Jesus was the first peace-loving liberal.... - Page 2

[hotmamacita]

Originally Posted by Rainbow

I know what you mean, the sermon on the mount is utterly beautiful. If he actually lived, he taught compassion for sure.
I definately agree with you that his life "theme" if you will was a beautiful one, but there are some aspects I think are non-liberal. If you accept the trinity, that Jesus and God are distinct yet one you have to accept that he has non-liberal aspects to him. Including exclusiveness. Liberalism is all about inclusiveness. I mean the entire base of Christianity is on an exclusive God to the Israelites by birth.

Okay, I see where you are coming from. But I don't agree with the post-modern interpretation of Scripture.

Ookay this is going to be crude but I am typing fast and can't cite anything for you...

See, God creates adam and eve, right? They are the first and only race--the human race. They, their children, their children's children, and so on--all have the freedom to trust and lvoe God or not. Period. Those that followed God were termed Israelites. Israel means God. Those that didn't became gentiles.

Man and society created races and division. The Bible later addresses that in many old and new testament stories.

Okay, I gotta go. My time is up, IYKWIM. DIAPER time. I hope this makes some sense.

Oh, I have been burned by Christians so awfully you'd cry. Thank God that Jesus is not defined by his followers. There have been times where I haven't been able to step near a church. There have been times where I have gone b/c I want to worship God despite my anger at people. And there are rare times where I exprience deep fellowship with people. I am thankful for those times. I never know what each week will bring, though. Only God is faithful.

[Elzabet]

Originally Posted by hotmamacita

Oh, I have been burned by Christians so awfully you'd cry. Thank God that Jesus is not defined by his followers. There have been times where I haven't been able to step near a church. There have been times where I have gone b/c I want to worship God despite my anger at people. And there are rare times where I exprience deep fellowship with people. I am thankful for those times. I never know what each week will bring, though. Only God is faithful.

Thank God that Jesus is not defined by his followers. Only God is faithful.

So well said.

[Artisan]

I agree with the idea that both liberals and conservatives would have difficulty with Jesus's ideas. The idea that Christianity should be used to support a modern conservative political rhetoric would bother him greatly, I think. Look at who Jesus associated himself with. It was NOT with the powerful, rich, mighty, and respected of his day. He made it his mission to heal the sick, forgive the unforgivable, and love those who no one else would love. Hardly fits with many Republican ideas related to social policy in the US.

However, I also think liberals would have a difficult time. Jesus taught that there are moral absolutes, there is one path to salvation, and there are standards to live by. He was not an "Everyone do what you feel like and I won't judge you" kind of person.

[candiland]

Hmmm..... very interesting, ladies.

It gives me a lot of food for thought.

Shantimom, just for the record, I would never use "Jesus" to say "Na, na, na, NA, na! I'm right and you're wrong!" It's just that from my own understanding - which is limited, I will be the first to admit - I don't think Jesus would be into megaconglorporations, global politics, Dems or Repubs, whatever word you want to insert in there.

I would assume that most of what gov't stands for nowadays would really turn Him off. That's what I meant by my original post.

FTR, I do believe in Jesus and Christianity. I also believe in a lot of what religious and spiritual teachers from around the world taught. It is, in essence, the same message. I guess it will take a lot of time for humanity's consciousness to be raised to the point where we will not harm one another - eye for an eye, so to speak; where we will not judge and condemn; and where we won't legislate morals through a punitive justice system. I just feel that if the Rapture came, Bush and Co. would certainly not be riding the wave of peace, love, and purity. And I'm confused as to why people really believe that they are "good", God-loving ppl.

[Rainbow]

Originally Posted by hotmamacita

See, God creates adam and eve, right? They are the first and only race--the human race. They, their children, their children's children, and so on--all have the freedom to trust and lvoe God or not. Period. Those that followed God were termed Israelites. Israel means God. Those that didn't became gentiles.

People were born into the chosen group though- one couldn't convert to being an Israelite. kwim? I could be mistaken on that, but that is how I have always understood it. You had your Israelites, your egypttians, your babylonians... it wasn't a religion that anyone could take part in- it was a cultural group based on birth.
This isn't the only thing that I'm not fond of in Jesus' ministry. There was much good, but there was also a dark side. Yes, he taught some peace but he also taught some things that did not incite peace. I can't see him as the first peace loving liberal. Some other examples of why I think there was both dark and light in his teachings:


Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword.
Luke 19:27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.'
Luke 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not [himself], neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many [stripes].
Matthew 10:35 For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'
Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."
Luke 22:51-53 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Luke 9:59-62 And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.



I just want you to know though, that I am not trying to deny you your right to view him in a liberal and peace loving light. I believe it is admirable for Christians to view him as liberal- because it allows them to have a more open mind to liberal views of our day. I definately think there were liberal aspects to the biblical Jesus. I only disagree to some extent based on my own reading. I honor your right to disagree with that, and I appreciate the wonderful, calm, discussion we've been able to have about this hotmamacita!

[hotmamacita]

Me too rainbow. I TOTALLY respect your posts and I am deeply thankful for your honest heart. Let me just say that you have an OPEN invitation in my home, anytime! I don't feel any judgement or attempt to control from you.

YOU ARE RIGHT, imho, he wasn't a peace-lovin' liberal. (I didn't intend to imply that I thought that) Again, postmodernism has brought us that. But that doesn't mean he is racist. Or that God is racist. Or that Jesus Christ will not bring Peace to us one day.

And the scripture you quoted? Right on. You hit the nail on the head. He pisses people off. He is divisive. Truth is divisive and I believe that Truth is more than a concept to be understood but a Person to be Known. But I find, Christ's goal is Love and Relationship and He invites ALL. Not some, but ALL.

Look, rainbow, the whole Gospel is crazy. If He did exist, and I believe He did, then He was either a Flippin' lunatic, a Liar, or LORD.

If He didn't exist, there are some pretty amazing fiction writers out there over thousands of years compiling the Bible somehow in coordination with each other to produce the most amazing tale of redemption and love that I have ever read. (and pre-twins, I read A lot!) Although, I am partial to Kafka.

Love,

[DaryLLL]

Originally Posted by hotmamacita

the whole Gospel is crazy. If He did exist, and I believe He did, then He was either a Flippin' lunatic, a Liar, or LORD.

That popular CS Lewis statement? Why only 3 options? It really misses the boat. IMO.

If He didn't exist, there are some pretty amazing fiction writers out there over thousands of years compiling the Bible somehow in coordination with each other to produce the most amazing tale of redemption and love that I have ever read.,

Now, the New Testament was written over only a couple-three hundred yrs, not thousands. The Tanakh was compiled after the exile to Babylon, ca 500 BCE, from some written and some oral sources. The Tanakh does not talk about Jesus the Christ, but about YHWH and the Hebrews. Let's not over-generalize and insult our Jewish friends. I see the gospel narratives as a midrash of Exodus, with a few psalms thrown in.

Biblical writers were not co-ordinated. Their opinions/visions/theories/theologies vary widely. Certain redactors (of both Hebrew and Greek scriptures) made the effort to harmonize them, but their efforts are transparent.

[Rainbow]

No, I don't think the bible is a racist book. Racism was the wrong word- I think I was going more for "exclusive" or "partial". There are many scriptures in the new testament about the chosen people being from every nation, tribe, and tongue. That first scripture I shared does bother me- but I do realize the overall theme of the NT is not a racist theme.

[hotmamacita]

Originally Posted by DaryLLL

That popular CS Lewis statement? Why only 3 options? It really misses the boat. IMO.

I didn't know it was a CS lewis statement. I've never read that statement anywhere. Regardless, I am interested to know where CS lewis wrote about it?

Now, the New Testament was written over only a couple-three hundred yrs, not thousands. The Tanakh was compiled after the exile to Babylon, ca 500 BCE, from some written and some oral sources. The Tanakh does not talk about Jesus the Christ, but about YHWH and the Hebrews. Let's not over-generalize and insult our Jewish friends. I see the gospel narratives as a midrash of Exodus, with a few psalms thrown in.

Biblical writers were not co-ordinated. Their opinions/visions/theories/theologies vary widely. Certain redactors (of both Hebrew and Greek scriptures) made the effort to harmonize them, but their efforts are transparent.

DaryLLL--c.mon. thousands was a typo and anyone who knows me here KNOWS i would not dare insult anyone who is jewish. I was saying that a bit tongue-in-cheek and I think you know that. And could you be any more condescending or patronizing?

But because you chose to make an issue of this, let me just say very clearly....

I AM NOT INTENDING TO INSULT ANYONE! Period.

And because I woke up on the wrong side of the bed, my dh has been gone for 4 weeks now and I got an hour and a half of sleep last night.....let me just say.....that I need to stop here in my response to you.

[hotmamacita]

Originally Posted by Rainbow

No, I don't think the bible is a racist book. Racism was the wrong word- I think I was going more for "exclusive" or "partial". There are many scriptures in the new testament about the chosen people being from every nation, tribe, and tongue. That first scripture I shared does bother me- but I do realize the overall theme of the NT is not a racist theme.

Yeah, it dows seem "exclusive" in that sense. The whole concept of, what men have termed, pre-destination, is something I have wrestled with for years.

The Matthew verse that bothers you? It IS a disturbing one. I'd love to know more about your insight and reaction. Are you up to a dialogue offline?

[hotmamacita]

i need a nap....double post...sorry.

[DaryLLL]

Hm, hotmama. Sorry, I was just offerring some facts and an opinion. Your tongue-in-cheekiness was not apparent to me. You seemed sincere.

I hope you get a great nap and get over your breast infection too!

I think you must have unconsciously picked up on the CS Lewis somewhere in your studies! Or you channeled it. Did a google, here is one pg about it. I didn't read this page, so do not know the final consensus of the author.

http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/trilemma.htm

[gossamer]

People were born into the chosen group though- one couldn't convert to being an Israelite.

I just wanted to point out a small error here. I believe that the whole story of Ruth and Naomi is about Ruth following her Mother in Law, who was an Isrealite, back to her land. From this book we get the famous quote "Whither thou goest, I will go. Your people will become my people". So my understanding has always been that one could convert to being an Isrealite, it was hard to, but you could. But few people ever WANTED to convert to being an Isrealite.
Gossamer

[merpk]

Saw the conversion post before but was trying to stay out of the thread, but will comment quickly ... conversion to being an Israelite/Jew has *always* been available to anyone who was sincerely interested in conversion.

Birth was the determining factor in an Israelite's status ... meaning a Levite or a Kohen, perhaps, and which tribe they were from ... but conversion in happened throughout the ages.

Not in great numbers, though ... it wasn't so easy to convert in the first place, and then after the exile, when the millenias of anti-Jewish oppressions began, what sort of crazy person would want to?

[hotmamacita]

Originally Posted by merpk

Saw the conversion post before but was trying to stay out of the thread, but will comment quickly ... conversion to being an Israelite/Jew has *always* been available to anyone who was sincerely interested in conversion.

Birth was the determining factor in an Israelite's status ... meaning a Levite or a Kohen, perhaps, and which tribe they were from ... but conversion in happened throughout the ages.

Not in great numbers, though ... it wasn't so easy to convert in the first place, and then after the exile, when the millenias of anti-Jewish oppressions began, what sort of crazy person would want to?

That would be ME. I was going to convert to Judaism when the whole issue of the Messiah came up. I had to look at who Christ was and after a long period of time of research and prayer to Yahweh, I decided to Believe in Jesus Christ.
Just my experience.

Thanks for clarifying Merpk. And I truly hope that I did not and have not offended you. If I have will you please PM me?

DaryLLL-- I am sorry I got so angry at you. I was wrong to let my temper get ahead of me and I am deeply sorry. I tend to disagree with how you post facts or opinion and rather than telling you privately, I blew up and I am sorry. I care more for you than that.

That said, I disagree that the Gospels are a midrash of exodus with some psalms thrown in. more on why, later...

And I disagree with your statement about certain 'redactors' There are plenty of biblical scholars who feel that there is a theme of relationship, love and messiahship consistent thoughout the Tanahk, Gospels, and Epistles. One can dare not say that I know their intentions or efforts. That is what struck me as condescending.

Channelling Lewis? he, he.... Remember how bent he was, prior to becoming a Believer, in disproving the Bible? He was a man on a mission and with Academia supporting Him. Then he read so much of the Bible and scholarship that he ended up Believing that Christ was the Messiah. And what followed for Lewis was a long series of books outlining his personal journey, His relationship with God, some incredible children's books, and some books on what it means to mature in Christ.


Anyway, I'll read that link when I can. I had no idea that Lewis said anything but then again, I haven't read all of his writings. He has so much prior and post-conversion to read.

I haven't had a nap yet. I am weary and discouraged today. I love my four children but I am just beginning to shut down but before I do....

Rainbow & others--I sure hope that you see my snippiness with DaryLLL as my humanness not as being a b*tchy Christian. I sure can be b*tchy but it is completely separate from my Faith. In fact, it is my Faith that calls me to love well beyond my b*tchiness. And, oh how often I fail--esp with dh, IYKWIM

okay, i am outta here. i don't want to get all b*tchy with my kids and need to redirect them. They are feeling my distance emotionally and I need to regroup and keep on going.

[Rainbow]

That was my mistake then- I knew when I posted that I might be mistaken so I said so

hmc- oh please, we are have our human times seriously... I don't think anyone took it as a reflection of your faith.

[DaryLLL]

Still waiting for that PM, hotmamacita. Whenever you feel up to it...