New Posts  All Forums:
 

Warriors for Christ? - Page 4

post #61 of 80
12/8/05 at 11:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfamilygal
The Bible talks about spiritual warfare multiple times. It also talks about putting on the full armor of God. That's probably what they are talking about. I went to a religious college that didn't have Greek life. We had "wings" instead. The girls wings had names like Virtue, Unity, Chosen, etc. The boys wings all had Christian names like Full Armor, Shekinah, etc. I think sometimes we think Christianity is wimpy (ie, all the pics of Jesus looking all gentle with pretty hair). We forget He tore up the Temple in a fit of wrath at seeing His Father's house used as a market. I know many men identify with the strong aspect of Christianity. Of course, for my dh being a "warrior for Christ" means prayer, servant leadership and self-sacrifice. I don't think it mean literally beating folks up or anything.
Thank you for posting this!

Kinda makes you wonder if Jesus was a terrorist huh????............
Sponsored Links

You may also like:

Sitting or Squatting: What's Really Best in the Bathroom?
10 Things You Don't Need For a New Baby
There Is Not Always a "Fix" For the Difficult Child
post #62 of 80
12/9/05 at 12:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfamilygal
The Bible talks about spiritual warfare multiple times. It also talks about putting on the full armor of God. That's probably what they are talking about. I went to a religious college that didn't have Greek life. We had "wings" instead. The girls wings had names like Virtue, Unity, Chosen, etc. The boys wings all had Christian names like Full Armor, Shekinah, etc. I think sometimes we think Christianity is wimpy (ie, all the pics of Jesus looking all gentle with pretty hair). We forget He tore up the Temple in a fit of wrath at seeing His Father's house used as a market. I know many men identify with the strong aspect of Christianity. Of course, for my dh being a "warrior for Christ" means prayer, servant leadership and self-sacrifice. I don't think it mean literally beating folks up or anything.
Ok Did you go to ORU? Because I did! When were you there? And what wing were you on?PM me if you want
post #63 of 80
12/9/05 at 4:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL
Revelation was acepted into the canon very late. Contested for centuries. The Catholic Church today does not hold to its authenticity as accurate history, or literal truth.
So let's see, we're supposed to ignore the entire old testament becuase it's just there for history(at least that's the argument I've got from christians when pointing out violent or hypocritial passages in the OT) and now parts of the NT as well? I remember reading that taking away parts of the book would result in god taking away your part in the book of life
post #64 of 80
12/9/05 at 4:10am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skellbelle
Um, John was one of Jesus's 12 disciples, so they certainly did meet.

Many Christians believe that his "dream" was actually prophecy.

Revelation is a fascinating book and IMO it is IMPOSSIBLE to interpret it correctly (without Divine intervention, anyway ) - I believe that it is meant to be somewhat of a mystery.
A few things.

1. John was not Christ's disciple. Different John.

2. If it's impossible to interpret it without divine intervention, why do so many people even bother trying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire
...iit does suggest a very healthy disgust toward people who turn religion into big business. Thank God that all Christian churches take that part of Christ's message to heart today. Cough.
Quote:
That's a rather broad statement.
You mean some Christian churches don't take that part of Christ's message to heart?
post #65 of 80
12/9/05 at 4:17am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penelope
Plus, peasant fishermen from Galilee are not all that likely to have been literate, and Revelation and the gospels are all polished works of literature.
It's not even all that polished. The Greek is badly done. Moreover, what's the likelihood that a Aramaic-speaking Jewish fisherman from Palestine is going to be speaking Greek (even bad Greek) and hanging out in Patmos? Oh, and living close to ninety years or so?


In the end, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
post #66 of 80
12/9/05 at 9:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire
A few things.

1. John was not Christ's disciple. Different John.

2. If it's impossible to interpret it without divine intervention, why do so many people even bother trying?

1. As I already stated, this has not been proven either way. There are conflicting opinions but no real evidence as far as I can see.

2. Well, obviously everyone wants the world to believe that THEY hold the "secret translation" to the Book of Revelation ... esp if they can profit from it.


Quote:
You mean some Christian churches don't take that part of Christ's message to heart?
Again, :

Lumping all Christian churches together like that is mean-spirited and childish. Not to mention inaccurate.
post #67 of 80
12/9/05 at 9:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire
Moreover, what's the likelihood that a Aramaic-speaking Jewish fisherman from Palestine is going to be speaking Greek (even bad Greek) and hanging out in Patmos?
He wasn't "hanging out" there; he was exiled to Patmos for his faith in Jesus Christ.


Quote:
Oh, and living close to ninety years or so?
What, you don't know anyone who lived into their nineties?


Quote:
In the end, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
Then why the need to make it all so complicated?
post #68 of 80
12/9/05 at 9:42am
Just reminding myself why we are talking about Revelation: b/c it contradicts Jesus' (mixed) message about peace and forgiveness.

My research shows that the "apocalypse" (Greek for revelation, ie: unveiling) as an encouraging message from God to uplift the spirits of those who found themselves persecuted for their faith, was an extremely popular literary form in the centuries just BCE and CE.

The Rev of John was the only one accepted into the canon b/c it was the only one not written obviously pseudonymously. We also have apocalypses from this era attributed to Abraham, Daniel, Ezra, Sedrach, Paul, two by Peter, and two by James.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
post #69 of 80
12/9/05 at 10:44am
A good intro text to the NT, called "The New Testament: Proclamation and Paranesis, Myth and History" has the following to say about the authorship of Revelation: "Was this apocalyptic prophet John, the son of Zebedee? The author of Revelatin never identifies himself as such. Nor does he refer to himself as a disciple or an apostle. ... When all of the difference in vocabulary and style between Revelation and the other Johannine literature are put into the mix, modern scholars agree .... that the Johnannine gospel and letters were not produced by the same person or persons who produced the Apocalypse. ... It is in theory still possible that John the son of Zebedee wrote Revelation because, in the modern view, John [son of Zebedee] did not write the gospel and letters. However, this position also has difficulties. ... Critics think that the Apocalypse was not an immediate transcription of visions just experienced but falls within a literary apocalyptic tradition that ... uses oral and written sources. This suggests that its composition was complex, not the sort of thing one would expect from a Galilean fisherman."

I'm happy to say responsible scholars do not think John the disciple wrote Revelation, and let you continue to dispute that, skellbelle. I just don't think there's any evidence to support what you're claiming here.
post #70 of 80
12/9/05 at 12:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penelope
I'm happy to say responsible scholars do not think John the disciple wrote Revelation, and let you continue to dispute that, skellbelle. I just don't think there's any evidence to support what you're claiming here.
Except for the evidence of her "tradition" which I posted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is sketchy to the point of being almost ridiculous.

But people's belief is not neccessarily based in fact. Many people who have studied Scripture have lost their childlike faith. Which is one reason it was illegal for laypeople to own Bibles for many centuries. Instead they were forced to rely on the interpretation offered by bishops and priests. Folks like Iraneus. Eusebius. Augustine. Who were actually quite confused themselves, but knew upon which side their political bread was buttered.
post #71 of 80
12/9/05 at 2:15pm
DaryLLL is right - we're getting sidetracked from the OP. I'll take my curtain call on this thread now.
post #72 of 80
12/9/05 at 2:40pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeThinkinMama
So let's see, we're supposed to ignore the entire old testament becuase it's just there for history(at least that's the argument I've got from christians when pointing out violent or hypocritial passages in the OT) and now parts of the NT as well? I remember reading that taking away parts of the book would result in god taking away your part in the book of life
How's this.

You're a Christian, right?

If you're a Christian, that means you are a follower of Christ.

That means that what Christ said is the most important stuff in the entire Bible. No one is more important than Christ.

Right?

That means that if Christ said X and the Old Testament said Y, and those ideas conflict, Christ's ideas win.

Example: Eye for an eye (Old) vs. turn the other cheek (New).

It's "cheek" by a landslide.

Right? Because what Christ said is the most important stuff in the whole Bible.

That means also that if Christ said X and Peter said Y and those ideas conflict, then Christ's ideas win because what Christ said is the most important stuff in the whole Bible.

Right?

This also means that if Christ said X and some religious leader is saying Y and those ideas conflict, then Christ's ideas win because .

Right?

Please, if I'm wrong, would you mind demonstrating how, because I've been all over this idea and I can't see how being a "Christian" could mean any other thing than what I've just said.

If you don't think Christ's ideas are the most important, or that what Peter said or John said is more important, that's fine -- but call yourself a Petrist or a Johnist, not a Christian. If the Old Testament is more important than the New, then call yourself a Mosaist, or if the first five books of the OT are the most important, call yourself Jewish or a Pentateuchist, but not a Christian.
post #73 of 80
12/9/05 at 2:43pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skellbelle


Then why the need to make it all so complicated?
I agree. Thanks for conceding.
post #74 of 80
12/9/05 at 2:46pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penelope
A good intro text to the NT, called "The New Testament: Proclamation and Paranesis, Myth and History" has the following to say about the authorship of Revelation: "Was this apocalyptic prophet John, the son of Zebedee? The author of Revelatin never identifies himself as such. Nor does he refer to himself as a disciple or an apostle. ... When all of the difference in vocabulary and style between Revelation and the other Johannine literature are put into the mix, modern scholars agree .... that the Johnannine gospel and letters were not produced by the same person or persons who produced the Apocalypse. ... It is in theory still possible that John the son of Zebedee wrote Revelation because, in the modern view, John [son of Zebedee] did not write the gospel and letters. However, this position also has difficulties. ... Critics think that the Apocalypse was not an immediate transcription of visions just experienced but falls within a literary apocalyptic tradition that ... uses oral and written sources. This suggests that its composition was complex, not the sort of thing one would expect from a Galilean fisherman."

I'm happy to say responsible scholars do not think John the disciple wrote Revelation, and let you continue to dispute that, skellbelle. I just don't think there's any evidence to support what you're claiming here.
I'd also like to add that in academia -- as in science *cough* -- something that is "just opinion" is not "just" opinion. Opinion is valid in science and academia IF and ONLY IF that opinion is based on the most valid evidence possible at the time. It's not something some bozo just pulled out of his ear, like the way regular joes mostly use the word "opinion." Or "theory."
post #75 of 80
12/9/05 at 6:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire
This also means that if Christ said X and some religious leader is saying Y and those ideas conflict, then Christ's ideas win because .

Right?

Please, if I'm wrong, would you mind demonstrating how, because I've been all over this idea and I can't see how being a "Christian" could mean any other thing than what I've just said.
CB, I like your passion and your questions but you are oversimplifying enormously.

You really can't take 3000 some yrs and scale it down to "just Jesus' words" and tie it all up with a little bow in a neat little package.

Entertain this: what if Jesus never existed? What if he is written of as an example of an Essene/Nazarene/somewhat Pharasical orthodox reformer of his day? Then "his words" will be political and theological exprssions of communities all over the Med region. These "gospels", letters, acts and revelations came from Antioch to Alexandria to Palestine to Ethiopia to serve different communities which had little contact with each other. Gradually these writings were collected and just as gradually, pruned. Then you end up with the "authoritative" "words of "Jesus" as they served the needs of the Roman Government.
post #76 of 80
12/9/05 at 7:40pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL
CB, I like your passion and your questions but you are oversimplifying enormously.

You really can't take 3000 some yrs and scale it down to "just Jesus' words" and tie it all up with a little bow in a neat little package.

Entertain this: what if Jesus never existed? What if he is written of as an example of an Essene/Nazarene/somewhat Pharasical orthodox reformer of his day? Then "his words" will be political and theological exprssions of communities all over the Med region. These "gospels", letters, acts and revelations came from Antioch to Alexandria to Palestine to Ethiopia to serve different communities which had little contact with each other. Gradually these writings were collected and just as gradually, pruned. Then you end up with the "authoritative" "words of "Jesus" as they served the needs of the Roman Government.
I'm oversimplifying on purpose, Daryl, partly to get at the heart of what I consider to be a major contradiction between the philosophy of "Jesus" (who may, for all I know, be a spokesman --fictional or simply fictionalized-- for the Essene /Pharasical philosophy -- and I really don't pretend to know; I'm nowhere near as well-versed in Biblical scholarship as many others, specifically you) and the metaphors (and advocacy) of war.

Apart from the very tangled issue of who wrote what when to serve whom, what we have in front of us is a text (yeah, I realize even that notion's a slippery one when you ask "What text, exactly, in what language, in what edition, with what books included or excluded?") with certain ideas ascribed to a certain person (who, yeah, may have been a personification of a radical branch of Judaism) and other statements ascribed to that person's followers and cohorts, and finally, other statements ascribed to people who never even knew Person #1 -- who may or may not have been Yeshua ben Yusuf.

Whew. I'm tired just reading that.

Okay, given that those ideas are ascribed to this person (Jesus, for convenience's sake), I can't see how people who call themselves Jesus' followers can theoretically believe his very outspoken, clear message of peaceful nonconformity and take that to mean what amounts to a Christian jihad. That's all I'm trying to find out, really.
post #77 of 80
12/10/05 at 1:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leilalu
Ok Did you go to ORU? Because I did! When were you there? And what wing were you on?PM me if you want
Sure did. PM'ed you.
post #78 of 80
12/10/05 at 10:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire
Okay, given that those ideas are ascribed to this person (Jesus, for convenience's sake), I can't see how people who call themselves Jesus' followers can theoretically believe his very outspoken, clear message of peaceful nonconformity and take that to mean what amounts to a Christian jihad. That's all I'm trying to find out, really.

OK, if we're trying to simplify, my opinion is, people were never concerned with "just Jesus' words." (Orthodoxy is quite Pauline, esp when you add in the "epistles" that were not written by Paul, but written by others to dumb him down and make him seem rigid and to be insisting on a flesh and blood resurrection and a triune god.) And even if they were, "his words" and his actions were all over the map. They were not always focused on peace. They had a focus on rebellion, conflict, judgment and even warfare quite often. People also tend to cherrypick and find what suits them. So, they might focus on turn the other cheek one day, and turning over tables and using a whip of small cords to chase away animals and moneylenders, or selling your cloak to buy sicarii, another day.

And then, realize the books were collected (and written! read 2 Peter and Jude lately?) specifically to support the violent increase of Roman colonies and sujugation of the peoples therein. If you read the gnostic books you will see the intellectuals, the women of power, the mystics, the celibates, the ascetics, were left out of the picture. The rigid books that insisted on dogma, violence, fear and the power of the bishops were left in. [Constantine was a pagan, and right after he pushed through his politically expedient canon and creed at the council of Nicea, he went home and had his wife and son murdered. He kept on this way til he was dying, then got baptized and made a "Christian" in his own Pascal's Wager. LOL]

You have this push-pull in Christianity. Violence vs peace. Accepting and rejecting the Jews and their "OT" at the same time. Deciding who are the True Chosen People. It's rather odd. That's humans for ya, I guess. That's the patriarchy at work.
post #79 of 80
12/11/05 at 12:53am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL
You have this push-pull in Christianity. Violence vs peace. Accepting and rejecting the Jews and their "OT" at the same time. Deciding who are the True Chosen People. It's rather odd. That's humans for ya, I guess. That's the patriarchy at work.
What a shame it can't be more inclusive, more scholarly, more studied-about...and less reduced to sentiments or political views one could stick on a bumper sticker. Sorry, that's not very on-topic, I guess, but I do wish that.
post #80 of 80
12/13/05 at 7:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satori
I just figure there one of those annoying people who hand out tracts and go door to door trying to push there beliefs on people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDSmomma6
Well, it's not the Mormons, I can tell you that!! LOL!! But many years ago, some Mormon, maybe it was BYU film department, put a movie out called Saturday's Warrior. It was pretty cool back then, but way so cheesy now.

I think the Mormons are what Satori said, but yeah, you're right, I've never heard the Mormons refer to themselves as Christ warriors (are we talking like the trading spouses lady? "I'm a christ wariooooooorrrr!!! Ahhoughhh!") or act aggressive in the physical sense, but they sure do go door to door aggressively, hand stuff out, and try to push their beliefs on to you! But I don't want to get into an argument about that. I live in Mormon central and am surrounded by it.

OK, back to the interesting stuff...