|
|
Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion
|
How could this be?
|
|
Little over two thousand years ago there came a man from Galilee teaching things like love, brotherhood, avoiding the judgement of each other, compassion and care for the least among us and even love for our enemies. Ideas that today would be considered as being far left; bleeding heart, liberal, socialist and dangerous.
This man was crucified by the far right of His day; the rich, (Herod) the powerful, (Ponticus Pilate) and the then organized religion, (the High Priest) for teaching these ideas. However on the third day this man rose again from the dead to demonstrate he was who he said he was, and to validate the authenticity of what he taught.
Strangely enough now, the far right of our day are presenting themselves as representative of this man and the left of today as not.
How could this be? Obviously there has been a switch.
The followers of this man; his disciples, knew him as their teacher. They understood that he came to show them “the way” to salvation, so they rejected what they believed before and accepted his message, of a God of love.
The followers of today know this man as their saviour. They believe that this man gave his life to a God of wrath and vengeance as payment for their wrong doings. In so doing they have reverted to the beliefs that his disciples rejected and as a result have acquired the same mind of those who crucified him.
|
|
TRWord 12/16/2012 13:49 |
|
| |
Catholica
|
12/17/2012 15:35 |
There are so very many things wrong with what you wrote, it is hard to know where to begin.
Maybe here: there are two verses that come to mind. One is Jesus teaching people to pray to their father in heaven.
“For You are our Father, though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not recognize us. You, O LORD, are our Father, Our Redeemer from of old is Your name.” Isaiah 63:16
"This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name," Matthew 6:9
The Jews also believed that God was a God of love:
The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. (Ex 34:6-7)
He upholds the cause of the oppressed
and gives food to the hungry.
The LORD sets prisoners free,
the LORD gives sight to the blind,
the LORD lifts up those who are bowed down,
the LORD loves the righteous.
The LORD watches over the alien
and sustains the fatherless and the widow,
but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.
(Ps 146:7-9)
Jesus was preaching the same Father-God as the Jews in the OT believed He was.
Also, Paul wrote in Romans 15:4:
For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
These new Christians were far from rejecting the God of the Old Testament. There is no way on Earth that a pious Jew would apostatize to follow teachings that contradicted those given by the God they knew, who revealed himself to them on Mt. Sinai.
Also, neither the Republican nor Democratic parties represent God or his teachings in full.
|
| |
TRWord
|
12/18/2012 21:25 |
Catholica
Even though you pretend to miss the point I don’t believe that you really do. In fact your last sentence tells me that you understand perfectly what the point really is.
The problem has been the teaching of Jesus Christ. It’s why he was crucified and it’s why his followers experienced three centuries of persecution, from Stephen (SEE Acts:7) until 313 AD when the Edict of Milan was passed and Christianity was legalized.
Christian persecution stopped only when the forces that be had finally, successfully, switched the focus away from what Jesus taught to his death and resurrection only.
2 Cor. 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2 Cor. 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Now that the gospel has been switched from His teaching to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, Christianity can be aligned with movements that are totally opposite to the spirit of Christ.
Let’s be honest isn’t the term Christian Conservative an oxymoron.
|
| |
Catholica
|
12/19/2012 08:09 |
TRWord, the idea that the persecution stopped only when the "forces that be had finally, successfully, switched the focus away from what Jesus taught" is anti-historical. The reason the persecution stopped was that a miracle appeared in the sky to Constantine, and this pagan man led an army to improbable victory under the sign of the cross. Once had conquered Rome, he ended the persecution for personal reasons (the above miracle and victory) which had nothing to do with what Jesus taught.
If you read extant Christian writings from the earliest of Christan times, even the first century, you will find that they nearly universally teach those things which so-called mainline Christianity for the most part holds foundational, and antithetical to many of the concepts from the movement which you are apart of which denies the reality of evil and redefines the meanings of the words "sin" and "repentance".
I understood your point, but your conclusion was based on false premises in my understanding, therefore it was important to address the premises before even dealing with the conclusion. Besides, the DAB has a tradition of avoiding political discussions, and I don't plan on violating that unwritten rule.
|
| |
TRWord
|
12/19/2012 20:59 |
Catholica
Yes I do know the historical account as per Constantine.
He claimed to have seen an omen in the sky whilst marching along with his troops to the Battle of Milvian Bridge. He claimed to have seen a sign in front of the sun, with the two Greek letters, chi(?) and rho(?) (the first two letters of the Greek word Christos, or Christ) along with a Greek inscription reading (“in this sign thou shalt conquer”) Constantine claimed this to be a sign from the Lord and as the moment of his conversion. Those of us who know the Lord could not be that easily fooled.
Matt. 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
I’m surprised that you could believe that “the prince of peace” would lead any army to war and under the sign of the cross.
Constantine, himself later on proved that his intent was a political one, unifying and strengthening the Empire, rather than anything spiritual. Constantine recognized Christians as a growing part of the Empire over which he had no sway as long as he maintained an adversarial position. Using the age old strategy of, “if you can’t beat them join them,” he adopted Christianity as his “imperial cult.”
Now Constantine could exercise his authority over Christianity, but he also continued to support his old pagan deities. In 313 AD, he passed the Edict of Milan legitimizing Christianity alongside the other religions practiced in the Roman Empire. Then in 325 AD he convoked the First Council of Nicaea. This was the first ecumenical conference of bishops of the Christian Church, which resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed.
This is where the focus was switched from what Jesus Christ taught to His death and resurrection only.
|
| |
Laura
|
12/22/2012 12:43 |
Good morning all, I think this is such an interesting discussion. While I cannot contribute much to the historical context, I would like to give my two cents and see what you think.
My understanding of what happened two thousand years ago was that Jesus did come and He did preach all the things as you've said, TRWord. In a political context, the distinction for me, is that He did not go to the government to implement those ideas. Neither did He go to the organized religion of the day to implement those ideas. He sought out individuals and poured His Life into them. He changed them through His relationship with them and they changed the world.
Perhaps it's a simplistic approach to the topic, but I kinda think that's how He intended it to be, simple enough that a child could understand it. I find that I am always (unconsciously) trying to complicate things that are really very simple, I think that's our natural tendency as adult human beings.
I think there are a lot of issues with both political parties in our country (I am a Conservative). For me personally, it's about personal liberty. I vote with the Right not because I believe they are more like Jesus, but because they try harder to maintain freedom of choice - even if/when that means the freedom to choose unwisely. This goes back to my original point about Jesus not dictating His Gospel through the Pharisees or the Romans, but going to the individual man and letting him choose for himself.
|
| |
Laura
|
12/22/2012 12:52 |
One other thing I'll add TRWord is that I'll be praying for you. I'll pray that you give grace to those who may not be as knowledgeable as you are regarding the Bible. I'll pray that God gives you peace with things that are beyond our understanding and that this peace allows you to live with joy and freedom in Him.
|
| |
TRWord
|
12/23/2012 09:54 |
Laura I never intended that the thread be seen in as a political statement. What I was trying to highlight is that Jesus’s disciples knew him as their teacher while today’s Christians know Him as their saviour.
I further attempted to highlight that Jesus was crucified for what He taught, a teaching that today would be considered “far left,” and now that His teaching have been gotten out of the way the “far right” is seen as more representative of Him.
This is indicative of a deliberate switch which Christian continue to ignore.
I believe that you are totally correct when you say that Christ’s message was given to the individual and neither to the government nor to organize religion, but I disagree that He intended it to be simple enough that a child could understand it. If so, you’ll have to reconcile why He taught in parables and did not speak plainly.
Christ message is the “HOW TO” that frees us from the limitation of the flesh. It’s not easily understood it requires a tremendous struggle, that is why He said:
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
“Our cross” is the struggle and it requires that we must be willing to alienate even the ones closes and dearest to us, “IF WE HAVE TO,” in our struggle, but let’s face it, there is no greater reward.
|
| |
Laura
|
12/24/2012 10:20 |
Hi TRWord,
Forgive me for getting confused by your reference to the "far right" and the "far left". I've only ever heard those terms used in the political context.
Simple does not equate to easy. In fact, I think that it's the simple things that we struggle with the most - children don't usually have that problem :). My belief in the simplicity of the Gospel is based on the concepts that He taught - Love, Mercy, Peace, etc. Those are simple ideas and yet, they are impossible for us to understand and live out apart from God's grace.
I believe Jesus spoke in parables so that those in whose heart God was working might "get it" and those whose hearts were hardened might not. He didn't seek to convince people of the truth, He let the Truth speak for itself to those who were ready to accept it. In this way, I see how He protected God's sovereignty as well as man's.
I could be wrong and that's okay. Thank you for the education and Merry Christmas to you!
|
|
