|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:16 pm
Most people when talking of Christ talk of understanding him through the light of scripture. While this sounds very poetic and awing, this simply is not the case especially when you consider that the Bible being an anthology of Christian and Hebrew literature. Also this stance seems to attract people that accuse people of "cherry picking", which it is in some regards, especially if one holds to certain assumptions regarding the Bible.
My take is that I understand scripture through the light of the Christ, which I understand through those who taught me, what I've studied, and what I've experienced. I honestly think this is most peoples stance but either don't know how to voice it or some other condition that keeps them from honestly admitting this stance.
So what's your take? Any discussion or debate on this?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:12 am
I agree with it and I like the way you put it. Understanding scripture through the light of Christ rather than Christ through the light of scripture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lord Alucard Ere Casanova
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:16 pm
I actually never heard this argument before. Could you mind explaining it a bit more (sorry for being slow razz )?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:34 pm
Gjornia X I actually never heard this argument before. Could you mind explaining it a bit more (sorry for being slow razz )? Often sects that hold to Biblical literalness will state the claim that to understand Christ, you have to understand him through the light of scripture. I disagree with this stance because, not all scripture is about Christ and not verses and passages, in particular the OT, are not in line with Christ's teachings. I take the stance of understanding scripture through the Light of Christ. I take this stance since Christ is our teacher so to understand scripture through him not only makes sense but is more consistent with why passages are interpreted in particular ways over others. It also implies an openness in making new discoveries about ourselves and our relationship with Christ. Am I making better sense now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:25 pm
Yes! Thanks. I agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:49 pm
rmcdra Most people when talking of Christ talk of understanding him through the light of scripture. While this sounds very poetic and awing, this simply is not the case especially when you consider that the Bible being an anthology of Christian and Hebrew literature. Also this stance seems to attract people that accuse people of "cherry picking", which it is in some regards, especially if one holds to certain assumptions regarding the Bible. My take is that I understand scripture through the light of the Christ, which I understand through those who taught me, what I've studied, and what I've experienced. I honestly think this is most peoples stance but either don't know how to voice it or some other condition that keeps them from honestly admitting this stance. So what's your take? Any discussion or debate on this? Ok I do that lot. Let me explain: Luke 21:33 However they say that old testiment isn't valid. To me it looks like the new testiment validates the old testiment. Aslo in some cases while they say they do accept the whole bible, they refuse to eknowledge certain passages. Or my favourite: you're twisting it you're taking it out of contexts. If you believe the whole bible is exact word for word accept all the quotes as they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:26 am
Socika rmcdra Most people when talking of Christ talk of understanding him through the light of scripture. While this sounds very poetic and awing, this simply is not the case especially when you consider that the Bible being an anthology of Christian and Hebrew literature. Also this stance seems to attract people that accuse people of "cherry picking", which it is in some regards, especially if one holds to certain assumptions regarding the Bible. My take is that I understand scripture through the light of the Christ, which I understand through those who taught me, what I've studied, and what I've experienced. I honestly think this is most peoples stance but either don't know how to voice it or some other condition that keeps them from honestly admitting this stance. So what's your take? Any discussion or debate on this? Ok I do that lot. Let me explain: Luke 21:33 However they say that old testiment isn't valid. To me it looks like the new testiment validates the old testiment. Aslo in some cases while they say they do accept the whole bible, they refuse to eknowledge certain passages. Or my favourite: you're twisting it you're taking it out of contexts. If you believe the whole bible is exact word for word accept all the quotes as they are. I'm not too sure about the New Testament validating the Old Testament. Maybe some core concepts such as looking out for your neighbor and being hospitable to strangers but overall much of the New Testament flies in the face of many of the Laws of the Old Testament, hence why Christians are regarded to be in a new covenant. It doesn't help either that the books of the Old Testament were selected by a council of Rabbis after 70 CE for the intended purpose of excluding Christians out of Judaism. sad The main reason it got included into our canon was for two reasons: 1) after the Fall of the Second Temple, Judaism was believed to be a dead religion. One group of Christians believed they were the successors to Judaism thus should appropriate the Tanahk (the Old Testament) as their own scriptures. 2)It was included as a way to convince what was left of Judaism after the Fall of the Second Temple to convert to Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:08 am
In luke 21:33 HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS AWAY BUT MY WORD WILL NEVER PASS. That sounds to me like god is unchanging. So whatever was valid than is valid now. But even when I disregard that quote and agree not to drag up old testiment. They drag is up themselves to prove a point. That to me is cherrypicking. Accept it, or say no and don't use it yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:54 am
Socika In luke 21:33 HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS AWAY BUT MY WORD WILL NEVER PASS. That sounds to me like god is unchanging. Sounds more like what Jesus is preaching will not pass. Quote: So whatever was valid than is valid now. If that were the case then why do we still eat shellfish or why is circumcision not required? Quote: But even when I disregard that quote and agree not to drag up old testiment. They drag is up themselves to prove a point. That to me is cherrypicking. Accept it, or say no and don't use it yourself. I don't use the Old Testament except for history of what people before had to do to appease God. The old laws are not required of those in the new covenant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:05 am
rmcdra Socika In luke 21:33 HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS AWAY BUT MY WORD WILL NEVER PASS. That sounds to me like god is unchanging. Sounds more like what Jesus is preaching will not pass. Quote: So whatever was valid than is valid now. If that were the case then why do we still eat shellfish or why is circumcision not required? Quote: But even when I disregard that quote and agree not to drag up old testiment. They drag is up themselves to prove a point. That to me is cherrypicking. Accept it, or say no and don't use it yourself. I don't use the Old Testament except for history of what people before had to do to appease God. The old laws are not required of those in the new covenant. 1. People are still keeping slaves and killing eachother as well as getting circumsized. 2. So all those killings were justified back than? You sound reasnoble, so how can you follow paragraphs like Matthew 11:20 (if we take just the new testiment).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:36 pm
Socika 1. People are still keeping slaves and killing eachother as well as getting circumsized. 2. So all those killings were justified back than? 1. And those things I don't believe are still required. 2. What are you going on about? The killings in the Old Testament? It illustrates the old eye for an eye "justice" mentality that was common back in that day. Not to mention much of the stories are mythic meaning they were stories with a purpose. The purpose being to paint a cultural identity of the Hebrew people and to teach cultural lessons kinda like Aesop's fables. Quote: You sound reasnoble, so how can you follow paragraphs like Matthew 11:20 (if we take just the new testiment). You can't since it makes references to the Ezekiel and was written with a Jewish audience in mind, hence why I said it should remain as a reference, not for making doctrine. Next Matthew was written in response to the growing Gentile Christian movement (There were multiple Christianities prior to 325 CE). Since the passage you quoted references Ezekiel. Let's take a look at the passage in context: Matthew 11 20 Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.” Tyre and Sidon are both cities cursed in Ezekiel because of their arrogance. He's claiming that Chorazin and Bethsaida are more arrogant than Tyre and Sidon. Next he compares Capernaum to Sodom. Sodom according to Ezekiel was destroyed for its arrogance and lack of hospitality toward strangers. The short summary of this is that people that are arrogant and lacking in compassion toward others set themselves up for destruction and should change their ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:48 am
rmcdra Socika 1. People are still keeping slaves and killing eachother as well as getting circumsized. 2. So all those killings were justified back than? 1. And those things I don't believe are still required. 2. What are you going on about? The killings in the Old Testament? It illustrates the old eye for an eye "justice" mentality that was common back in that day. 3.The short summary of this is that people that are arrogant and lacking in compassion toward others set themselves up for destruction and should change their ways. 1. But back than it was requird to keep slaves and kill people? 2. Ok I get the illustration, but do you believe it purely serves to demonstrate how it was back than, or do you this god actually meddled in back than? 3. Fary tales are just life isn't. And in your fary tale it's still ok to kill. And you teach this to kids? Make bible R rated both of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:06 am
Socika 1. But back than it was requird to keep slaves and kill people? I don't know if it was can you name me a culture during this time period that didn't? From what little that I do understand of the cultures back then it was common practice to have indentured servants and to fight against other cultures for survival and resources. Quote: 2. Ok I get the illustration, but do you believe it purely serves to demonstrate how it was back than, or do you this god actually meddled in back than? Given that it is mythic literature, it is probably the former. My take is that if God did meddle, they got it wrong since I don't believe that the "eye for an eye" mentality comes from God, but rather it from us and nature. Quote: 3. Fary tales are just life isn't. And in your fary tale it's still ok to kill. And you teach this to kids? Make bible R rated both of them. How the hell do you get that? lol. Arrogance and not having compassion for others are self-destructive behaviors on their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:31 am
rmcdra Socika 1. But back than it was requird to keep slaves and kill people? I don't know if it was can you name me a culture during this time period that didn't? From what little that I do understand of the cultures back then it was common practice to have indentured servants and to fight against other cultures for survival and resources. Quote: 2. Ok I get the illustration, but do you believe it purely serves to demonstrate how it was back than, or do you this god actually meddled in back than? Given that it is mythic literature, it is probably the former. My take is that if God did meddle, they got it wrong since I don't believe that the "eye for an eye" mentality comes from God, but rather it from us and nature. Quote: 3. Fary tales are just life isn't. And in your fary tale it's still ok to kill. And you teach this to kids? Make bible R rated both of them. How the hell do you get that? lol. Arrogance and not having compassion for others are self-destructive behaviors on their own. 1. So because they all did it, it was right? 2. Point taken 3. I wouldn't exactly put not having compassion in the self destructive section, quite reverse actually, not having it may help you up if you don't mind walikng over people so to speak. And arrogance can properly placed wont hurt you eighter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:54 am
Socika So because they all did it, it was right? Never said it was right, all I'm saying is that it was common and I don't know of a culture back then that didn't. From my cultural and temporal vantage point, I'd say they were all wrong but given my ignorance of specifics of that time period and that I know very little of what life was like back then for those cultures, who am I to judge one ancient culture over another ancient culture? Quote: I wouldn't exactly put not having compassion in the self destructive section, quite reverse actually, not having it may help you up if you don't mind walikng over people so to speak. And arrogance can properly placed wont hurt you eighter. You have cities being compared to ones that raped strangers and took advantage of those in need? So how is what you are saying relevant? Since you brought it up though, Why is it right to walk over people? Next self-respect is not arrogance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
