Liberal Christianity 2

[Pete]

Pete, the question I was answering was this:

Which I answered:

To which you commented:

All your comment does is discrediting non-orthodox Jews for their non-orthodox views; which to me is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black coming from you while you are arguing for non-orthodox views yourself. Are you paying attention to what you are saying?

Regardless, Hex asked if I knew any Jews that believe in an afterlife. Are you suggesting that though Messianic Jews are non-orthodox that they are not Jews? The point was:

YES, THERE ARE JEWS THAT BELIEVE IN THE AFTERLIFE.

If you are then you just killed your entire premise for calling yourself a Christian, because then orthodoxy would get to decide who is and who isn’t, as your double standard proves in the case of the Jews.

As Hex had suggested here in regard to determining the author's intent in the passage in Daniel:

Another point can be made that Messianic Jews are potentially the best people to understand the whole Bible, Old and New Testaments because of their heritage. Yet is seems that they are the MOST marginalized group according to the posters in this topic based in thier race and thier religion.

SUMMARY

Non-orthodox Christians seem to believe non-orthodox viewpoints are in invalid for Jews, but preferred for gentiles which is a double standard; in the favor of the liberal Christian (surprise surprise).

Cool, You obviously have not followed the posts (IMO). My premise still stands despite the confusion being spread. Messianic Jews are not seen as part of Judaism by the vast majority of those in Judaism. Its not just my understanding only, as the quotes stated.

Dan, thanks for your post.

[Tsukino_Rei]

I think most major faiths denominations were sects at one time. It is hard when you are saying something different to what others expect you too (IMO).

Yet, because a thing is different that does not mean that it is without foundation or has not truths within it.

For some it is the perception of odd and differing beliefs and to others it is seen as pointing out that the King may have no clothes or at least is missing some.

Christianity itself was a sect of Judaism at one time (the new way).

Life is never without interest and we learn more each day (IMO). Some of that is comfortable and some of that is not, but life goes on regardless.

All I really wanted was a cheap excuse for a 'sects' pun.

[Pete]

All I really wanted was a cheap excuse for a 'sects' pun.

However, I thought it did have deeper point and I thank you for giving me that thought.

[Coolhand]

Cool, You obviously have not followed the posts (IMO). My premise still stands despite the confusion being spread. Messianic Jews are not seen as part of Judaism by the vast majority of those in Judaism. Its not just my understanding only, as the quotes stated.

You are still commenting on something that I was not even saying. Jews are Jews, regardless of them being orthodox, reformed, or messianic.

Your posts argue the irrelevant point of how messsianic Jews are viewed by other Jews.

[Fawzo]

Your posts argue the irrelevant point of how messsianic Jews are viewed by other Jews.

Sort of like the irrelevant point of how Liberal Christians are viewed by Orthodox ones.

I got tired of watching this dog chase its tail days ago.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Fawzo

[Pete]

By the way Pete, the only way (in my opinion) for your point to be close to having any relevancy would be if you make the assumption that I was somehow referring to Messianic Jews that are Gentile converts. But I was never referring to Gentiles in any way when I was addressing Messinic Jews; I was reffering to people of Jewish heritage and Jewish decent that see Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah that was foretold in the Tanakh.

The conversation on Judaism started with your debate on my comment in #371

The new angles your now continuing are yours and I feel they they are as much a part of the confusion that existed on the topic.

If you read the posts then you will see it.

Fawzo, the difficulty with counting liberals is based on the fact that we allow each individual to make what make sense of their personal relationship with God and therefore unlike denominations we can always be seen as a minority body of one, but collectively I believe we are much bigger than that. If we were so small then why would so much effort be employed to separate fundamentalism from us. The demand that everyone accept the tenants of fundamentalism did not come from liberal theology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2006/10/fundamentalist_.html

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/222234/Christian-fundamentalism

[Coolhand]

The conversation on Judaism started with your debate on my comment in #371

The new angles your now continuing are yours and I feel they they are as much a part of the confusion that existed on the topic.

If you read the posts then you will see it.

Actually no, the discussion was between Hex and I, and you are arguing a different point. Which now I think you are doing on purpose.

Sort of like the irrelevant point of how Liberal Christians are viewed by Orthodox ones.

I got tired of watching this dog chase its tail days ago.

Exactly! Which baffles me as to why Pete would take this stance. Still don't get it.

[Bro. Hex]

Sort of like the irrelevant point of how Liberal Christians are viewed by Orthodox ones.

I got tired of watching this dog chase its tail days ago.

Exactly! Which baffles me as to why Pete would take this stance.

(I) still don't get it..

I think I can clear that up.

(and then please can we move back to discussing Liberal Christianity, everyone?).

Just as you it wouldn't be accurate to point to Pete or to me to demonstrate "What Christians believe", it isn't accurate to point to a Messianic Jew to demonstrate that "Jews believe in the Afterlife"

Sure, you could point to Pete or to me to demonstrate that some Christians don't believe that Jesus was divine. But we are hardly representative of "What most Christians believe". Likewise, to demonstrate that "Jews believe in the Afterlife", it is not "good science" to point toward a very small sub-set of Jewish faith (Messianic Jews) to demonstrate that "Jews believe in an afterlife".

Some Jews (who many, many Jews don't even wish to acknowledge as being of "the same faith")believe in an Afterlife.

Some Christians (who many, many Christians don't even wish to acknowledge as being of "the same faith") don't believe in the Resurrection.

Ultra-liberal Christians should not be used as an example of "What Christians believe".

Messianic Jews should not be used as an example of "what Jews believe".

I think that Pete's original statement... that "unlike Christians or Muslims, Jews (most Jews) do not believe in an Afterlife"...that statement is essentially accurate.

I hope this clears up the "Jewish Question" (bad pun intended).

Can we now please return to a discussion of Liberal Christianity???

Edited July 8, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Coolhand]

I think I can clear that up.

(and then please can we move back to discussing Liberal Christianity, everyone?).

Just as you it wouldn't be accurate to point to Pete or to me to demonstrate "What Christians believe", it isn't accurate to point to a Messianic Jew to demonstrate that "Jews believe in the Afterlife"

Sure, you could point to Pete or to me to demonstrate that some Christians don't believe that Jesus was divine. But we are hardly representative of "What most Christians believe". Likewise, to demonstrate that "Jews believe in the Afterlife", it is not "good science" to point toward a very small sub-set of Jewish faith (Messianic Jews) to demonstrate that "Jews believe in an afterlife".

Some Jews (who many, many Jews don't even wish to acknowledge as being of "the same faith")believe in an Afterlife.

Some Christians (who many, many Christians don't even wish to acknowledge as being of "the same faith") don't believe in the Resurrection.

Ultra-liberal Christians should not be used as an example of "What Christians believe".

Messianic Jews should not be used as an example of "what Jews believe".

I think that Pete's original statement... that "unlike Christians or Muslims, Jews (most Jews) do not believe in an Afterlife"...that statement is essentially accurate.

I hope this clears up the "Jewish Question" (bad pun intended).

Can we now please return to a discussion of Liberal Christianity???

Thank you for the clarification; right on!

[Coolhand]

In Mark chapter four we find the parable of the soils/sower.

4 Again Jesus began to teach by the lake. The crowd that gathered around him was so large that he got into a boat and sat in it out on the lake, while all the people were along the shore at the waters edge. 2 He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said: 3 Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, multiplying thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times. 9 Then Jesus said, He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,

they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,

and ever hearing but never understanding;

otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!

13 Then Jesus said to them, Dont you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? 14 The farmer sows the word. 15 Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. 16 Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. 17 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 18 Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; 19 but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful. 20 Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a cropthirty, sixty or even a hundred times what was sown.

The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Mk 4:1-20.

In verse 13 there is a claim that it is important to understand this parable in order to understand all parables. Regardless of your/mine exegetical approach to Scripture:

What (if anything) does this parable say/mean to you PERSONALLY?

In your opininion, is this parable important to understanding the other parables?

NOTE: I am asking this from a personal and reflective viewpoint, knowing that we all approach Scripture differently,and I respect that, and ask this in attempt to appreciate and understand the different approaches to Scripture.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Coolhand

[Tsukino_Rei]

Sort of like the irrelevant point of how Liberal Christians are viewed by Orthodox ones.

I got tired of watching this dog chase its tail days ago.

But, sects jokes!

However, I thought it did have deeper point and I thank you for giving me that thought.

You're welcome. Discussions regarding sects and divisions always put me in mind of the Prayer in Gethsemane; the part where Jesus prays for Unity. Also the part in Corinthians where Paul says don't say you follow so and so. Even all the way back then it seems there were people grouping up under the teachings of particular men rather than tending to their own philosophical and spiritual development.

[Fawzo]

In Mark chapter four we find the parable of the soils/sower.

4 Again Jesus began to teach by the lake. The crowd that gathered around him was so large that he got into a boat and sat in it out on the lake, while all the people were along the shore at the water's edge. 2 He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said: 3 "Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, multiplying thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times." 9 Then Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,

"'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,

and ever hearing but never understanding;

otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

13 Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? 14 The farmer sows the word. 15 Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. 16 Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. 17 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 18 Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; 19 but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful. 20 Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop—thirty, sixty or even a hundred times what was sown."

The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Mk 4:1-20.

In verse 13 there is a claim that it is important to understand this parable in order to understand all parables. Regardless of your/mine exegetical approach to Scripture:

What (if anything) does this parable say/mean to you PERSONALLY?

In your opininion, is this parable important to understanding the other parables?

NOTE: I am asking this from a personal and reflective viewpoint, knowing that we all approach Scripture differently,and I respect that, and ask this in attempt to appreciate and understand the different approaches to Scripture.

"otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

Coolhand I think we discussed before where I had a problem with an Omniscient deity casting seed where the conditions weren't optimal for seed growth. I was wondering if you would enlighten me on a more accurate translation for what the words "might turn" could be rendered as. This might give the parable a new twist for me.

From other Bible versions I get "return to me" "convert" "turn back" "might return and be forgiven" "Otherwise, they will turn to me and be forgiven " and I always love the way the Message version of the Bible puts scripture

These are people— <BR style="LINE-HEIGHT: 1em"></SPAN>Whose eyes are open but don't see a thing, Whose ears are open but don't understand a word, Who avoid making an about-face and getting forgiven."

I think the translation of this text may also point out the gap between Fundalmentalist and Liberals. I would think many liberals would say that forgiveness is just that easy as turning ones focus back on God.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Fawzo

[Bro. Hex]

In Mark chapter four we find the parable of the soils/sower.

4 Again Jesus began to teach by the lake. The crowd that gathered around him was so large that he got into a boat and sat in it out on the lake, while all the people were along the shore at the water’s edge. 2 He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said: 3 “Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, multiplying thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times.” 9 Then Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Remember that this is a PERSONAL reflection=analysis-understanding on/of the text, and represents only one man's view:

In 4:3 thru 4:9 we have an example of Jesus' words which I consider to be very authentic, and which ends with a "classic" Jesus line "He who has ears, let him hear".

The remainder of Mark 4 I consider to be both problematic and conflicted:

10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, “‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”

First problem: In4:10 Jesus says "the secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you,but to those on the outside everything is said in parables". Jesus states that the secret has already been revealed to the twelve "in plain English" (so to speak). And that the parables are "for outsiders".

"The twelve" have no need of parables pointing toward the truth...they are "already in the know"...and then he proceeds to explain the parables to them as if they were "totally in the dark".

But the most important problem that I see in the text-thus-far comes in 4:12 where Jesus says "otherwise they might turn and be forgiven"...as if that were "a bad thing". I consider that phrase a likely candidate for "a late addition" to the text, and probably not Jesus' words at all. Actually IMHO Jesus' true words ended at "Let them hear", and all that follows in Mark 4 are later additions and story-telling, written for the benefit of a congregation so that they might understand the parable. Not a lie, but rather a literary device.

Next we see Jesus' explanation itself:

13 Then Jesus said to them, “Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? 14 The farmer sows the word. 15 Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. 16 Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. 17 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 18 Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; 19 but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful. 20 Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop—thirty, sixty or even a hundred times what was sown.”

This last portion, the explanation, as I said earlier, I consider to be a literary device; a teaching device...an explanation crafted by "the community of Mark" so that the folks in the congregation who did not "get" the parable could be treated to the scene of "those dumb apostles" who were just thick-as-a-brick" so much so that "Jesus had to spell-it-out for them...like so" , and thereby allowing the preacher to explain the symbolism to his congregants without it appearing that "he was talking down to them".

A teaching device...not a lie...but not the true words of Jesus, either. This also applies in my opinion to the part (verse 13) where Jesus supposedly says "this is the most important parable...you have to get this one or how else will you get the others?". Another teaching device by the preacher, designed to stress the importance of looking for symbolic meaning behind the apparently simple words of Jesus. In my opinion this parable, while an important one, has no bearing on our understanding of Jesus' other parables.

[Fawzo]

Some great points Hexalpa. I never noticed those incongruities before.

I always just had a problem with Jesus planting in a rocky, thorny area with paths and weeds instead of finding a nice fertile field. I guess he was a carpenter or mason after all and farming wasn't his thing

Edited July 9, 2010 by Fawzo

[Coolhand]

"otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

Coolhand I think we discussed before where I had a problem with an Omniscient deity casting seed where the conditions weren't optimal for seed growth. I was wondering if you would enlighten me on a more accurate translation for what the words "might turn" could be rendered as. This might give the parable a new twist for me.

From other Bible versions I get "return to me" "convert" "turn back" "might return and be forgiven" "Otherwise, they will turn to me and be forgiven " and I always love the way the Message version of the Bible puts scripture

These are people— <BR style="LINE-HEIGHT: 1em"></SPAN>Whose eyes are open but don't see a thing, Whose ears are open but don't understand a word, Who avoid making an about-face and getting forgiven."

I think the translation of this text may also point out the gap between Fundalmentalist and Liberals. I would think many liberals would say that forgiveness is just that easy as turning ones focus back on God.

“Might turn” is a present-active-subjunctive verb.

Active voice indicates that the action of turning would have to be the decision and action of the subject: the ones in this case who hear and see (both participles indicating that they continually do hear and see the message of the kingdom of God) but reject it and act like they do not hear, see, or understand it.

Subjunctive mood indicates that this turning might or might not happen: it is possible, but maybe not probable, but could happen. The deciding factor is the subject (again active voice): the ones hearing and seeing but not understanding. It is up to them.

I really do not want to argue about the “fundamentalist” interpretation of this, but would rather learn from you guys what the Lord is showing you through this passage.

[Coolhand]

Remember that this is a PERSONAL reflection=analysis-understanding on/of the text, and represents only one man's view:

In 4:3 thru 4:9 we have an example of Jesus' words which I consider to be very authentic, and which ends with a "classic" Jesus line "He who has ears, let him hear".

The remainder of Mark 4 I consider to be both problematic and conflicted:

First problem: In4:10 Jesus says "the secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you,but to those on the outside everything is said in parables". Jesus states that the secret has already been revealed to the twelve "in plain English" (so to speak). And that the parables are "for outsiders".

"The twelve" have no need of parables pointing toward the truth...they are "already in the know"...and then he proceeds to explain the parables to them as if they were "totally in the dark".

But the most important problem that I see in the text-thus-far comes in 4:12 where Jesus says "otherwise they might turn and be forgiven"...as if that were "a bad thing". I consider that phrase a likely candidate for "a late addition" to the text, and probably not Jesus' words at all. Actually IMHO Jesus' true words ended at "Let them hear", and all that follows in Mark 4 are later additions and story-telling, written for the benefit of a congregation so that they might understand the parable. Not a lie, but rather a literary device.

Next we see Jesus' explanation itself:

This last portion, the explanation, as I said earlier, I consider to be a literary device; a teaching device...an explanation crafted by "the community of Mark" so that the folks in the congregation who did not "get" the parable could be treated to the scene of "those dumb apostles" who were just thick-as-a-brick" so much so that "Jesus had to spell-it-out for them...like so" , and thereby allowing the preacher to explain the symbolism to his congregants without it appearing that "he was talking down to them".

A teaching device...not a lie...but not the true words of Jesus, either. This also applies in my opinion to the part (verse 13) where Jesus supposedly says "this is the most important parable...you have to get this one or how else will you get the others?". Another teaching device by the preacher, designed to stress the importance of looking for symbolic meaning behind the apparently simple words of Jesus. In my opinion this parable, while an important one, has no bearing on our understanding of Jesus' other parables.

I understand your points and I like your handling of this.

In regard to "The Kingdom of Heaven," is Jesus refering to somthing specific? Or is it a general reference?

[Fawzo]

"Might turn" is a present-active-subjunctive verb.

Active voice indicates that the action of turning would have to be the decision and action of the subject: the ones in this case who hear and see (both participles indicating that they continually do hear and see the message of the kingdom of God) but reject it and act like they do not hear, see, or understand it.

Subjunctive mood indicates that this turning might or might not happen: it is possible, but maybe not probable, but could happen. The deciding factor is the subject (again active voice): the ones hearing and seeing but not understanding. It is up to them.

I really do not want to argue about the "fundamentalist" interpretation of this, but would rather learn from you guys what the Lord is showing you through this passage.

I was thinking about how the simple act of turning one's focus onto God and how that might be all that is needed for "forgiveness" and how this theme should run through the other parables and it does in a couple that came to my mind immediately.

The Prodigal Son merely had to seek out his father and all was forgiven, and in the the parable of the wedding all those who were invited who had there focus elsewhere were left outside, but those who dropped their common everyday chores and turned their attention onto the bride and groom got a treat.

This would resonate with my belief system in that forgiveness isn't an external act it's a focus and awareness of the love and glory of the Unconditional Love of God who wills that none should perish.

Thanks Coolhand for bringing this up.

[Bro. Hex]

In regard to "The Kingdom of Heaven," is Jesus refering to somthing specific? Or is it a general reference?

First, an aside:

9 Jesus said, Look, the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered (them). Some fell on the road, and the birds came and gathered them. Others fell on rock, and they didn't take root in the soil and didn't produce heads of grain. Others fell on thorns, and they choked the seeds and worms ate them.

And others fell on good soil, and it produced a good crop: it yielded sixty per measure and one hundred twenty per measure.

(Gospel of Thomas Logion 9)

Next, one of the many things that Thomas tells us "about the kingdom":

3 Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you,

'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,'

then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,'

then the fish will precede you.

Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known,

and you will understand that you are children of the living Father.

But if you do not know yourselves,

then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

Gospel of Thomas, Logion 3)

I realize I haven't yet given MY answer to your kingdom question, Cool,

but I am late for work, so I will come back to this topic a bit later.

Cheers,

Hex

Edited July 9, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Coolhand]

The Prodigal Son merely had to seek out his father and all was forgiven, and in the the parable of the wedding all those who were invited who had there focus elsewhere were left outside, but those who dropped their common everyday chores and turned their attention onto the bride and groom got a treat.

You are saying the point of the prodigal son story is about the son that left and returned?

[Bro. Hex]

In regard to "The Kingdom of Heaven," is Jesus referring to something specific? Or is it a general reference?

I have a bit of time on my hands at work, so I will now answer this question as best I can:

Something specific indeed. Something reality shattering. I will use a very appropriate word that you used recently, Cool, in a slightly different context: Immanent.

Here is what Thomas has to say, which is very important to me, and to my understanding of "the Kingdom":

(113) His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

<Jesus said,> "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.'

Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."

Logion 113, Gospel of Thomas

The Father's Kingdom is "right here, right now", and all it takes to enter is to "see correctly", to understand that "the kingdom" is something that we participate in, make happen, while we live, otherwise we do not participate in it at all. Gospel of Philip says something very similar which I will look up later, but the gist is, you do not have to wait until you die to enter the kingdom, and if you do wait until you die, you shall not enter.

If you do enter into the Father's kingdom while you live, it will not matter to you what, if anything, happens to follow this life, you will already have entered the promised land.

But to enter, you must see correctly, understand correctly, BE correctly. It really is very similar to the notion that one must be "born again".

Edited July 9, 2010 by Hexalpa