Supersoulty's Christian Theological Debate Thread

[12th Doctor]

I thought it would be a good idea to start an on going theological debate discussion thread for Christian topics.  So here we are.

Since I don't want to leave the impression that I am in anyway steering the discussion, I will let someone else start up with a topic.

[12th Doctor]

Throwing this over to Chris...

I'm getting to it.  Busy day tomorrow, I have two policy briefs to prepare.

[12th Doctor]

Read these specific requirements, and you'll notice Jesus did not fulfill any of them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah#Textual_requirements

Do you really have any knowledge of Christian theology?  It's not an attack, its a serious question, because alot of these points are answered by very basic points of Christian teaching.

   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Metaphorical... for a Catholic standpoint, this would be the establishment of the Church structure.  What is merely being said here is that there will once again be elders capable of making decisions for the faithful.  In this case, the Bishops, who are the direct successors of the Twelve, represent the body of the Council.  The Sanhedrin were ruled over by the Prime Minister (or Chief Steward) of the House of David and later the High Priest... the man that Catholics now call the "Pope".

This is a point that is lost on even most Jews today, but Catholics didn't "make up" the way the our Bishops are dressed.  The design for their outfits was taken largely from the design of those worn by the Sanhedrin members.  If you ever watch Raiders of the Lost Ark the guy who opens the Ark isn't wearing a Catholic Bishop's outfit.  If you look real closely, you will see there are Jewish characters on the robes and headdress.  This is accurate.

   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jesus "became King" when he died on the cross and word of his teachings spread.  In the end, people did, indeed, bow before him.

   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A prophesy yet to be fulfilled.

   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read the beginning of the Book of Matthew.

   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most Christians believe that Jesus was fully man and fully God.  In fact, two of the primary heresies wiped out in the early Church were Monotheisms (the belief that Jesus only had one nature, and that was divine) and Arianism (the belief that Jesus was not God, but rather "the greatest of all creatures" in God's order).  Both of which opposed the fundamental tenets of Nicaea.

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

If you actually want to understand Christian belief then the Creed is a good place to start.

It is clear by the scriptures that he was an observant Jew.

   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, Christians believe that no evil can stand before the name and Word of Christ, but as an observant Jew, I wouldn't expect you to believe that.

   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably fair to say that the knowledge of the one God is at least far more extensive than it was in Jewish times, and indeed, Jesus claims followers in all nations.

   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, the passage does not say this.  If you read it in context, then you see that all that is being said is that God will "assemble" the dispersed of Judah and reclaim the remnant of his people.  Not nearly as explicit as they try to make it sound.

   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christians believe that through his suffering, death and resurrection, Christ redeemed man and destroyed death.

   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of this is covered mostly in Revelations, which isn't my strongest area... this is all filed under the "yet to come" category with the Second Coming.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Jesus was.

   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jesus spent alot of time taking about "worthy" desires, as did Paul after him.  Needless to say, these things are possessions, but rather are found through a love of God and one another.

   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The barren land is the land of the Gentiles.  Again... metaphor.  Jesus uses this metaphor is several parables referring to faith.  Bringing faith to people who are not Jews is making the "barren land fruitful.

[12th Doctor]

First off, the attempt to legitimize Jesus as a descendant of David, even if you assume that the line created was not mostly fictional, led to Joseph. And Jesus was not related Joseph, if you accept later church doctrine (though it entirely possible that those linking Jesus to David did not believe Jesus to be the son of God, merely the Messiah, given that it surfaced before any of the Gospels).

But Joseph was Jesus' earthly father.  He was chosen by God, just as Mary was... this wasn't arbitrary.

As for your second claim... Matthew didn't think Jesus was the Son of God?  That's news to me, and I am pretty sure it would be news to Matthew.  Matthew wrote of the Eucharist, just as the others did.  While it is true Matthew was more concerned than the others in providing the context for Jesus as the Messiah, and while it is true that almost all direct references to Jesus being divine come from John, it is very difficult, in reading, to argue that Matthew's was not writing from the  perspective that Jesus was God.  And if you are correct, than any hint of that would have mean automatic disqualification of the book from cannon.  There were gospels written that had far more emphasis on the divinity of Jesus than Matthew, but Matthew was included over them to suit a specific purpose, having been written from a specific perspective... and one that doesn't contradict the others.

[12th Doctor]

The different perspectives provided are the reason we have four Gospels instead of just one.

Also, don't read Dan Brown.  It will rot your brain.

[12th Doctor]

I will also note that many Early Church Fathers who we know believed that Jesus was God made no effort to sweep Matthew under the rug.  Quite the opposite.  In the surviving works that we have from Pope Clement I, St. Augustine, etc, Matthew is quoted from quite liberally.  In fact, in the writings of assorted Church Fathers, Matthew is quoted from more than all the other books combined.  Matthew was proported to be the first of the Gospels deemed "canonical".  Contrast that with John, which was not as widely liked and even less widely understood at the time (even today, people who specialize in studying the gospels usually either specialize in either Matthew Mark and Luke, or they are experts on John) , but contained the most direct references to Christ as God.  If these early Churchmen were trying to sweep Matthew under the rug, as it were, in favor of a book that more loudly proclaimed Jesus as God, then it surely would have been the other way around.  Clearly, these men who earnestly believed Jesus was divine saw nothing objectionable with Matthew.

[12th Doctor]

Another thing I would like to mention, before I go off and begin the wondrous journey that is my Quantitative Methods homework, is that familial relationships as we understand them were quite different in the ancient world (this also plays a large factor in looking at Jesus' "brothers", but that is off topic).  They saw families differently, and they didn't have this understanding of DNA that we have now.  Adoption was not uncommon in the ancient world, and when one was adopted, they were considered to be, body and blood, a member of the family they were adopted into.  It was not uncommon for a younger man to adopt an older man, and when this happened, that older man became his blood son, in their minds.  When Joseph adopts Jesus, Jesus becomes his son... no doubt about it in anyone's mind, and Jesus inherits Joseph's line.

[12th Doctor]

Let's bump this thread.

Seriously, this could be a good thread.

You know, sometimes I think you want to be converted.  Anyway, now that we have a entire folder, I see little point for this single thread.

[12th Doctor]

Is it a sin to look at porn/masturbate?

In the Hebrew Bible, G-d strikes down someone for masturbating, so I would guess yes.  I don't think pornography is by itself a sin, but if you masturbate, then yes, it is a sin.

Onan was struck down because he refused to give children to his deceased brother's wife.  The story does not refer to masturbation in any way.  In fact, masturbation is not mentioned in the Bible.

Don't know if this was fully addressed yet or not, but I'll answer it because I saw it. The OT very clearly states that "spilling one's seed" is a sin. Onan was punished because he would not give Tamar a child, but, more specifically, because he "pulled out" early and spilled seed in vein so as to not impregnate her.

I had a question of my own. In Christian theology, what happens to Jews who do not accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior and consider him a heretic?

Yes, but the actual reason for the punishment was because he violated a direct commandment from God.  The spilled seed has little to do with it, other than that was how he got around it.  It's not the big deal some people make it out to be.

Anyway, as for your question, there are two schools of thought.  The first, is that one must accept Christ as Lord and Savior in this life in order to be saved, which Jesus doesn't actually say.  The second, that Christ told us that he came to heal the sick, not the healthy, the healthy being Jews truly faithful to the old covenant.

[12th Doctor]

I had a question of my own. In Christian theology, what happens to Jews who do not accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior and consider him a heretic?

Anyway, as for your question, there are two schools of thought.  The first, is that one must accept Christ as Lord and Savior in this life in order to be saved, which Jesus doesn't actually say.  The second, that Christ told us that he came to heal the sick, not the healthy, the healthy being Jews truly faithful to the old covenant.

[*slaps self*]  [**slaps self, again**]

John 3:14-18 (Jesus is speaking to a Jew, a Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council) 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's only begotten Son."

Deuteronomy 18:15 (Moses, speaking to Jews) "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him."

John 3:36 (John the Baptist, speaking to Jews) "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
 
Acts 13:38-40 (Paul, speaking to Jews in a synagogue) 38"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. 40Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you (quoting Hab 1:5):
 41" 'Look, you scoffers,
      wonder and perish,
   for I am going to do something in your days
      that you would never believe,
      even if someone told you.'"

Acts 2:47 (regarding Jews who were joining the church) "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

There are differing degrees of rejection.

[12th Doctor]

I had a question of my own. In Christian theology, what happens to Jews who do not accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior and consider him a heretic?

Anyway, as for your question, there are two schools of thought.  The first, is that one must accept Christ as Lord and Savior in this life in order to be saved, which Jesus doesn't actually say.  The second, that Christ told us that he came to heal the sick, not the healthy, the healthy being Jews truly faithful to the old covenant.

[*slaps self*]  [**slaps self, again**]

John 3:14-18 (Jesus is speaking to a Jew, a Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council) 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's only begotten Son."

Deuteronomy 18:15 (Moses, speaking to Jews) "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him."

John 3:36 (John the Baptist, speaking to Jews) "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
 
Acts 13:38-40 (Paul, speaking to Jews in a synagogue) 38"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. 40Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you (quoting Hab 1:5):
 41" 'Look, you scoffers,
      wonder and perish,
   for I am going to do something in your days
      that you would never believe,
      even if someone told you.'"

Acts 2:47 (regarding Jews who were joining the church) "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

There are differing degrees of rejection.

I mean, you people believe that unless it is explicitly stated in the Bible, its not real, right?  That's your basis for rejecting tradition as a basis.  Well, I'm not convinced that it is explicitly said that Jews will be condemned.  Nice try.

[12th Doctor]

Christianity is nihilistic and life-denying, because it

A.) Condemns as sin those activities which humans engage in to further their enjoyment of life; it does this because

B.) Its followers hate and fear the temporality of the senses - and hence sensuality - and the world itself; and

C.) It has constructed an artificial metaphysics centered on the hereafter in an effort to falsify the objective world as a means of escaping the inevitability of change and death.

Prove me wrong.

Okay...

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

Once of the original heresies condemned by the Church.  What do I win?

[12th Doctor]

Christianity is nihilistic and life-denying, because it

A.) Condemns as sin those activities which humans engage in to further their enjoyment of life; it does this because

B.) Its followers hate and fear the temporality of the senses - and hence sensuality - and the world itself; and

C.) It has constructed an artificial metaphysics centered on the hereafter in an effort to falsify the objective world as a means of escaping the inevitability of change and death.

Prove me wrong.

That does not constitute "nihilism,"

It most certainly does.

What  is Christianity's primary claim about this life? That it is of "the world, the flesh and the Devil"; that it is to be abnegated, as far as possible; and that 'the beyond' is a purer sphere of existence where "He will wipe every tear from (the Christians) eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain."

What is implied in this philosophy? Simply this: that this lesser mortal coil derives its value only in relation to the beyond; that it lacks any innate value; indeed, that it is frequently malignant. The very act of devaluing this life is in itself nihilistic, just as nihilistic and more as any atheistic existentialism; the very word 'nihility' means 'absence of value'.

Historically, of course, this is certain understandable: Christianity formed among the lower Judean classes as a means to undermine the sensualistic ethos of their Latin masters. In doing so, however, the proto-Christians undermined the value of physicality itself, a doctrine that would find ultimate expression in the ancient practice of "Mortification of the Flesh", and in Manila every Easter today.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's exactly the point: complete absorption of the individual (the 'soul', as it were) into a greater unity - the dissolution of the boundaries between the senses and the sensed - which leads, ultimately, to the complete obliteration of the ego is exactly the end-goal of my philosophy. And this is not some form of individualistic libertinism; to the contrary, the concept of 'individual' implies some static center to man, some kernel of truth, some... soul. Individualism is a Christian phenomenon. The intended result of Dionysian praxis is total, joyous self-obliteration.

I am also a nihilist. Just in the opposite direction, for the opposite reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know very well what Gnosticism is. That's not what I'm talking about. The Gnostics questioned the reality of the flesh (because it was evil); 'mere' Christians inquire as to its value (again because it is evil). These are different branches of the same weed.

No they aren't.  The Gnostics were condemned based on their notion that the physical reality was inherently evil... this developed into the the notion that the OT and NT God's differ, but that's not where it started.  On that basis, they fully condemned sexuality, property, etc.  95% of the rest of Christianity believed that its not the physical world that is evil, but rather that people corrupt, and must do what they can to improve their world.  Of course, the further you are from Catholicism/Orthodoxy, the less you agree with that, but that just demonstrates the uselessness of proclaiming that there is even such a thing as one Christian view to begin with.