Do these commands.....

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Dream

Without a basic storyline of Genesis - Exodus and knowledge of Leviticus, some of Numbers and Deuteronomy you can find the gospels and Paul's letters to be quite the head-banging (or mystical) experience. Things just don't work together without it. Everything you read in the Tanach helps when reading the Christian authors, because the gospels and letters are completely saturated with Torah allusions, references, utterances, ideology, arguments, and decrees.

That's true, but when one examines those Torah allusions within their own context one finds that the NT material is an adaptation which often bears little direct correlation to the original context. That's fine so long as we understand that just because the NT authors strung their story around the pegs of older Jewish themes, that doesn't prove a connection between their thesis and the original intent of the material they borrowed.

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I read the OT and ponder it, but I see where Chris is going here. It is customary for mainstream Christians to see the OT as the foundation to the NT. However, what gets me is what to do with the very clear statements in the NT that Jesus came for the Jews. Yeah, us Gentiles got the message and that's wonderful, but according to the OT and Judaism today, the Gentiles were only bound by the Noahide Laws. We weren't supposed to leave our own ethnic/religious groups and become sort-of Jewish Christians. We were given the message of Jesus and that would have been overlaid on the Noahide Laws and our own traditions. At least, after a lot of thought and study, that was the clearest "answer" I could come up with.

Personally, I see the OT as important for understanding the background history and mythology leading to Jesus. Furthermore, I actually think that many Christians today have inaccurate theological concepts because they have not studied the OT and Jesus' words in the context of Judaic thought, but instead imposed modern Western thinking on these texts. No offense (and I don't think it matters for salvation), but that is just what I find.

That said, I am not Jewish. So I chose to retain/revive the traditions of my own ancestors, but inform them with the Noahide Laws and what I can learn from Judaism, and to follow Christ's message as a Gentile.

Hey Path. Enjoyed the comradarie with you and yours and me and mine.

The irony of the NT is that we miss the simple but profound statement from Jesus, that no one can erase, not even the root faith and those that follow it. Jesus may have originally come for the Jews, but knew before hand he would be rejected. But everytime in the NT, his message was gladly received by non Jews, who were astounded at the fact that God loved them as well as the chosen.

For example, Jesus met the samaritan woman at the well, and told her the secret to life. He then explained how the gentile was being "grafted" onto the tree of life (that is Jesus), and even the indiginous branches that did not produce fruit would be cut away and burned as chaff. Then there is the woman who refused to let the Lord dismiss her, by stating that even the dogs get the scraps that the children let fall from the master's table. Jesus' response was amazement, at such a powerful faith! Finally Jesus declared that a prophet and hero is welcome everywhere but home.

What's more, the strength of faith in God between Jew and gentile is quite different, with the gentiles showing greater grasp of faith than the "people of the law". In reality, it seems as if the Jews are mind knowledgeable of God, while gentiles are "heart" knowledgeable.

Like so many of us, the heart and the head don't always have a clear connection, so both miss something important from the other.

One other thing I thought about. Israel wasn't only Judeac. At one time there were 12 tribes. The others being scattered became lost, and when they saw the Lord, remembered. the tribe of Juda kept the vestiges of their dignity even until 70AD, before themselves being scattered. Why they were able to maintain their collective identity for 2000 years, with no country is a mystery, but with it came a certain arrogance and pride, that can be irksome to enraging.

But the commandments (Noahidic), are meant to be for all, including Jews. The Hebrew commandments, were written on tablets of stone, as an addition (I guess because the Noahidic commandments written in every man's heart just wasn't enough for some people)...

If Jesus was concerned about a western flavor, then why did He reach out to the west? Maybe because we had no bad habits concerning laws, rituals, and the like (which and plug up the channel between Head and Heart)?

Just a thought.

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

That's true, but when one examines those Torah allusions within their own context one finds that the NT material is an adaptation which often bears little direct correlation to the original context. That's fine so long as we understand that just because the NT authors strung their story around the pegs of older Jewish themes, that doesn't prove a connection between their thesis and the original intent of the material they borrowed.

Chris

That's because you're trying to read it like a history book, or a scientific journal, instead of what it was intended for, namely to get one thinking about the relationship between God and Man.

Would you analyze a "love story" in this manner? Well, you are.

v/r

Josh

[China Cat Sunflower]

I think adaptive, or micro religion is good. Christianity started out that way. If the Christ, or Logos is a universal principle there's no reason we have to be bound to the stuff Paul and the Gospelers ripped. I agree that it's important to study the foundational material, but, do we really HAVE to all play the same creative anachronism?

Christianity owes its success to it's cultural flexibility. If you read the later books in the NT like James and such, it's clear that what the earliest Christian communities were trying to achieve was a mutually beneficial social structure like the Jews had, except theirs was to be more egalitarian. Theirs would be trans-ethnic and Hellenistic. They would do away with the inner and outer court and have one big tent where anyone was welcome. That idea forms the sociological core of Paul's ideals and creates his unique trans-ethnic appeal.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

That's because you're trying to read it like a history book, or a scientific journal, instead of what it was intended for, namely to get one thinking about the relationship between God and Man.

Would you analyze a "love story" in this manner? Well, you are.

v/r

Josh

How would you examine similar ancient documents from a set of cultures and traditions unknown to you? What's a person supposed to do, accept uncritically a set of built in biases called "belief"? There are certain critical appreciation skills relevant to a particular genre. A certain amount of voluntary immersion goes along with that. But nothing gets a free pass.

Chris

[Dream]

when one examines those Torah allusions within their own context one finds that the NT material is an adaptation which often bears little direct correlation to the original context.

That is the real crux of the matter. That's the sort of thing I'm interested in. Most material that's written about this subject only considers the pros for Christianity, or else discusses the woes of modern Christianity -- which means it doesn't address the fundamental questions. Do you have any book ideas for a hardened heretic like myself?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

How would you examine similar ancient documents from a set of cultures and traditions unknown to you? What's a person supposed to do, accept uncritically a set of built in biases called "belief"? There are certain critical appreciation skills relevant to a particular genre. A certain amount of voluntary immersion goes along with that. But nothing gets a free pass.

Chris

If an open mind is used while reading holy text, then, yes Chris. If pre-conceived notions are brought into the equation (sp), then what we get is a colored perspective of what we are observing. And that is what you are doing, yes? Observing...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Dream

That is the real crux of the matter. That's the sort of thing I'm interested in. Most material that's written about this subject only considers the pros for Christianity, or else discusses the woes of modern Christianity -- which means it doesn't address the fundamental questions. Do you have any book ideas for a hardened heretic like myself?

What is your faith, and what is your purpose Dream? I'd like to know.

v/r

Q

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

If an open mind is used while reading holy text, then, yes Chris. If pre-conceived notions are brought into the equation (sp), then what we get is a colored perspective of what we are observing. And that is what you are doing, yes? Observing...

Yes. Trying anyway.

Chris

[Dream]

Hey, Quahom1. When I called myself a 'Hardened heretic' I honored myself more than I should, but it was only in jest. Certainly I have a lot of respect for those who have died for being honest about what they think. I'm a believer that found out that Christianity has changed quite a lot from its original form.

China_Cat has brought up the biggest issue with Christianity and also his most interesting objection:

when one examines those Torah allusions within their own context one finds that the NT material is an adaptation which often bears little direct correlation to the original context.

When I said that I'd like to see a book, Quahom1, I meant that works I've seen that criticize Christianity tend to deal with modern Christianity and focus upon its weaknesses, either its ideology or some currently disgusting practice. Critics tend to spend a lot of effort pounding away at money grubbing clerics, the illogic of trinity or other new and winking doctrines. They do not treat the original Christian arguments. China_Cat mentioned problems with the original context of scripture quoted in 'NT material', which is where my interest lies.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Dream

That is the real crux of the matter. That's the sort of thing I'm interested in. Most material that's written about this subject only considers the pros for Christianity, or else discusses the woes of modern Christianity -- which means it doesn't address the fundamental questions. Do you have any book ideas for a hardened heretic like myself?

You don't sound like a heretic.

I might be able to suggest some books, but threading the bias needle is difficult. I try to avoid authors who are pushing grand, sweeping theories one way or the other. There's no shortage of apologists in any number of directions. In the large sense I don't consider myself very knowledgeable at all, and considering that each person has a different entry point and different interests you're probably better off on your own.

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Dream

Hey, Quahom1. When I called myself a 'Hardened heretic' I honored myself more than I should, but it was only in jest. Certainly I have a lot of respect for those who have died for being honest about what they think. I'm a believer that found out that Christianity has changed quite a lot from its original form.

China_Cat has brought up the biggest issue with Christianity and also his most interesting objection: When I said that I'd like to see a book, Quahom1, I meant that works I've seen that criticize Christianity tend to deal with modern Christianity and focus upon its weaknesses, either its ideology or some currently disgusting practice. Critics tend to spend a lot of effort pounding away at money grubbing clerics, the illogic of trinity or other new and winking doctrines. They do not treat the original Christian arguments. China_Cat mentioned problems with the original context of scripture quoted in 'NT material', which is where my interest lies.

Fair enough. But what you both fail to realize is that Christianity isn't in a book. It is in day to day living and you have no idea who the "Christian" is that you deal with. They do not make themselves known. They are known by their works, not their declarations. Do these commands...

Chris and I have gone 'round the block a time or two (to my chagrin). You and I have not. I would spare the both of us (the three of us, actually), of making the same mistake.

Chris does not accept the Christian way. Fine. But he asks questions. Fine. I am a Christian, and believe with all my being, and whether the world likes it or not, it too is fine.

But I'm willing to entertain arguements contrary, particularly to Modern Christianity And I think this is an issue that both you and Chris have difficulties dealing with. So, let's debate/discuss/contemplate...ok?

v/r

Q

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Dream

Very respectable point of view, Path of One. All of this stuff takes time to go through. As you learn enough to narrow down the possibilities and throw away the junk answers you sometimes feel like a tired swimmer.

Hmm, Enter through the narrow gate? Just hope that Balaam's donkey is with you to warn you of trouble. (Reminds me of Jesus's prayer in John 17.)

As far as I can tell, these are all written by people with the same basic understanding of what God is.

Maybe, but maybe not.

There are many cultural differences that separate us from these in authors in the past, which means there are language hurtles for us. Some training in any second language is very helpful, because it sharpens your intuition about the translated Christian texts. More importantly, you've got to have some Jewish cultural and historical knowledge before you can understand even John 3:16 in depth. Without a basic storyline of Genesis - Exodus and knowledge of Leviticus, some of Numbers and Deuteronomy you can find the gospels and Paul's letters to be quite the head-banging (or mystical) experience. Things just don't work together without it. Everything you read in the Tanach helps when reading the Christian authors, because the gospels and letters are completely saturated with Torah allusions, references, utterances, ideology, arguments, and decrees.

Agreed. However, will that actually be enough? (Methinks something else might be missing here...)

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Hey Path. Enjoyed the comradarie with you and yours and me and mine.

Likewise!

Jesus may have originally come for the Jews, but knew before hand he would be rejected. But everytime in the NT, his message was gladly received by non Jews, who were astounded at the fact that God loved them as well as the chosen.

I thought some Jews and some non-Jews accepted Him, and lots of Jews and non-Jews didn't. Basically, the disciples were Jews and they accepted Him, and a bunch of folks in those massive crowds accepted Him and were Jewish. Then some Gentile folks also accepted Him, but a slew of Romans (no doubt, given the "end" of the Gospel story) did not, which continued on with the persecution of Christians until Constantine decided to make Christianity the state religion.

In reality, it seems as if the Jews are mind knowledgeable of God, while gentiles are "heart" knowledgeable.

I don't think this is the case. I see some Jews today that are mind-knowledgable and others who are heart-knowledgable. Same goes for Christians. That's just been my observation. I honestly have not seen much difference in actual practice across a great variety of religions- it seems you get a lot of folks just along for the ride, some folks that are concerned about rules and doctrines all the time, some folks that are all about personal experience and connection with Divine, etc. no matter which faith you pick. I guess that is probably due to personality differences more than anything else.

Like so many of us, the heart and the head don't always have a clear connection, so both miss something important from the other.

I wholeheartedly agree with that!

Why they were able to maintain their collective identity for 2000 years, with no country is a mystery, but with it came a certain arrogance and pride, that can be irksome to enraging.

I haven't personally dealt with much arrogance (any more than any group) with Jewish people I know, but we each have our own experiences. I find most people in life are, to some degree, arrogant and prideful- of their religion, their nationality, their ethnicity, their occupation- something. It's that troublesome self-centeredness that occurs in all humans and is at the root of our problems... I'm not that surprised they were able to maintain a collective identity though. Frequently they have been isolated or segregated in other societies, they have often had enclaves, and they have a variety of cultural traits that give them solidarity.

Countries/nations are a recent human innovation. Ethnic/tribal/group solidarity is much older. Everyone used to maintain cultural continuity without the benefit of an associated nation-state, so it's more ordinary than it seems.

But the commandments (Noahidic), are meant to be for all, including Jews. The Hebrew commandments, were written on tablets of stone, as an addition (I guess because the Noahidic commandments written in every man's heart just wasn't enough for some people)...

As I understood it, the Noahid laws were a smaller subset of the 10 commandments but very similar. The Jews have 613 mitzvot, not just the 10 commandments. From what I pieced together, the story is that God tried to give the mitzvot to all variety of peoples on earth but no one wanted it but the Jews, so they became "chosen" as a special people to show the world a right way of living given to them by God. I wish bananabrain or dauer would answer this... But that is what I'd read so far. It wasn't a matter of "we are so special" but "we were willing to do this."

If Jesus was concerned about a western flavor, then why did He reach out to the west? Maybe because we had no bad habits concerning laws, rituals, and the like (which and plug up the channel between Head and Heart)?

I don't think Jesus was concerned with flavors, but I also don't think it was meant to take on many of the meanings and practices it did. All we have to do is look at things like the Inquisition and Crusades to see the extreme of Jesus' message being misintepreted and misapplied. Personally, I think Jesus' message is pretty flexible in terms of how it integrates with religion. I find that it integrates with lots of traditions (including my Druidic one) just fine. However, one must always be alert to twisting the message, no matter what one's religious/ethnic/ancestral background. I think understanding some of the Jewish roots help in that regard.

As for having bad habits, I think all human societies (more or less) had bad habits. Most of the Gentile world that took up Christianity early on certainly had the trappings of law, ritual, and so forth and in most cases the priests were tied firmly to the governmental powers in some way by the time of Christ. The peoples that were most free from law, ritual, etc. were probably your tribal and band level animists with their shamans. But those people didn't get much of Christianity for hundreds or even thousands of years in many/most cases. By that time, Christianity had reinvented the trappings (law, ritual, etc.) and tied itself to government powers, thereby twisting the original practice (in some cases, I think, beyond recognition).

Did Christ's message still shine through? In many cases, yes. But that doesn't excuse poor or misleading doctrine and practice. It's kind of a making lemonade out of lemons scenario to me. God's will always triumphs, but we sure could help out and make it easier on everyone by uniting a sincerity of seeking (heart-attitude) with study and contemplation (mind-discipline).

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

...have one big tent where anyone was welcome. That idea forms the sociological core of Paul's ideals and creates his unique trans-ethnic appeal.

What else would one expect from a tent maker (by trade)?