06 Oct 08
Originally posted by bill718No. It sounds utterly ridiculous. Unless the God you are talking about loves creating confusion and conflict for his own personal amusement.
I think it's possible that:
1. God spoke to the Jews through the Torah
2. God spoke to the Christians through the New Testement
3. God spoke to the Muslems through the Quran
(Sorry if I misspelled anything)
Does this sound resonable??
🙂
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by bill718That's not just one religion to scoff at; now it's mixing three!! Wow! How much more illogical can you get?
I think it's possible that:
1. God spoke to the Jews through the Torah
2. God spoke to the Christians through the New Testement
3. God spoke to the Muslems through the Quran
(Sorry if I misspelled anything)
Does this sound resonable??
🙂
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by bill718There is a similar concept held in the Bahai Faith. Though instead of God speaking through books, God has intervened in the progress of humans through "messengers" including Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad, etc. This is described as a succession of revelations from God. The term "progressive revelation" is used to describe this process. I'm far from sure, but I think Islam may have a similar concept.
I think it's possible that:
1. God spoke to the Jews through the Torah
2. God spoke to the Christians through the New Testement
3. God spoke to the Muslems through the Quran
(Sorry if I misspelled anything)
Does this sound resonable??
🙂
You can find an overview here:
http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-4.html
07 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt also discussed in progressive Roman Catholic theology, called the theory
There is a similar concept held in the Bahai Faith. Though instead of God speaking through books, God has intervened in the progress of humans through "messengers" including Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad, etc. This is described as a succession of revelations from God. The term "progressive revelation" is used to describe this process. lar concept.
You can find an overview here:
http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-4.html
of the anonymous Christian. While unsurprisingly narcissistic, it's progenitor,
Father Karl Rahner, maintains that those who follow other religions yet adhere
to the basic sentiment of loving God and loving neighbor are de facto Christians.
Since they are not in nomine Christians, he calls them 'Anonymous Christians.'
Nemesio
Edit: By narcissistic, I mean that it works of the presumption that Christianity
is the 'rightest' of the religions. That is, it's not the theory of the 'Anonymous
Moslem,' or 'Anonymous Buddhist,' e.g..
07 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by bill718Its interesting that wise men from the east (not sure where from) came to visit Jesus when he was born, obviously guided by God. I think its likely that many other religious groups at the time must have known about Christ. There is also a period of the life of Christ - about 16 years which is not recorded in the Bible. Its likely that he would have travelled to other places and preached to other people.
I think it's possible that:
1. God spoke to the Jews through the Torah
2. God spoke to the Christians through the New Testement
3. God spoke to the Muslems through the Quran
(Sorry if I misspelled anything)
Does this sound resonable??
🙂
Here is an passage which I brought up before here but its somewhat difficult to interpret :
Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
It seems to be saying that Gentiles not under the law (commandments of Christ, I presume), can do the works of the law because their conscience is their guide. The passage implies that they will be judged according their law as long as its not in conflict with the commandments of Christ. Just my speculating.
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by Rajk999There's also a group of people who think that Jesus actually survived crucifixion
Its interesting that wise men from the east (not sure where from) came to visit Jesus when he was born, obviously guided by God. I think its likely that many other religious groups at the time must have known about Christ. There is also a period of the life of Christ - about 16 years which is not recorded in the Bible. Its likely that he would have travelled ...[text shortened]... g their law as long as its not in conflict with the commandments of Christ. Just my speculating.
and, after the what are called the post-Resurrection appearances, He moved
east, all the way to Japan.
Nemesio
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by NemesioNever heard that story.
There's also a group of people who think that Jesus actually survived crucifixion
and, after the what are called the post-Resurrection appearances, He moved
east, all the way to Japan.
Nemesio
Do you have an opinion on the Romans 2 passage ?
07 Oct 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999I don't think so. Keep in mind that St Paul was a very well educated Jew who, clearly, knew the
It seems to be saying that Gentiles not under the law (commandments of Christ, I presume), can do the works of the law because their conscience is their guide. The passage implies that they will be judged according their law as long as its not in conflict with the commandments of Christ.
Law. When Jews refer to 'The Law,' they mean the Levitical Law -- the 600 some-odd proscriptions
and commandments about what to eat, what to wear, how to behave in circumstances and so forth.
An individual raised in a Jewish family would have learned this Law by attrition from their parents
and community.
Keep in mind that St Paul assumed the parousia was imminent and was committed to an inclusive
idea of salvation (the idea of including 'goyim' amongst the saved). So, in order not to discourage
the Gentiles, he taught that it was unnecessary for Gentiles to learn and subsequently obey all
600+ Laws from Hebrew Scripture. The most obviously divisive one was circumcision (and for
obvious reason!).
This ties in with St Paul's discussions in Galatians and elsewhere, in which it seems clear that
St Peter and associates were trying to compel newly converted, non-Jewish believers to embrace
the whole of the Law or to exclude them entirely. St Paul believed that it was foolish to do so:
Jesus was coming soon, and it would silly to not build up the kingdom with those who were
not reasonably able to learn and obey all of those laws, especially since Jesus was believed to
be coming back within the lifetime of the Disciples and that the Laws which were meant to
address issues of corporeal purity were going to be moot shortly in any event as the spirit was
whisked away with Jesus.
That's how I understand St Paul's writing in that passage.
Nemesio