week, with big plans for a Maundy Thursday service, three pieces on Easter itself, brass instrumentation, etc… I arrived at the church for the early service assuming that such an important Sunday (again, that Episcopalian outlook) would call for everyone to sing during both services instead of the usual one. Instead, I found that no one else got this message. Then I thought, “Hey! That is a dinky little anthem we’re doing today!” A little let down, I took my place in the choir loft, did the Creed and Confession and waited through the “announcements.”
Now, normally I find the idea that the service comes to a screeching halt so they can announce a bake sale before proceeding to the Prayer’s a little weird. But on Palm Sunday they have something special in mind… They have the instructor for the new Aerobics Class come to the lectern and speak! It goes Hymn, Apostle’s Creed, Confession of Sins, Hand Bells, Aerobics, and Lord’s Prayer. As they used to sing on Sesame Street, “One of these is not like the others. One of these things just isn’t the same.”
After church my wife and I bemoan the fact that it is almost impossible to maintain an worshipful atmosphere when the minister tells Bama jokes and encourages people to leave the sanctuary during the final hymn if they have anything important to do before Sunday School starts!
“Wait a minute,” you say, “aren’t you an Atheist?” What the hell am I doing complaining about the worship service when I view its basis as a pack of delusions? Now you see my dilemma. By choosing to become a crypto-skeptic I am being sucked back into thinking like a Christian. I find this a little annoying, but I also realize it is something I will have to learn to live with. This is why I have come to think of myself as an ex-Christian rather than a simple Atheist – can’t escape my upbringing. Still trying to squelch the urge to leap to my feet during sermons to scream, “That just isn’t true!!”
P.S.: For those of you who are thinking, “Perhaps it is really God trying to get through to you but you are just too stubborn to acknowledge His Call”. Yeah, right. As I like to say, God knows where I live if He wants me. And He presumably knows what it will take to reach me. Hell, He put out for Thomas. I think I deserve no less.
When I first decided to join the choir at my wife’s United Methodist church, I had to decide whether I would “pretend” to be a believer or not. When the first opportunity to participate in the Eucharist (notice the effortless use of Episcopal terminology) came, I decided NOT to take communion and had to stand there in the choir loft and let all the other singers squeeze past me. That was going to look odd if it happened every month. I was attending this church to not only provide my children a united parental front (my wife and I had already settled on the fact that the kids would be raised with church, with me or otherwise) but also to do some soft networking in preparation for the coming Generational Crisis. Anyway, it was then that I decided that I was in for the proverbial pound rather than pretending I could limit the cost to a penny. I started tithing, taking communion, and reciting the Apostle’s Creed and Lord’s Prayer. I had been a devout Episcopalian (oxymoron?) from the ages of about 14 to 20, so I knew and was comfortable with all the “moves” required during a liturgical worship service.
Perhaps activating those long quiet mental pathways have caused other disused parts of my brain to re-awaken. It all started this past Palm Sunday. The choir has been all psyched for Holy Week, with big plans for a Maundy Thursday service, three pieces on Easter itself, brass instrumentation, etc… I arrived at the church for the early service assuming that such an important Sunday (again, that Episcopalian outlook) would call for everyone to sing during both services instead of the usual one. Instead, I found that no one else got this message. Then I thought, “Hey! That is a dinky little anthem we’re doing today!” A little let down, I took my place in the choir loft, did the Creed and Confession and waited through the “announcements.”
Now, normally I find the idea that the service comes to a screeching halt so they can announce a bake sale before proceeding to the Prayer’s a little weird. But on Palm Sunday they have something special in mind… They have the instructor for the new Aerobics Class come to the lectern and speak! It goes Hymn, Apostle’s Creed, Confession of Sins, Hand Bells, Aerobics, and Lord’s Prayer. As they used to sing on Sesame Street, “One of these is not like the others. One of these things just isn’t the same.”
After church my wife and I bemoan the fact that it is almost impossible to maintain an worshipful atmosphere when the minister tells Bama jokes and encourages people to leave the sanctuary during the final hymn if they have anything important to do before Sunday School starts!
“Wait a minute,” you say, “aren’t you an Atheist?” What the hell am I doing complaining about the worship service when I view its basis as a pack of delusions? Now you see my dilemma. By choosing to become a crypto-skeptic I am being sucked back into thinking like a Christian. I find this a little annoying, but I also realize it is something I will have to learn to live with. This is why I have come to think of myself as an ex-Christian rather than a simple Atheist – can’t escape my upbringing. Still trying to squelch the urge to leap to my feet during sermons to scream, “That just isn’t true!!”
P.S.: For those of you who are thinking, “Perhaps it is really God trying to get through to you but you are just too stubborn to acknowledge His Call”. Yeah, right. As I like to say, God knows where I live if He wants me. And He presumably knows what it will take to reach me. Hell, He put out for Thomas. I think I deserve no less.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Sweet Charity
The Rev. Franklin Graham, as quoted by Katy Pownall, AP:
I remember an office mate (stop me if I have told this story before) who was involved with church affiliated youth home. She really cared for those children and worked tirelessly. One day, after enlisting some assistance (or was it a donation?) from another co-worker, she thanked him for his support. His reply floored me. He said, "Anything to stop another abortion." He didn't give a rat's ass about those abandoned and abused kids. There was no Love there. All he was interested in was scoring points with Jesus.
70-80% of the US population considers itself "Christian." Almost half of these are what George Barna calls Notional Christians - they like the idea of God and being Christian but it has no real impact on the way they live their lives. Fair enough. Intuitively, that feels right. He divides the rest into Born Agains and Evangelicals by what they claim to believe (Biblical accuracy, belief in Satan, etc) - as good a method as any, I suppose. The elite group is the Evangelicals at a mere 7% of those surveyed and adhering to the strictest set of beliefs. I am pretty sure that my Mr. Holier-Than-Thou, above, made the cut. My point here is that if Mr H-T-T represents the most "serious" group of believers , than it is time for sensible people to re-examine the special status we routinely grant Faith in our public discourse and start calling a spade a spade.
Alternatively, Mr Barna may be ideologically blinded and his precious little Evangelicals (along with the "Reverend" Franklin and "Saint" Paul) represent the group farthest away from what their Creator intended. If this is the case, all those Notional Christians were right all along in demonstrating that love and compassion do not require absolute adherence to the Nicene Creed. Of course, if that is the case, what exactly do we need Religion for?
"I want to help people physically, I want to help them with their hurt, with their pain, but I want to do that so I can tell them about God's son, Jesus Christ. The conversion we do is through persuasion, through reasoning. ... They will receive material help from us regardless.''Forget everything you have been told about Christian Love. There are Christians out there doing wonderful works out of a pure desire to help their fellow man, but the credit goes to Human Nature not the the influence of Religion. This quote exposes the twisted logic of evangelism which, starting with Paul, has lied, deceived, tricked and eventually tortured people into Believing. Another notch on the crucifix!
I remember an office mate (stop me if I have told this story before) who was involved with church affiliated youth home. She really cared for those children and worked tirelessly. One day, after enlisting some assistance (or was it a donation?) from another co-worker, she thanked him for his support. His reply floored me. He said, "Anything to stop another abortion." He didn't give a rat's ass about those abandoned and abused kids. There was no Love there. All he was interested in was scoring points with Jesus.
70-80% of the US population considers itself "Christian." Almost half of these are what George Barna calls Notional Christians - they like the idea of God and being Christian but it has no real impact on the way they live their lives. Fair enough. Intuitively, that feels right. He divides the rest into Born Agains and Evangelicals by what they claim to believe (Biblical accuracy, belief in Satan, etc) - as good a method as any, I suppose. The elite group is the Evangelicals at a mere 7% of those surveyed and adhering to the strictest set of beliefs. I am pretty sure that my Mr. Holier-Than-Thou, above, made the cut. My point here is that if Mr H-T-T represents the most "serious" group of believers , than it is time for sensible people to re-examine the special status we routinely grant Faith in our public discourse and start calling a spade a spade.
Alternatively, Mr Barna may be ideologically blinded and his precious little Evangelicals (along with the "Reverend" Franklin and "Saint" Paul) represent the group farthest away from what their Creator intended. If this is the case, all those Notional Christians were right all along in demonstrating that love and compassion do not require absolute adherence to the Nicene Creed. Of course, if that is the case, what exactly do we need Religion for?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The J-C Bomb
Christians and Jews
Judeo-Christian
Christian and Jewish
How many times have we heard these phrases used as if the two were perfectly compatible and complimentary, especially when contrasting Us against the Muslim Them. Or the Mormon. In light of Mitt Romney’s Presidential campaign, this article by Richard John Neuhaus is making the rounds in the blogosphere. In it Rev Neuhaus uses some formulation of these stock phrases but, more specifically, writes the following:
On what planet does Christianity not replace/supersede/obsolete Judaism? Only with eyes squinting nearly shut can you claim that Jesus (threw out the Jewish divorce laws) or Paul (threw out any reasonable interpretation of the Law completely) were only fulfilling the Torah. Ask a Jew if Christianity fulfills the Torah and see what answer you get.
Now, there are plenty of liberal “Christians” out there who view Judaism as an equally valid way of experiencing God. Unfortunately, the Rev Neuhaus’ Catholic Church and your average Evangelical are sending these Episcopalians to the same Hell they have reserved for the Jews. It is disingenuous in the extreme to adopt beliefs that invalidate 80% of what it means to be Jewish and denies them salvation and at the same time complain that Mormonism is too radically different from Christianity to remain a part of it.
The Judeo-Christian alliance works only so long as the Jewish participants don’t get too uppity and point out that their partner is only using them as a loincloth to cover their “anti-Semitism”. Or, were there ever any Jews in the alliance to begin with? Are people who like to drop the J-C bomb desperately trying to cling to the idea that their religion is based on anything more than a failed Galilean insurgent rabbi and a frustrated Cilician hanger-on.
Judeo-Christian
Christian and Jewish
How many times have we heard these phrases used as if the two were perfectly compatible and complimentary, especially when contrasting Us against the Muslim Them. Or the Mormon. In light of Mitt Romney’s Presidential campaign, this article by Richard John Neuhaus is making the rounds in the blogosphere. In it Rev Neuhaus uses some formulation of these stock phrases but, more specifically, writes the following:
Some have suggested that the LDS is a Christian derivative much as Christianity is a Jewish derivative, but that is surely wrong. The claim of Christianity is that its gospel of Jesus Christ is in thorough continuity with the Old Testament and historic Israel, that the Church is the New Israel, which means that it is the fulfillment of the promise that Israel would be "a light to the nations." The Church condemned Marcion’s rejection of the Old Testament, and she never presumed to rewrite or correct the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of a new revelation. On the contrary, she insisted that the entirety of the old covenant bears witness to the new.
On what planet does Christianity not replace/supersede/obsolete Judaism? Only with eyes squinting nearly shut can you claim that Jesus (threw out the Jewish divorce laws) or Paul (threw out any reasonable interpretation of the Law completely) were only fulfilling the Torah. Ask a Jew if Christianity fulfills the Torah and see what answer you get.
Now, there are plenty of liberal “Christians” out there who view Judaism as an equally valid way of experiencing God. Unfortunately, the Rev Neuhaus’ Catholic Church and your average Evangelical are sending these Episcopalians to the same Hell they have reserved for the Jews. It is disingenuous in the extreme to adopt beliefs that invalidate 80% of what it means to be Jewish and denies them salvation and at the same time complain that Mormonism is too radically different from Christianity to remain a part of it.
The Judeo-Christian alliance works only so long as the Jewish participants don’t get too uppity and point out that their partner is only using them as a loincloth to cover their “anti-Semitism”. Or, were there ever any Jews in the alliance to begin with? Are people who like to drop the J-C bomb desperately trying to cling to the idea that their religion is based on anything more than a failed Galilean insurgent rabbi and a frustrated Cilician hanger-on.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Gospel Truth?
A follow up to my previous post.
James, "the brother of the Lord," was no Christian.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the actions of James as portrayed in The Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and other early church writings is that the understanding of Jesus held by the Jerusalem church was radically different from that we have from Paul and have inherited as Orthodoxy. James' ruling in the Council of Jerusalem was, in effect, that Paul's Gentile converts must keep the same Noahide Laws that uncircumcised "God Fearers" had been required to keep for years. James was maintaining the status quo vis-a-vis Jew and Gentile. There was no "equality in Christ." He still considered himself and all the other members of the Jerusalem church as fully Jewish. He makes a point of how zealous his followers are for the Temple. When Paul arrives in Jerusalem, James even forces Paul to make a public show of visiting the Temple. Does this sound like a "Christian" church as we know it or more like a sect of Judaism.
One might argue that James was not one of the Apostles and that members of Jesus family did not understand his mission: But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor." (Mark 6:4). Now Peter is portrayed as such a muddled wimp in both the Gospels and the Epistles that one would not expect him to prevent a power play by a relative of Jesus. But what about the "Pillar" John? It strains credulity that James would have been allowed by the Holy-Spirit-led "True" Apostles to rise to the leadership of the group had he not been a long time follower of Jesus.
Now, we have a brother (or cousin, if you are Catholic) of Jesus chosen to lead the Home Church. What happens when James is murdered by the Chief Priests? Who takes over as head of the Jerusalem Church? Is it one of the Apostles? No? Perhaps they were all busy being martyred somewhere. Actually, the church chooses cousin Simeon, another relative of Jesus, as the second Bishop of Jerusalem. They keep it in the family?! Very curious and not at all what one would expect given the Universalist Theology that Paul is selling in Asia and Rome.
This all raises a question: Who would understand Jesus intentions better - those who knew him his entire life and followed him in his ministry? Or, Paul who never met Jesus and even claims to have spent the first three years as a Christian in Arabia, avoiding those who had known Jesus personally?
James, "the brother of the Lord," was no Christian.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the actions of James as portrayed in The Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and other early church writings is that the understanding of Jesus held by the Jerusalem church was radically different from that we have from Paul and have inherited as Orthodoxy. James' ruling in the Council of Jerusalem was, in effect, that Paul's Gentile converts must keep the same Noahide Laws that uncircumcised "God Fearers" had been required to keep for years. James was maintaining the status quo vis-a-vis Jew and Gentile. There was no "equality in Christ." He still considered himself and all the other members of the Jerusalem church as fully Jewish. He makes a point of how zealous his followers are for the Temple. When Paul arrives in Jerusalem, James even forces Paul to make a public show of visiting the Temple. Does this sound like a "Christian" church as we know it or more like a sect of Judaism.
One might argue that James was not one of the Apostles and that members of Jesus family did not understand his mission: But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor." (Mark 6:4). Now Peter is portrayed as such a muddled wimp in both the Gospels and the Epistles that one would not expect him to prevent a power play by a relative of Jesus. But what about the "Pillar" John? It strains credulity that James would have been allowed by the Holy-Spirit-led "True" Apostles to rise to the leadership of the group had he not been a long time follower of Jesus.
Now, we have a brother (or cousin, if you are Catholic) of Jesus chosen to lead the Home Church. What happens when James is murdered by the Chief Priests? Who takes over as head of the Jerusalem Church? Is it one of the Apostles? No? Perhaps they were all busy being martyred somewhere. Actually, the church chooses cousin Simeon, another relative of Jesus, as the second Bishop of Jerusalem. They keep it in the family?! Very curious and not at all what one would expect given the Universalist Theology that Paul is selling in Asia and Rome.
This all raises a question: Who would understand Jesus intentions better - those who knew him his entire life and followed him in his ministry? Or, Paul who never met Jesus and even claims to have spent the first three years as a Christian in Arabia, avoiding those who had known Jesus personally?
Gospel Truth
The minister at the church I attend has been saying some things in about the Bible that I found a little hard to swallow so I sat down and read the four Gospels, Acts and the "credible" Epistles. Haven't caught the guy in any fabrications - for now - but found it interesting.
- The writing in the Gospel of John is terrible! I couldn't have forced down one more "I am with the Father, I came from the Father, You do not know the father because you do not come from the Father...".
- The parables are dense on purpose. Jesus was not trying to teach anyone with those parables. He told his disciples that he uses parables so that the people will not understand. Then he goes off and teaches the disciples the Truth plainly but in private. No wonder the Gnostics all believed there were secret teachings. The Synoptic Gospels state quite plainly that they existed. Now, one might argue that the Apostles shared the True Teachings they had learned directly from Jesus but we don't have any reliable records of these.
- I like Paul's letters. The voice is so personal. They provide a link to a flesh and blood personality from 2000 years ago. Not that I take everything he says at face value, but at least the writing is less academic than the Gospels and Acts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)