There's a story about Pythagoas where he comes across to fishermen and bets them that if he can "guess" the number of fish they have caught in their net then they have to let them all go. He guesses 153, and is right and they throw them all back. Pythagoras was so motivated because he/the cult that surrounded him were vegetarians.
This story is reproduced twice in the gospels but Jesus replaces Pythagoras, and instead of having them release the fish he simply causes them to catch a lot but they count and they have caught the same number of fish 153.
153 was considered a sacred number to the Pythagoreans and relates to the mystic/mathematical symbol the Vesica Pisces aka the measure of the fish.
Whoa, I've read that story often, but I never thought there might be a significance to the number of fishes... or even that there was a number given! I was about to post and say the Bible just says "many fish" but fortunately I double-checked first and found you're right, John really does give a fish count.
I love those little details hidden throughout the Bible.
That said, I kept checking, and there is far from a consensus on the significance of the 153 value. It was a significant number for other schools of philosophy besides Pythagoras (including Plato, and if we are to trust random mathematical operations on the dimensions of the Great Pyramid even the Egyptians). And while this story does have echoes of that story about Pythagoras, there are other instances of 153 in the Bible (both in the OT and NT) that cannot be linked to that. Or, as one person noted, "fishermen count their fish".
I am willing to be corrected, but I am unaware of any other instances of 153 in the Bible.
And I don't really know what you mean by consensus as to the significance of 153 - because that could encompass a whole range of stuff, from apologists to historians of mystery cult religions to biblical critical scholars.
There's a story about Pythagoas where he comes across to fishermen and bets them that if he can "guess" the number of fish they have caught in their net then they have to let them all go. He guesses 153, and is right and they throw them all back. Pythagoras was so motivated because he/the cult that surrounded him were vegetarians.
This story is reproduced twice in the gospels but Jesus replaces Pythagoras, and instead of having them release the fish he simply causes them to catch a lot but they count and they have caught the same number of fish 153.
153 was considered a sacred number to the Pythagoreans and relates to the mystic/mathematical symbol the Vesica Pisces aka the measure of the fish.
Whoa, I've read that story often, but I never thought there might be a significance to the number of fishes... or even that there was a number given! I was about to post and say the Bible just says "many fish" but fortunately I double-checked first and found you're right, John really does give a fish count.
I love those little details hidden throughout the Bible.
That said, I kept checking, and there is far from a consensus on the significance of the 153 value. It was a significant number for other schools of philosophy besides Pythagoras (including Plato, and if we are to trust random mathematical operations on the dimensions of the Great Pyramid even the Egyptians). And while this story does have echoes of that story about Pythagoras, there are other instances of 153 in the Bible (both in the OT and NT) that cannot be linked to that. Or, as one person noted, "fishermen count their fish".
I am willing to be corrected, but I am unaware of any other instances of 153 in the Bible.
And I don't really know what you mean by consensus as to the significance of 153 - because that could encompass a whole range of stuff, from apologists to historians of mystery cult religions to biblical critical scholars.
I meant hidden references. For instance, the four-letter name of God appears 153 times in Genesis.
I meant consensus among Biblical scholars and historians.
There's a story about Pythagoas where he comes across to fishermen and bets them that if he can "guess" the number of fish they have caught in their net then they have to let them all go. He guesses 153, and is right and they throw them all back. Pythagoras was so motivated because he/the cult that surrounded him were vegetarians.
This story is reproduced twice in the gospels but Jesus replaces Pythagoras, and instead of having them release the fish he simply causes them to catch a lot but they count and they have caught the same number of fish 153.
153 was considered a sacred number to the Pythagoreans and relates to the mystic/mathematical symbol the Vesica Pisces aka the measure of the fish.
Whoa, I've read that story often, but I never thought there might be a significance to the number of fishes... or even that there was a number given! I was about to post and say the Bible just says "many fish" but fortunately I double-checked first and found you're right, John really does give a fish count.
I love those little details hidden throughout the Bible.
That said, I kept checking, and there is far from a consensus on the significance of the 153 value. It was a significant number for other schools of philosophy besides Pythagoras (including Plato, and if we are to trust random mathematical operations on the dimensions of the Great Pyramid even the Egyptians). And while this story does have echoes of that story about Pythagoras, there are other instances of 153 in the Bible (both in the OT and NT) that cannot be linked to that. Or, as one person noted, "fishermen count their fish".
"Hey its that dead guy. We will be over in a second after we count our fish."
There's a story about Pythagoas where he comes across to fishermen and bets them that if he can "guess" the number of fish they have caught in their net then they have to let them all go. He guesses 153, and is right and they throw them all back. Pythagoras was so motivated because he/the cult that surrounded him were vegetarians.
This story is reproduced twice in the gospels but Jesus replaces Pythagoras, and instead of having them release the fish he simply causes them to catch a lot but they count and they have caught the same number of fish 153.
153 was considered a sacred number to the Pythagoreans and relates to the mystic/mathematical symbol the Vesica Pisces aka the measure of the fish.
Whoa, I've read that story often, but I never thought there might be a significance to the number of fishes... or even that there was a number given! I was about to post and say the Bible just says "many fish" but fortunately I double-checked first and found you're right, John really does give a fish count.
I love those little details hidden throughout the Bible.
That said, I kept checking, and there is far from a consensus on the significance of the 153 value. It was a significant number for other schools of philosophy besides Pythagoras (including Plato, and if we are to trust random mathematical operations on the dimensions of the Great Pyramid even the Egyptians). And while this story does have echoes of that story about Pythagoras, there are other instances of 153 in the Bible (both in the OT and NT) that cannot be linked to that. Or, as one person noted, "fishermen count their fish".
"Hey its that dead guy. We will be over in a second after we count our fish."
Those guys also went fishing in a crazy storm they needed Jesus to perform a miracle to calm. They were really serious about fishing.
Evangelicalism and fundamentalism are different. Sure, there are fundamentalist evangelicals, but there are also evangelical Methodists.
Here's a good rule of thumb. If someone on the TV says "evangelical", mentally replace it with "fundamentalist".
True. Evangelicalism is another name for "spreading Christianity by telling people about Jesus". Technically, the Methodist Church is evangelical, but it's not "evangelical".
Edit: There are people who are more conservative than PCC? Like what beef could they even have?
I was talking to one of them and they said that Matthew 25:34-36 (the "feed the hungry, minister to the sick, clothe the naked, visit those in prison" quote) actually only applied to Christians, since apparently that's what "the least of these brothers and sisters of mine" means.
When given a direct injunction to help your fellow man by someone whom Christians believe is God, they weasel out of it. What jerks.
It's sort of an example of the way people's preexisting beliefs determine their theology, because it's right there in the Gospels what happens when you ask "who qualifies as a 'brother'?".
Yes, you can examine the basis of the world's assertion, but the world having that position doesn't in and of itself mean anything.
A variant of "good people go to heaven" seems to be the majority belief in the United States. But if someone suggested to me that I should change my beliefs to match that, I'd laugh in their face. So why do people think that doing that on other topics is going to work?
For example, it took deep scriptural analysis and personal experience for me to soften my position on female clergy. Being mocked and called a misogynist did absolutely nothing.
Because it worked when Utah needed admission to the Union, or the Baptists tried to evangelize in slave states. What do you suppose is going to happen to churches that reject gay marriage in 10, 20, 50 years?
Yes, you can examine the basis of the world's assertion, but the world having that position doesn't in and of itself mean anything.
A variant of "good people go to heaven" seems to be the majority belief in the United States. But if someone suggested to me that I should change my beliefs to match that, I'd laugh in their face. So why do people think that doing that on other topics is going to work?
For example, it took deep scriptural analysis and personal experience for me to soften my position on female clergy. Being mocked and called a misogynist did absolutely nothing.
Because it worked when Utah needed admission to the Union, or the Baptists tried to evangelize in slave states. What do you suppose is going to happen to churches that reject gay marriage in 10, 20, 50 years?
Well, I don't consider Mormons to really be Christians, so there's that. And I'm not familiar with the Baptist example, so I'll have to trust you on that.
I've intentionally been dancing around the gay marriage issue, since I don't want to completely derail the thread. I won't go into that without the blessing of @rockrnger since it's his thread.
On a different topic, I get really ticked off when someone suggests that we should change theological beliefs because they're unpopular in society. It's like they've never read the book of John.
If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
Popular opinion is not one of the sides of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral!
No, but reason is, and you may wish to consider whether the world has a point instead of dismissing it because of a clobber verse.
For example, it took deep scriptural analysis and personal experience for me to soften my position on female clergy.
Would you mind elaborating on this?
Sounds interesting.
So, I was raised in a church where not only could women not be pastors, but they couldn't teach adult Sunday School classes either. Similarly, women must submit to their husbands.
The last of those three things is where I began to make a change. You see, I've witnessed a few cases where the man in the relationship abuses his "headship" to make certain rules that I find just silly. I'm not talking abuse or anything like that, but rather things like "Our kids can't go trick-or-treating" or "Harry Potter is bad". It was a good reminder to me that relationships are about cooperation and no one should have some trump card in disagreements.
So, after some analysis, I decided that the male headship was more spiritual in nature and not a complete subservience situation. This is easily taken from the text when read in it's entirety (and positioned properly in the context of the Roman Empire), but it's not what's frequently taught. This lead me to begin to question women not being allowed to teach men at all.
Now, on female clergy there's two massive clobber* verses (*I usually hate the term clobber verse, but it's appropriate here)
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says
Out of context these seem pretty clear. But my personal experience began to make me look more into the context of these verses. And it turns out that in context they're not quite so harsh.
1 Timothy 1 is all about false teachers who speak of the law without knowing anything about it. In the 1st century, who would have universally not had training in the law? Women! 1 Timothy continues in chapter 2 to speak of how women should dress modestly in church and act with propriety. So this specific church Paul is speaking of seems to have a problem with women speaking out of ignorance and indecently, so the solution is for the women to be quiet.
Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,
Corinthians is much simpler, as the rest of the chapter is about how to have an orderly worship service. Apparently, Corinth was having a problem with people interrupting to speak in tongues - not for the glory of God or the edification of the congregation - just for the sake of speaking in tongues. Similarly, note this verse coming next:
If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Women were apparently chattering or asking questions and disrupting the service, so again the solution is for women to be quiet.
So now that those verses are softened a bit in context, the other places where women are praised in the New Testament begin to take precedence. So putting all this together, combined with attending a church with a female pastor, and I've had a change of heart.
So while I do still think that, all else being equal, a man makes a better pastor - all else is rarely equal. In modern society women have the ability to be heads of a household and have the ability to be trained in the law. If God has granted a woman the skills to be a teacher of men, who are we to turn her aside?
There's also the matter that Paul was not Christ and in general did not claim himself to be divinely inspired or messianic and therefore his letters should be considered as opinions/suggestions of a church father and not divine law, and one of those letters is generally considered to be pseudoepigraphal anyway.
There's also the matter that Paul was not Christ and in general did not claim himself to be divinely inspired or messianic and therefore his letters should be considered as opinions/suggestions of a church father and not divine law, and one of those letters is generally considered to be pseudoepigraphal anyway.
Standard Christian Orthodoxy is that Paul and all of the apostles were divinely inspired in their writings.
Rejecting Paul's writings pretty much obliterates the basis for historical and modern Christianity.
Yes, you can examine the basis of the world's assertion, but the world having that position doesn't in and of itself mean anything.
A variant of "good people go to heaven" seems to be the majority belief in the United States. But if someone suggested to me that I should change my beliefs to match that, I'd laugh in their face. So why do people think that doing that on other topics is going to work?
For example, it took deep scriptural analysis and personal experience for me to soften my position on female clergy. Being mocked and called a misogynist did absolutely nothing.
Because it worked when Utah needed admission to the Union, or the Baptists tried to evangelize in slave states. What do you suppose is going to happen to churches that reject gay marriage in 10, 20, 50 years?
Well, I don't consider Mormons to really be Christians, so there's that. And I'm not familiar with the Baptist example, so I'll have to trust you on that.
I've intentionally been dancing around the gay marriage issue, since I don't want to completely derail the thread. I won't go into that without the blessing of @rockrnger since it's his thread.
It might be more productive to just talk about acceptance of gays (or queer sexuality in general) but as long as you don't say anything offensive and keep in the context of theology and not government I don't see why not.
There's a story about Pythagoas where he comes across to fishermen and bets them that if he can "guess" the number of fish they have caught in their net then they have to let them all go. He guesses 153, and is right and they throw them all back. Pythagoras was so motivated because he/the cult that surrounded him were vegetarians.
This story is reproduced twice in the gospels but Jesus replaces Pythagoras, and instead of having them release the fish he simply causes them to catch a lot but they count and they have caught the same number of fish 153.
153 was considered a sacred number to the Pythagoreans and relates to the mystic/mathematical symbol the Vesica Pisces aka the measure of the fish.
Whoa, I've read that story often, but I never thought there might be a significance to the number of fishes... or even that there was a number given! I was about to post and say the Bible just says "many fish" but fortunately I double-checked first and found you're right, John really does give a fish count.
I love those little details hidden throughout the Bible.
That said, I kept checking, and there is far from a consensus on the significance of the 153 value. It was a significant number for other schools of philosophy besides Pythagoras (including Plato, and if we are to trust random mathematical operations on the dimensions of the Great Pyramid even the Egyptians). And while this story does have echoes of that story about Pythagoras, there are other instances of 153 in the Bible (both in the OT and NT) that cannot be linked to that. Or, as one person noted, "fishermen count their fish".
"Hey its that dead guy. We will be over in a second after we count our fish."
Those guys also went fishing in a crazy storm they needed Jesus to perform a miracle to calm. They were really serious about fishing.
:P
In the calming of the storm they are just rowing across to the other side of the Sea of Galilee.
35 That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, “Let us go over to the other side.” 36 Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him. 37 A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. 38 Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”
39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.
40 He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”
41 They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”
That miracle is a strange one tho. I mean, they were on a medium sized lake, had some people that knew what they are doing and it isn't that far across.
I have heard the interpretation/ apologetic that Jesus is mostly mad at them for being scared of a little storm.
I've intentionally been dancing around the gay marriage issue, since I don't want to completely derail the thread. I won't go into that without the blessing of @rockrnger since it's his thread.
It might be more productive to just talk about acceptance of gays (or queer sexuality in general) but as long as you don't say anything offensive and keep in the context of theology and not government I don't see why not.
Yes, you can examine the basis of the world's assertion, but the world having that position doesn't in and of itself mean anything.
A variant of "good people go to heaven" seems to be the majority belief in the United States. But if someone suggested to me that I should change my beliefs to match that, I'd laugh in their face. So why do people think that doing that on other topics is going to work?
For example, it took deep scriptural analysis and personal experience for me to soften my position on female clergy. Being mocked and called a misogynist did absolutely nothing.
Because it worked when Utah needed admission to the Union, or the Baptists tried to evangelize in slave states. What do you suppose is going to happen to churches that reject gay marriage in 10, 20, 50 years?
The strongest argument I can make for homosexuality being forbidden by the Bible is that it's a death penalty offense in Leviticus. If you look at a list of the other death penalty offenses in the Old Testament, every other one is something that Christians still consider morally wrong. Fortunately, Jesus being a perfect sacrifice has alleviated the need for that punishment for (most of) these sins - as forgiveness is available for all.
But since we're all sinners, all should be welcome into our churches. But that doesn't mean we have to condone their sins or bless their marriages.
gjaustin on
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Yes, you can examine the basis of the world's assertion, but the world having that position doesn't in and of itself mean anything.
A variant of "good people go to heaven" seems to be the majority belief in the United States. But if someone suggested to me that I should change my beliefs to match that, I'd laugh in their face. So why do people think that doing that on other topics is going to work?
For example, it took deep scriptural analysis and personal experience for me to soften my position on female clergy. Being mocked and called a misogynist did absolutely nothing.
Because it worked when Utah needed admission to the Union, or the Baptists tried to evangelize in slave states. What do you suppose is going to happen to churches that reject gay marriage in 10, 20, 50 years?
Well, I don't consider Mormons to really be Christians, so there's that.
Yes, you can examine the basis of the world's assertion, but the world having that position doesn't in and of itself mean anything.
A variant of "good people go to heaven" seems to be the majority belief in the United States. But if someone suggested to me that I should change my beliefs to match that, I'd laugh in their face. So why do people think that doing that on other topics is going to work?
For example, it took deep scriptural analysis and personal experience for me to soften my position on female clergy. Being mocked and called a misogynist did absolutely nothing.
Because it worked when Utah needed admission to the Union, or the Baptists tried to evangelize in slave states. What do you suppose is going to happen to churches that reject gay marriage in 10, 20, 50 years?
Well, I don't consider Mormons to really be Christians, so there's that.
Wait, what? Why?
They deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and consider him a created being.
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Yes, you can examine the basis of the world's assertion, but the world having that position doesn't in and of itself mean anything.
A variant of "good people go to heaven" seems to be the majority belief in the United States. But if someone suggested to me that I should change my beliefs to match that, I'd laugh in their face. So why do people think that doing that on other topics is going to work?
For example, it took deep scriptural analysis and personal experience for me to soften my position on female clergy. Being mocked and called a misogynist did absolutely nothing.
Because it worked when Utah needed admission to the Union, or the Baptists tried to evangelize in slave states. What do you suppose is going to happen to churches that reject gay marriage in 10, 20, 50 years?
Well, I don't consider Mormons to really be Christians, so there's that.
Wait, what? Why?
They deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and consider him a created being.
Interesting.
So even though they believe:
1) everything in the Bible
2) Jesus died for their sins
3) Jesus was Jehovah in the Bible
4) Jesus is an eternal being
5) Jesus is a member of the Godhead (along with the Father and the Holy Ghost)
They are not Christian because they separate Jesus from the Father in the Godhead and have an explanation for where he came from (as well as where all beings came from)?
edit: For classification purposes that just seems really pedantic to claim they aren't Christian. They seem to hit all the major points of being considered a part of Christianity.
I mean, wars have been fought over whether church-goers would take communion in their seats or have to stand and line up for it*
Pedantry in religion is a pretty big deal!
*Gross over-simplification, but still sort of true!
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Within Christianity, every faction seems to have their own reason to separate themselves from each other.
But from an outside viewpoint, I don't see how they aren't all classified as Christians, including Mormons.
edit: Like if you believe in the Old/New Testament, think Jesus died for your sins and is a God, then well, you might just be a part of Christianity.
Actually the typical line is the Nicene creed.
There has been movement for various denominations to accept each other and even the Catholic church got involved. Ecumenism is the name for it. There was something that Mormons do or don't believe that basically pushes them outside that movement. I can't remember at the moment what it was but when I heard it my objections kind of vanished.
Within Christianity, every faction seems to have their own reason to separate themselves from each other.
But from an outside viewpoint, I don't see how they aren't all classified as Christians, including Mormons.
edit: Like if you believe in the Old/New Testament, think Jesus died for your sins and is a God, then well, you might just be a part of Christianity.
Actually the typical line is the Nicene creed.
There has been movement for various denominations to accept each other and even the Catholic church got involved. Ecumenism is the name for it. There was something that Mormons do or don't believe that basically pushes them outside that movement. I can't remember at the moment what it was but when I heard it my objections kind of vanished.
Non-trinitarianism has gotten one branded as a heretic for about 1600 years, so pedantry in this case is not without precedent.
To a point, but the Coptics have been monophysites pretty much since the days of the first patriarchs, and there were quite a few nontrinitarian protestant sects.
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Like I get there are major differences.
But when I think of World Religions academically (Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc), I don't pull Mormons into their own category. That just seems weird when Mormons believe 90% of what the rest of Christianity believes and vice versa.
We had this discussion in [chat] a few weeks ago.
"Christian" is just too generic. Literally taken you could apply it to any religion that claims some specific teachings of Christ as part of their core doctrine. At the same time, various religions under this umbrella are concerned with being the one true religion, and use "Christian" as shorthand for that idea.
It's easier to just say which sects you're talking about. Protestants and Catholics are certainly much closer to each other in doctrine then they are to Mormons, but to say one set is Christian while the other is not is silly.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Whether Mormonism is a Christian denomination, sub cult or other could merit its own thread, I think. Or, more accurately, since your answer probably depends on your self identification, I don't think meaningful debate can happen, rather just evidence based disagreement.
Non-trinitarianism has gotten one branded as a heretic for about 1600 years, so pedantry in this case is not without precedent.
To a point, but the Coptics have been monophysites pretty much since the days of the first patriarchs, and there were quite a few nontrinitarian protestant sects.
Monophysitism is non-Chalcedonian, not non-trinitarian( or Nicene). And they were basically considered heretics from square one by the Orthodox church, although it was always rather sporadically enforced due to the waning influence of Byzantium
Non-trinitarianism has gotten one branded as a heretic for about 1600 years, so pedantry in this case is not without precedent.
To a point, but the Coptics have been monophysites pretty much since the days of the first patriarchs, and there were quite a few nontrinitarian protestant sects.
Monophysitism is non-Chalcedonian, not non-trinitarian( or Nicene). And they were basically considered heretics from square one by the Orthodox church, although it was always rather sporadically enforced due to the waning influence of Byzantium
Eh sorry I was mixing up monophysitism and nestorianism, which is only trinitarian in the loosest sense.
Still, these, and even Arianism, are belief systems that have existed since the days of the early church, still have modern adherants, and would likely not be considered heretical or extreme by the majority of the laity in the present day, in the sense that, say, gnosticism or catharism would be.
Oh I don't disagree, the fundamental pedantry of the nature of Jesus/God/Holy Spirit and their inter-relationship mostly comes off as harmful nitpicking to the laity. But the priestly caste must be opposed to it, because their entire conception of what Christianity is is built upon the foundations of Nicaea.
I think the non-trinitarian argument is fairly strong if you're operating from the stand point of Sola Scriptura. But most mainline churches accept the church fathers as legitimate contributors to what the nature of Christianity is.
This actually brought a question up to me though, how do Trinitarian Protestants support their position if Sola Scriptura is a cornerstone?
Oh I don't disagree, the fundamental pedantry of the nature of Jesus/God/Holy Spirit and their inter-relationship mostly comes off as harmful nitpicking to the laity. But the priestly caste must be opposed to it, because their entire conception of what Christianity is is built upon the foundations of Nicaea.
I think the non-trinitarian argument is fairly strong if you're operating from the stand point of Sola Scriptura. But most mainline churches accept the church fathers as legitimate contributors to what the nature of Christianity is.
This actually brought a question up to me though, how do Trinitarian Protestants support their position if Sola Scriptura is a cornerstone?
Oh I don't disagree, the fundamental pedantry of the nature of Jesus/God/Holy Spirit and their inter-relationship mostly comes off as harmful nitpicking to the laity. But the priestly caste must be opposed to it, because their entire conception of what Christianity is is built upon the foundations of Nicaea.
I think the non-trinitarian argument is fairly strong if you're operating from the stand point of Sola Scriptura. But most mainline churches accept the church fathers as legitimate contributors to what the nature of Christianity is.
This actually brought a question up to me though, how do Trinitarian Protestants support their position if Sola Scriptura is a cornerstone?
How do they support their anti abortion or church/state separation positions?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.
There's a story about Pythagoas where he comes across to fishermen and bets them that if he can "guess" the number of fish they have caught in their net then they have to let them all go. He guesses 153, and is right and they throw them all back. Pythagoras was so motivated because he/the cult that surrounded him were vegetarians.
This story is reproduced twice in the gospels but Jesus replaces Pythagoras, and instead of having them release the fish he simply causes them to catch a lot but they count and they have caught the same number of fish 153.
153 was considered a sacred number to the Pythagoreans and relates to the mystic/mathematical symbol the Vesica Pisces aka the measure of the fish.
Whoa, I've read that story often, but I never thought there might be a significance to the number of fishes... or even that there was a number given! I was about to post and say the Bible just says "many fish" but fortunately I double-checked first and found you're right, John really does give a fish count.
I love those little details hidden throughout the Bible.
That said, I kept checking, and there is far from a consensus on the significance of the 153 value. It was a significant number for other schools of philosophy besides Pythagoras (including Plato, and if we are to trust random mathematical operations on the dimensions of the Great Pyramid even the Egyptians). And while this story does have echoes of that story about Pythagoras, there are other instances of 153 in the Bible (both in the OT and NT) that cannot be linked to that. Or, as one person noted, "fishermen count their fish".
I am willing to be corrected, but I am unaware of any other instances of 153 in the Bible.
And I don't really know what you mean by consensus as to the significance of 153 - because that could encompass a whole range of stuff, from apologists to historians of mystery cult religions to biblical critical scholars.
I meant hidden references. For instance, the four-letter name of God appears 153 times in Genesis.
I meant consensus among Biblical scholars and historians.
I've intentionally been dancing around the gay marriage issue, since I don't want to completely derail the thread. I won't go into that without the blessing of @rockrnger since it's his thread.
It might be more productive to just talk about acceptance of gays (or queer sexuality in general) but as long as you don't say anything offensive and keep in the context of theology and not government I don't see why not.
Yes, you can examine the basis of the world's assertion, but the world having that position doesn't in and of itself mean anything.
A variant of "good people go to heaven" seems to be the majority belief in the United States. But if someone suggested to me that I should change my beliefs to match that, I'd laugh in their face. So why do people think that doing that on other topics is going to work?
For example, it took deep scriptural analysis and personal experience for me to soften my position on female clergy. Being mocked and called a misogynist did absolutely nothing.
Because it worked when Utah needed admission to the Union, or the Baptists tried to evangelize in slave states. What do you suppose is going to happen to churches that reject gay marriage in 10, 20, 50 years?
The strongest argument I can make for homosexuality being forbidden by the Bible is that it's a death penalty offense in Leviticus. If you look at a list of the other death penalty offenses in the Old Testament, every other one is something that Christians still consider morally wrong. Fortunately, Jesus being a perfect sacrifice has alleviated the need for that punishment for (most of) these sins - as forgiveness is available for all.
But since we're all sinners, all should be welcome into our churches. But that doesn't mean we have to condone their sins or bless their marriages.
I always understood that the whole rules of Leviticus weren't morally based but just rules for health at the time. Like, no shrimp because there wasn't a safe way to cook or eat them without getting some sort of poison.
Also, speaking as a homosexual who would like to get married, the LAST thing I ever want to see is a law passed forcing churches to perform them or they get booted. That pretty much goes against everything I feel that that the whole push to get gay marriage legalized is supposed to point out.
I've intentionally been dancing around the gay marriage issue, since I don't want to completely derail the thread. I won't go into that without the blessing of @rockrnger since it's his thread.
It might be more productive to just talk about acceptance of gays (or queer sexuality in general) but as long as you don't say anything offensive and keep in the context of theology and not government I don't see why not.
Yes, you can examine the basis of the world's assertion, but the world having that position doesn't in and of itself mean anything.
A variant of "good people go to heaven" seems to be the majority belief in the United States. But if someone suggested to me that I should change my beliefs to match that, I'd laugh in their face. So why do people think that doing that on other topics is going to work?
For example, it took deep scriptural analysis and personal experience for me to soften my position on female clergy. Being mocked and called a misogynist did absolutely nothing.
Because it worked when Utah needed admission to the Union, or the Baptists tried to evangelize in slave states. What do you suppose is going to happen to churches that reject gay marriage in 10, 20, 50 years?
The strongest argument I can make for homosexuality being forbidden by the Bible is that it's a death penalty offense in Leviticus. If you look at a list of the other death penalty offenses in the Old Testament, every other one is something that Christians still consider morally wrong. Fortunately, Jesus being a perfect sacrifice has alleviated the need for that punishment for (most of) these sins - as forgiveness is available for all.
But since we're all sinners, all should be welcome into our churches. But that doesn't mean we have to condone their sins or bless their marriages.
I always understood that the whole rules of Leviticus weren't morally based but just rules for health at the time. Like, no shrimp because there wasn't a safe way to cook or eat them without getting some sort of poison.
Also, speaking as a homosexual who would like to get married, the LAST thing I ever want to see is a law passed forcing churches to perform them or they get booted. That pretty much goes against everything I feel that that the whole push to get gay marriage legalized is supposed to point out.
While a lot of Leviticus is cleanliness based, it does also contain moral based prohibitions.
I've intentionally been dancing around the gay marriage issue, since I don't want to completely derail the thread. I won't go into that without the blessing of @rockrnger since it's his thread.
It might be more productive to just talk about acceptance of gays (or queer sexuality in general) but as long as you don't say anything offensive and keep in the context of theology and not government I don't see why not.
Yes, you can examine the basis of the world's assertion, but the world having that position doesn't in and of itself mean anything.
A variant of "good people go to heaven" seems to be the majority belief in the United States. But if someone suggested to me that I should change my beliefs to match that, I'd laugh in their face. So why do people think that doing that on other topics is going to work?
For example, it took deep scriptural analysis and personal experience for me to soften my position on female clergy. Being mocked and called a misogynist did absolutely nothing.
Because it worked when Utah needed admission to the Union, or the Baptists tried to evangelize in slave states. What do you suppose is going to happen to churches that reject gay marriage in 10, 20, 50 years?
The strongest argument I can make for homosexuality being forbidden by the Bible is that it's a death penalty offense in Leviticus. If you look at a list of the other death penalty offenses in the Old Testament, every other one is something that Christians still consider morally wrong. Fortunately, Jesus being a perfect sacrifice has alleviated the need for that punishment for (most of) these sins - as forgiveness is available for all.
But since we're all sinners, all should be welcome into our churches. But that doesn't mean we have to condone their sins or bless their marriages.
I always understood that the whole rules of Leviticus weren't morally based but just rules for health at the time. Like, no shrimp because there wasn't a safe way to cook or eat them without getting some sort of poison.
Also, speaking as a homosexual who would like to get married, the LAST thing I ever want to see is a law passed forcing churches to perform them or they get booted. That pretty much goes against everything I feel that that the whole push to get gay marriage legalized is supposed to point out.
There are a bunch of rules like the shellfish one where the offender is "unclean" and there are rules about what to do about that. It's a kind of ritual clean that bars you from certain spiritual activities and in general should be avoided.
Then we have other Levitical rules that involve stoning the offender to death or how to sell your children into slavery and such.
I think this might help some of the confusion I see in the last page or so of this thread (sorry if this is a dupe). When dealing with the New Testament it is very important to make the distinction between when something was written vs. the time period the writing is about.
For example, Matthew and Luke both talk about the birth of Jesus (though they contradict each other like woah) but were written later than Mark or the letters of Paul. Or at least the half or so of his letters that aren't 2nd century forgeries.
The conventional names for these writings certainly does not help with this problem. The only writings in the NT for whom an author is known are 7 of the Pauline epistles. Everything else is anonymous. It is common to refer to the unknown authors of the books by the person they were later named for (eg: Mark, Matthew, Luke etc...) but remember these people were not the actual authors.
So, here is a quick timeline with the approximate dates for the NT:
~35 CE - ~65 CE: Authentic letters of Paul. The exact order of these is very hard to pin down without using Acts. However, Acts came much later and actually contradicts some of what Paul wrote so is very dubious as a source for establishing their order.
Romans
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
Galatians
Philippians
First Thessalonians
Philemon
~65 CE- ~75 CE Gospel of Mark. The last few versus (16:9 and later) were later additions.
66 CE - 73 CE First Judean War. Destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The world that Jesus lived in comes to a brutal end.
~75 CE - ~110 CE, probably in the 80 CE - 90 CE range Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Luke + Acts (author unknown but both are very probably by the same person). Most likely had access to Mark but did not collaborate with each other.
~90 CE - ~110 CE Gospel of John. Differs dramatically from Mark, Mathew and Luke in terms of content and theology. Either did not have access to earlier writings or just did not like them at all. Epistle of James. Epistles of John. Apocalypse of John.
Early to mid 2nd century:: Forged letters of Paul.
Colossians
Ephesians
Second Thessalonians
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus
2nd century: Hebrews. This one is not a forgery just a case of mistaken authorship. Unlike the forged letters of Paul it does not claim to be written by him. It is most likely a written form of a sermon.
Posts
I am willing to be corrected, but I am unaware of any other instances of 153 in the Bible.
And I don't really know what you mean by consensus as to the significance of 153 - because that could encompass a whole range of stuff, from apologists to historians of mystery cult religions to biblical critical scholars.
I meant hidden references. For instance, the four-letter name of God appears 153 times in Genesis.
I meant consensus among Biblical scholars and historians.
"Hey its that dead guy. We will be over in a second after we count our fish."
Those guys also went fishing in a crazy storm they needed Jesus to perform a miracle to calm. They were really serious about fishing.
:P
It's sort of an example of the way people's preexisting beliefs determine their theology, because it's right there in the Gospels what happens when you ask "who qualifies as a 'brother'?".
Because it worked when Utah needed admission to the Union, or the Baptists tried to evangelize in slave states. What do you suppose is going to happen to churches that reject gay marriage in 10, 20, 50 years?
Well, I don't consider Mormons to really be Christians, so there's that. And I'm not familiar with the Baptist example, so I'll have to trust you on that.
I've intentionally been dancing around the gay marriage issue, since I don't want to completely derail the thread. I won't go into that without the blessing of @rockrnger since it's his thread.
So, I was raised in a church where not only could women not be pastors, but they couldn't teach adult Sunday School classes either. Similarly, women must submit to their husbands.
The last of those three things is where I began to make a change. You see, I've witnessed a few cases where the man in the relationship abuses his "headship" to make certain rules that I find just silly. I'm not talking abuse or anything like that, but rather things like "Our kids can't go trick-or-treating" or "Harry Potter is bad". It was a good reminder to me that relationships are about cooperation and no one should have some trump card in disagreements.
So, after some analysis, I decided that the male headship was more spiritual in nature and not a complete subservience situation. This is easily taken from the text when read in it's entirety (and positioned properly in the context of the Roman Empire), but it's not what's frequently taught. This lead me to begin to question women not being allowed to teach men at all.
Now, on female clergy there's two massive clobber* verses (*I usually hate the term clobber verse, but it's appropriate here)
Out of context these seem pretty clear. But my personal experience began to make me look more into the context of these verses. And it turns out that in context they're not quite so harsh.
1 Timothy 1 is all about false teachers who speak of the law without knowing anything about it. In the 1st century, who would have universally not had training in the law? Women! 1 Timothy continues in chapter 2 to speak of how women should dress modestly in church and act with propriety. So this specific church Paul is speaking of seems to have a problem with women speaking out of ignorance and indecently, so the solution is for the women to be quiet.
Corinthians is much simpler, as the rest of the chapter is about how to have an orderly worship service. Apparently, Corinth was having a problem with people interrupting to speak in tongues - not for the glory of God or the edification of the congregation - just for the sake of speaking in tongues. Similarly, note this verse coming next:
Women were apparently chattering or asking questions and disrupting the service, so again the solution is for women to be quiet.
So now that those verses are softened a bit in context, the other places where women are praised in the New Testament begin to take precedence. So putting all this together, combined with attending a church with a female pastor, and I've had a change of heart.
So while I do still think that, all else being equal, a man makes a better pastor - all else is rarely equal. In modern society women have the ability to be heads of a household and have the ability to be trained in the law. If God has granted a woman the skills to be a teacher of men, who are we to turn her aside?
Standard Christian Orthodoxy is that Paul and all of the apostles were divinely inspired in their writings.
Rejecting Paul's writings pretty much obliterates the basis for historical and modern Christianity.
It might be more productive to just talk about acceptance of gays (or queer sexuality in general) but as long as you don't say anything offensive and keep in the context of theology and not government I don't see why not.
In the calming of the storm they are just rowing across to the other side of the Sea of Galilee.
39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.
40 He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”
41 They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”
That miracle is a strange one tho. I mean, they were on a medium sized lake, had some people that knew what they are doing and it isn't that far across.
I have heard the interpretation/ apologetic that Jesus is mostly mad at them for being scared of a little storm.
The strongest argument I can make for homosexuality being forbidden by the Bible is that it's a death penalty offense in Leviticus. If you look at a list of the other death penalty offenses in the Old Testament, every other one is something that Christians still consider morally wrong. Fortunately, Jesus being a perfect sacrifice has alleviated the need for that punishment for (most of) these sins - as forgiveness is available for all.
But since we're all sinners, all should be welcome into our churches. But that doesn't mean we have to condone their sins or bless their marriages.
Wait, what? Why?
They deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and consider him a created being.
Interesting.
So even though they believe:
1) everything in the Bible
2) Jesus died for their sins
3) Jesus was Jehovah in the Bible
4) Jesus is an eternal being
5) Jesus is a member of the Godhead (along with the Father and the Holy Ghost)
They are not Christian because they separate Jesus from the Father in the Godhead and have an explanation for where he came from (as well as where all beings came from)?
edit: For classification purposes that just seems really pedantic to claim they aren't Christian. They seem to hit all the major points of being considered a part of Christianity.
But from an outside viewpoint, I don't see how they aren't all classified as Christians, including Mormons.
edit: Like if you believe in the Old/New Testament, think Jesus died for your sins and is a God, then well, you might just be a part of Christianity.
That pesky little letter 'a' is what messes it up.
Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox agree that Jesus isn't a God. He is the God.
Pedantry in religion is a pretty big deal!
Actually the typical line is the Nicene creed.
There has been movement for various denominations to accept each other and even the Catholic church got involved. Ecumenism is the name for it. There was something that Mormons do or don't believe that basically pushes them outside that movement. I can't remember at the moment what it was but when I heard it my objections kind of vanished.
Is it Exaltation?
To a point, but the Coptics have been monophysites pretty much since the days of the first patriarchs, and there were quite a few nontrinitarian protestant sects.
But when I think of World Religions academically (Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc), I don't pull Mormons into their own category. That just seems weird when Mormons believe 90% of what the rest of Christianity believes and vice versa.
"Christian" is just too generic. Literally taken you could apply it to any religion that claims some specific teachings of Christ as part of their core doctrine. At the same time, various religions under this umbrella are concerned with being the one true religion, and use "Christian" as shorthand for that idea.
It's easier to just say which sects you're talking about. Protestants and Catholics are certainly much closer to each other in doctrine then they are to Mormons, but to say one set is Christian while the other is not is silly.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Eh sorry I was mixing up monophysitism and nestorianism, which is only trinitarian in the loosest sense.
Still, these, and even Arianism, are belief systems that have existed since the days of the early church, still have modern adherants, and would likely not be considered heretical or extreme by the majority of the laity in the present day, in the sense that, say, gnosticism or catharism would be.
I think the non-trinitarian argument is fairly strong if you're operating from the stand point of Sola Scriptura. But most mainline churches accept the church fathers as legitimate contributors to what the nature of Christianity is.
This actually brought a question up to me though, how do Trinitarian Protestants support their position if Sola Scriptura is a cornerstone?
Poorly.
Pretend like its in there somewhere.
At best you have the Lord and the Word/Jesus but no Holy Spirit.
Engage: Sceptical face
The Holy Spirit comes from elsewhere in the bible. It is still a bit of a jump, though.
Acts isn't it? The first of the "Not Gospel" books and the conversion of Saul "I'm totally in charge now" Paul.
Acts is traditionally written by Luke (who also wrote a gospel), however, and mention of the Holy Spirit occurs before Saul even enters the scene.
I just like making fun of Spaul. People who pick on John Smith for being convenient don't get to say shit when we have Paul running around.
I always understood that the whole rules of Leviticus weren't morally based but just rules for health at the time. Like, no shrimp because there wasn't a safe way to cook or eat them without getting some sort of poison.
Also, speaking as a homosexual who would like to get married, the LAST thing I ever want to see is a law passed forcing churches to perform them or they get booted. That pretty much goes against everything I feel that that the whole push to get gay marriage legalized is supposed to point out.
While a lot of Leviticus is cleanliness based, it does also contain moral based prohibitions.
There are a bunch of rules like the shellfish one where the offender is "unclean" and there are rules about what to do about that. It's a kind of ritual clean that bars you from certain spiritual activities and in general should be avoided.
Then we have other Levitical rules that involve stoning the offender to death or how to sell your children into slavery and such.
For example, Matthew and Luke both talk about the birth of Jesus (though they contradict each other like woah) but were written later than Mark or the letters of Paul. Or at least the half or so of his letters that aren't 2nd century forgeries.
The conventional names for these writings certainly does not help with this problem. The only writings in the NT for whom an author is known are 7 of the Pauline epistles. Everything else is anonymous. It is common to refer to the unknown authors of the books by the person they were later named for (eg: Mark, Matthew, Luke etc...) but remember these people were not the actual authors.
(quick reminder, http://www.biblegateway.com/ has the NRSV translation now so is worth using)
So, here is a quick timeline with the approximate dates for the NT:
~35 CE - ~65 CE: Authentic letters of Paul. The exact order of these is very hard to pin down without using Acts. However, Acts came much later and actually contradicts some of what Paul wrote so is very dubious as a source for establishing their order.
Romans
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
Galatians
Philippians
First Thessalonians
Philemon
~65 CE- ~75 CE Gospel of Mark. The last few versus (16:9 and later) were later additions.
66 CE - 73 CE First Judean War. Destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The world that Jesus lived in comes to a brutal end.
~75 CE - ~110 CE, probably in the 80 CE - 90 CE range Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Luke + Acts (author unknown but both are very probably by the same person). Most likely had access to Mark but did not collaborate with each other.
~90 CE - ~110 CE Gospel of John. Differs dramatically from Mark, Mathew and Luke in terms of content and theology. Either did not have access to earlier writings or just did not like them at all. Epistle of James. Epistles of John. Apocalypse of John.
Early to mid 2nd century:: Forged letters of Paul.
Colossians
Ephesians
Second Thessalonians
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus
2nd century: Hebrews. This one is not a forgery just a case of mistaken authorship. Unlike the forged letters of Paul it does not claim to be written by him. It is most likely a written form of a sermon.