Calling out Badwater...

…only because I’d value your insight here—

________________________________________________________

On another thread, I recently said that I have no idea who the “true” Christians are, or what that entails. So many people who claim the label disagree, and denounce one another.

My primary differences with what I would call conventional (generally Protestant) Christians seem to be the following:

(1) Non-dualism. If God is defined as a being of some kind (e.g., supernatural/extra-natural), then we are at philosophical loggerheads at the get-go. If God is the “ground of being”—ala Paul Tillich or Meister Eckhart or others (St. Gregory of Nyssa, maybe)—then we can talk.


(2) Love (agape). It has become apparent that I take a much more radical (though perhaps less generalized) view of love than do most Christians.



(3) Salvation. The Greek Orthodox (who have not had to translate the original language of the NT) have a much stronger sense of “salvation” (soterias) as healing (soterias)—note the sameness of the words!—than have western Christians generally. They also have retained a sense of “sin” (hamartia) as being related to “illusion” (plani). This ought to trigger some associations…


(4) The Christ. I think the Christ is the logos incarnate, and hence is more universal than just Jesus—which does not exclude his realization. (Again, I might invoke Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Justin Martyr).


Well, maybe that will do for a start…

Sorry, BW. Forget it. I'm frustrating myself on here again.

Originally posted by vistesd
On another thread, I recently said that I have no idea who the “true” Christians are, or what that entails. So many people who claim the label disagree, and denounce one another...

I would say that the problem(s) in trying to determine, in and of yourself or anyone else, who the "true" Christians are seem to me to be much more fundamental and basically boil down to problems in theory and practice.

To me, a huge issue at the heart of Chrstianity is something that the vast majority of Christians either are not aware of or choose to box up and ignore: There are 3 Christologies at work in the NT and are attributed to Christianity and Christ, although Jesus is only responsible for one. They are:

The Christology of John the Baptizer

Here we have a strange practitioner of the Jewish faith - totally counter-culture, living off the wilderness, dressing strangely; different in appearance, thought, action, religious practice. Christians don't expend a single thought to just how radical John is. In modern terms he's a backwoods hippie and just as such as person would be ignored and rebuked today by the religious status quo, so John would have been in his time. But John is not to be ignored, for even though he is away from the cities and authorities, lest he be put to death (which eventually happens, radical that he is), thousands look for him and flock to him. John's practice and ideas fly directly in the face of Judaic theology and law. John has a different practice and idea, and it's the new way. Huge crowds seek him and he is especially popular with women - hugely popular, beyond rock star popular, because he has a simple message: You do not require a penis for covenant with God.

I'm sure there is more than one person laughing aloud upon reading this, but consider the covenant that Abram makes with God in becoming Abraham - the Jewish practice of circumcism. Too bad if you're a woman, because you didn't matter anyway. And woman, lest you forget - every time I use this thing on you, you get to see visually that I have God on my side, that I can force God upon you, that I have covenant where you have nothing. You are nothing; you are a woman.

But John says that way is old. That way is outdated. There is another way, and that way is immersion in water. No one is allergic to water; everyone needs water. Water is the ultimate universal symbol of covenant. And, hey, what do you know - women can be immersed, too. Women can have covenant with God. Women are [/b]entitled[/b] to covenant with God. Women get that. Women - thousands of women - go to the wilderness to be baptized.

Jesus does, too. The baptism of Jesus does several things: 1) It is the beginning of the mission and ministry of Jesus, 2) It symbolizes that covenant with God does in fact happen upon baptism, 3) It symbolizes the passing of old to new; of OT practice to NT practice, of the old (John) to the new (Jesus).

But Jesus is responsible for none of this. Jesus seeks out John and is baptized, and later instructs his disciples to also baptize. Jesus adopts not only the practice, but everything that goes along with it, overtly and implied. It is the new way. It overrides the old practice and law. It is available to everyone, even those who were nothing before, even (horror of horrors!) women!

It is not a coincidence that the minstry and message of Jesus begins in this way with this background. This is the ministry and message from now on, and even though Jesus may obliquely talk about following Judaic law and the old customs, it is clear that is not his practice and message. The message of Jesus, at its core, is very simple and without exception: All are entitled to covenant with God. Everyone. No exceptions.

The Christology of Jesus of Nazareth

This is separate from John's Christology, because, as I have said, Jesus is in no way responsible for this new concept of covenant with God by immersion in water. Jesus merely adopts the principle for his followers' use; that is all. Jesus starts with this radical and peculiar notion that covenant is open to all all never puts the brakes on that notion, for it is there even upon his impending death at the cross.

All through his teachings, Jesus sets aside the old law and ways that do not work and are not of God, and brings to light the new ways and the new works that are of God, and Christianity has been trying to backpedal ever since. Women are subservant to men? Can't be ministers? That's curious, I don't read that into anything That Jesus ever said or taught. In fact, the opposite is true, just not to the backpedalers. There is a new way to be a follower, just read the Sermon on the Mount; but nearly every follower that counts himself or herself as Christian has an exclusion to this and other teachings of Jesus that curiously do not apply to them.

I did a sermon about the washing of the feet of the desciples by Jesus about 9 or 10 years ago, and I suggested (ok, insisted) that there was a commandment by Jesus that was routinely, and universally, ignored. I also lamented the fact that our church did not practice it and that we should. After the sermon, another minister talked with me about a somewhat recent revisit of the church ordinances and that foot washing was determined not to be viable, in no small part because there is an pantyhose issue (how are women going to do that with pantyhose on?).

"I did not realize that pantyhose held such powerful sway over the commandments of Jesus."
"That's not the point - how are you supposed to do that in practice?"
"But that is the point...where did Jesus say to do likewise except for whatever - in this case, pantyhose?"
"Well, we determined that it can't be done."
"Oh, did you check with Jesus about it? The whole point is to make spiritual authority subservant to the followers, so what did the conference come up with as a symbolic alternative?"

At this point the minister turned and walked away, because it was obvious I was an idiot and didn't understand.

The Christology of Jesus of Nazareth is built upon that of John the Baptizer, and everything it implies. There is a huge problem in Christianity from the backpedalers and all who would impress their views and their exclusion on the teachings of Jesus which should, but seem not to, supercede all other teachings and ideas, including those of Paul and the teachings and laws of the Old Testament.

The Christology of Paul

Paul has a dichotomy at work in his writings, and although Christians try to bring both together they surely cannot be. Magnetic positive and negative repulse each other, and so does Paul's dichotomy.

To his enormous credit, Paul understands that Christianity should be available to all. He gets it, he practices it, and battles the other apostles over this idea.

To his enormous detriment, Paul tries to cling to the old way of religious and cultural ideas and practice. It seems that you can rename the old lawmaker and religious authority but you can't force him to see the new way. Now this may be a bit unfair, because I'm fairly certain that Paul's epistles are meant to be words of advice to the communities that he's writing to in ways that cannot be construed as confrontative. He's trying awfully hard to be diplomatic and frame his words in words and ideas that aren't going to cause the newborn Christian communities, to which he's writing, to just cast his letter into the nearest fire. He may be trying to find some middle ground, figuring that's it's best to help these sects along and work on details later. On the other hand, he may firmly believe in every word he has written. Either way, his writings have supplanted Jesus' Christology in many respects and that should not be happening. It does, however, in all major denominations of Christiany. It is a Christology championed by Iraneus that continues, unquestioned, to this day. Either Christians are ignorant of their history and know nothing of the influence of the likes of St. Augustine and Iraneus, or the writings of Paul give voice to their exclusion upon the teachings of Jesus clause.

The writings of Paul must never override the ideas, teachings, and practice of Jesus of Nazareth.

I actually follow you on this. People need to remember Paul was a Jew of Jews so to speak. He knew Judaism. Also the cultural/historical aspect needs to be taken in to consideration when reading Paul's writings. I'm not saying that Paul was not inspired by God but these things need to be looked at.



Manny

Originally posted by menace71
I actually follow you on this. People need to remember Paul was a Jew of Jews so to speak. He knew Judaism. Also the cultural/historical aspect needs to be taken in to consideration when reading Paul's writings. I'm not saying that Paul was not inspired by God but these things need to be looked at.



Manny

(Romans 8:35-39) . . .Who will separate us from the love of the Christ? Will tribulation or distress or persecution or hunger or nakedness or danger or sword?  Just as it is written: “For your sake we are being put to death all day long, we have been accounted as sheep for slaughtering.”  To the contrary, in all these things we are coming off completely victorious through him that loved us.  For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor governments nor things now here nor things to come nor powers  nor height nor depth nor any other creation will be able to separate us from God’s love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

does this sound like someone who has transcended and supplanted the teachings of the Christ?

read the Bible Manny and let the so called 'higher critics', draw unfounded comparisons. i suggest the book of Acts and you may evaluate these things with your own mind.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
(Romans 8:35-39) . . .Who will separate us from the love of the Christ? Will tribulation or distress or persecution or hunger or nakedness or danger or sword?  Just as it is written: “For your sake we are being put to death all day long, we have been accounted as sheep for slaughtering.”  To the contrary, in all these things we are coming off complet ...[text shortened]... comparisons. i suggest the book of Acts and you may evaluate these things with your own mind.

By your standards I do believe it does indeed sound like someone who has supplanted the will of Christ.

Originally posted by kirksey957
By your standards I do believe it does indeed sound like someone who has supplanted the will of Christ.

by my standards, ummm, what are my standards?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
by my standards, ummm, what are my standards?

You believe women ministers can separate us from the will of God.

Originally posted by kirksey957
You believe women ministers can separate us from the will of God.

i believe women ministers can seperate us from the will of God???? really, perhaps you can point to Christ's teaching where he stated that women should be ordained as ministers, infact, perhaps you can point out where it states that there should be an clergy laity distinction, if you please. if you cannot then your argument is moooooooot!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

does this sound like someone who has transcended and supplanted the teachings of the Christ?

read the Bible Manny and let the so called 'higher critics', draw unfounded comparisons. i suggest the book of Acts and you may evaluate these things with your own mind.

If you are in any way referring to me, this vapid little utterance of scripture only serves to underscore what I've said, and for that I thank you.

Originally posted by Badwater
If you are in any way referring to me, this vapid little utterance of scripture only serves to underscore what I've said, and for that I thank you.

ohh touchy touchy, if i was referring to you, i would look you in the monitor and tell you to your face, give it up. are you saying that Manfred should not read the scriptures and evaluate these things with his own mind? are you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ohh touchy touchy, if i was referring to you, i would look you in the monitor and tell you to your face, give it up. are you saying that Manfred should not read the scriptures and evaluate these things with his own mind? are you?

I don't see how your original post had anything to do with my response to visted or to manny's response to me. It seems to me that you're just shooting off words, so be my guest. 😵

Originally posted by Badwater
I don't see how your original post had anything to do with my response to visted or to manny's response to me. It seems to me that you're just shooting off words, so be my guest. 😵

sorry like i got a zillion other things id rather be doing, and it was directed towards Manny, not to you or visted, or anyone else, if you please.