BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Christ, Christians, and Christianity

  
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
 
SMS
17:18 / 24.06.02
I've heard it said that Jesus must have either been insane, a liar, or the Son of God. The argument used could be applied to members of this board. They're either insane, liars, or their spirits have journeyed to other places. They really have spoken with gods, and so on... I think it's pretty easy to see that these are not the only options.
 
 
Seth
23:57 / 24.06.02
Lurid: it's easier to understand the significance of Christ's suffering by appreciating at the Bible as a pure fictional text, rather than taking a stance either way on based on its "authenticity." Look at Christ the concept: the Creator enters the creation and is tried and killed (without answering His accusers. Interestingly, this is something God seldom does: see G K Chesterton's Introduction to the Book of Job).

I agree that Heaven and Hell are funny concepts. Some might say that this is evidence of inspiration from a worldwide shamanic cosmology, given an authoritarian twist to keep people in line (or perhaps just plain misunderstood). I think I'm resigned to a "buggered if I know." One of the things that keeps tickling the back of my mind is a passage of scripture stating something along the lines that Hell has been in a state of preparation, and that's it won't be ready until the end of time... I'm sure there's something significant in that, and I'd love to know how the passage reads in the original language.

One could write an entire essay on the use of capitals for nouns and pronouns in this thread.
 
 
gozer the destructor
02:05 / 25.06.02
Couple of points regarding the nature of the 'sacrifice' of jesus, according to the religion of my birth (which I do not subscribe to anymore) the true name of god is Jehovah (he causes to become). Back in the story of the garden of eden adam and eve commit the first sin, jesus becomes the second adam and his death without sin becomes the propitiatory sacrifice, the conciliation for adam who born without sin turned his back on god. Our sins, apparently, came through him and so this one sacrifice covers all.

Well according to my bible lessons as a child, oh the joy and fun (raises eyebrows).

Regarding the goat of atonement mentioned earlier on between Grant and Haus, and come to think of it all the sacrifices made to yahweh/jehovah before jesus climbed the hill of golgotha, where a 'shadow of things to come', check paul's gospel to the hebrews for that one.

Personally I just think of that guy from nazareth as someone with the balls to stand up and be counted, saw there was some bad shit going on and spoke his mind. Even the fundamentalists say his first miracle was turning water into wine at a party, sounds an alright geezer to me.
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:04 / 25.06.02
expressionless

I completely agree that taken on a fictional level there are plenty of valid lessons in the bible but....while I feel comfortable with that as an atheist, its an unusual position for a christian. Isnt it?

By taking this kind of neutrality as to the reality of heaven, hell and christ one probably avoids loads of philosophical problems. I dont quite see how one manages to maintain a definitive christian flavour, however. Tell me more.

Ive known lots of good, decent catholics who cope with the complexities of that particular brand of christianity with resignation as to their lack of understanding. "Buggered if I know" was a very common stance. Its not one I can ever feel comfortable with, but that could be just arrogance on my part.

And yes, the capitalisation is quite interesting. As an ex catholic, I am always pretty aware of it.

gozer: Its even better than that, isnt it. Its not too hard to see Jesus as an anarchist, a socialist and a feminist as well as being none too cosy with established religion. But you get what you want from the text, I suppose.
 
 
Seth
23:07 / 25.06.02
I don't believe the Bible is a purely fictional text. It's just a way of suggesting how other people can appreciate its content, without making a judgement about its continuing relevance or authenticity. In reality the Bible is a hell of a lot more complex, written as myth, poetry, historical account, letters... but having said all that, it's still not unusual to encounter Christians who look at the Bible as mythical/allegorical truth as opposed to historical/factual truth.

You're right in that I probably don't have what other people would accept as a rigidly Christian approach to things. To be honest, I'm deliberately not drawing conclusions in spiritual matters at the moment. I've been learning and experiencing a lot, and it doesn't feel natural to assemble all the disparate bits into a structure yet.
 
 
Yagg
03:48 / 26.06.02
THWCEiA: "Can you really accept the value of the teachings of Christ without accepting the theological structure around him?"

There were theological structures that preceded His teachings, and influenced the culture in which He lived. And therefore influenced His teachings. There are theological structures that are derived from His teachings and influenced the culture in which we live. Either or both can be used as a lens thru which to view His teachings. For example, the Gospel of Matthew quotes the Old Testament at every turn to point out the relevance of Jesus as the true Hebrew Messiah.

Or you can step back and use your own lens. Admittedly very hard to do, since most of us have a view of JC colored entirely by those theological structures, for better or for worse.

Johnny O: "I think a reasonable answer is that perhaps His word is still being recieved and spread to the rest of humanity, but in a form rather different than that of the scripture."

Exactly. "He who has ears, let him hear."
 
 
Jack Fear
12:19 / 26.06.02
Lurid Archive saith:

Ive known lots of good, decent catholics who cope with the complexities of that particular brand of christianity with resignation as to their lack of understanding. "Buggered if I know" was a very common stance. Its not one I can ever feel comfortable with, but that could be just arrogance on my part.

See, I kind of take that as the whole point.

It's not about understanding. It's about faith.

"Buggered if I know" is a perfectly reasonable response—perhaps the only reasonable response—to capital-m Mystery. As all readers of Sandman know, mysteries are not the same as secrets, are not meant to be "explained" or laid bare or revealed. To the Christian who both thinks and believes, to say "It's a mystery" is not simply a shrug of resignation: it is an admission that one has grappled with the question and, through a long, hard process, come to accept that some things are ineffable and unknowable—and to trust in God.

An all-good and all-powerful God allows for the existence of Evil: isn't that contradiction? Yes, it is a contradiction, a paradox with which I am profoundly uncomfortable: but in dealing with Mysteries, logic is a tool of limited use. I want the paradox to resolve itself: I want the world to make more apparent sense. Of course I do: I'm only human. But failing that, I've got to just put my head down and accept that there are things I cannot understand.

That acceptance is hard to come by. We as humans have an innate drive to understand things, and we want to believe that we can understand anything and everything if we put our minds to it. It is difficult to surrender that belief ("surrender, BTW, being the literal meaning of the word islam) and to accept that Perfect Understanding is the province of God, and only God.

It is a bitter pill, and it's obviously not for everybody. The desire to understand is a given in the human species. But overcoming that need for understanding, and finding the ability to trust—to extend oneself at the risk of being hurt—is less common, for obvious evolutionary reasons of self-protection. And, it being rare, I regard it as precious.
 
 
Abigail Blue
16:44 / 26.06.02
I dunno, Jack: I always figured that the whole "paradox of the existence of Evil" thing wasn't a paradox at all, because there's a simple and logical answer: Evil doesn't exist.

Not to bring in Kant and Nietzsche, but it's our judgment that makes things good or evil. I guess, if you believe in God as external force, then Judgment is the right of God alone (Let he who is without sin, etc etc), and, as such, it's up to Hir to determine if Evil really exists. And I would hazard a guess that S/He probably doesn't think it does.

Then again, your point about Ineffability then comes into play, and I have to admit that my view of God is very much coloured by my own philosophical beliefs.

I'll agree, though, that continually opening is the only way to go. If you strive, always, to open your heart, and to take on the suffering of all beings (however you choose to do it), then I think that the issues eventually resolve themselves.

I'm going to strike off on a wee tangent here, and ask someone to explain the whole concept of the Holy Ghost to me. I've variously heard it described as the feminine aspect of the Trinity, as our conscience, and as our souls themselves. Help? It's never really made sense to me, though the 'feminine aspect' bit sat considerably better with me than did the other explanations...
 
 
grant
19:23 / 26.06.02
The Father is the Giver-of-Law, the Orderer of the Cosmos, the bearded fellow who made the covenant with the nomads in Sinai.

The Son is, well, see the rest of this thread.

The Holy Ghost is that-which-is-divine-but-none-of-the-above. Neither primal lawmaker nor the Word Made Flesh - the source of inspiration, the transference of wisdom*, the Divine Fire, the Word moving across the waters/void, the agency through which the Law is empowered to create in the physical universe. That wispy, flamey thing you see curled around the cross in front of Methodist churches? That's the Holy Spirit. The flame that appeared over the heads of the apostles in the Pentecost, giving them the knowledge of tongues, that was the Holy Spirit too.

* important: In the Bible, the word "wisdom" is a standard translation of "Sophia," also frequently interpreted as the Feminine Godhead or female aspect of God. Or so say some feminist theologians.

-------
on "paradox": following gozer's suggestion to read Hebrews isn't a bad idea. Hebrews 9:11-14 is pretty clear on what it is to be both goat and sheep (and shepherd), both the sacrifice and the High Priest (and the God receiving the sacrifice).

-----

for your Aramaic Bible needs: the Aramaic New Testament Project.

There's more available to the public than you'd think at first - follow the blue links within the text, as well as the obvious ones under the picture.
 
 
Abigail Blue
19:37 / 26.06.02
Thanks, Grant.

So it's some kind of divine essence, then, is it?
 
 
Jack Fear
19:54 / 26.06.02
Abigail: replace "evil" with "suffering" in that paradox, if it helps. It's the classic atheist argument...

Fact: Suffering exists.

God is allegedly all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good—as any God worthy of the name must be.

If God is all-good, then He cannot desire anyone to suffer.
If God is all-knowing, then He is aware of suffering.
If God is all-powerful, then He can end suffering.

But He doesn't.

The argument then ensues that, given the existence of evil, there cannot exist a God who is all-powerful and all-good and all-knowing.
 
 
Abigail Blue
20:17 / 26.06.02
I see your point, but there's a very large difference between the concept of evil and the concept of suffering: Substituting one for the other completely changes the argument.

No one can deny that suffering exists, but to qualify suffering as evil isn't a step that I'm willing to take. (I'm fresh out of a really long and drawn out discussion on this very topic, so I'm not going to elaborate here unless it's necessary).

Further, if you follow the whole Judeo-Christian model, God gave humans free will. S/He gave us Choice to use as we saw fit. I believe that what happens in our lives happens because we've chosen it (consciously or not), and not because God's blessing/cursing us.

Wasn't the whole point of giving us Free Will to have our choices mean something? How can humanity possibly take responsibility for its actions (which, in the J-C model, we do via Heaven and Hell) if God comes around and fixes our mistakes and prevents us from making new ones? Choosing the path of righteousness doesn't mean a whole lot if you never had the option of sinning...

I dunno. I'm still having a hard time seeing the paradox, here. I could sort of understand it when I was younger, but, even leaving out everything I've said in this post, ineffability accounts for a whole lot. I mean, how the hell am I supposed to know how an all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing being thinks?
 
 
gozer the destructor
21:58 / 26.06.02
OK,

regarding the existence of evil thang, God's name Jehovah, the most powerful of powerful names for all you magick buffs, means as i said before 'he causes to become', so as a result anything he proposes must occur(sp?), his original purpose according to genesis was for man and women to live forever ('eat of this tree and you will positivly die' think about what if they didn't?) on earth without sin or in union with the big fella in all things spiritual. All of a sudden regarding this cosy little A and B partnership comes C (evil, the devil, Satan, the trickster) he lies ('you will positivly NOT die' therefore casting dispersions on God's right to say what's what) and causes the unstopable God's plan to fuck up big style. FUCK! What can the big fella do? he can't lie, can't fail the purpose to become or the whole concept of reality ie the G O D, will cease and negate existence, Huzah! Plan B! Genisis 3:15 the first prophecy in the bible, Jesus becomes the redeemer of all mankind.

The End (with faith)

...that is if you believe all that wacky christian mythology, a story as good as Lucas could compose, however, nobody controls our fate. It's even there in the story, Satan proves that we control our own destiny and that we just need to grow up as regards our ideas of leadership, hierarchy, government. FUCK! Jesus AND Satan, brothers in Anarchy!
 
 
SMS
04:23 / 27.06.02
The other option for the paradox is to reject the idea that God is all-good in the same sense that a human being might be all-good. That is, the Actions (or Inactions if there are any) of God quite plainly fail the requirements for what we would call a good human being. However, it still may be best for a human being to open himself up to God. The fact that great suffering has resulted from gravity doesn't mean that we should close ourselves off from gravity. You may even be able to pin certain evils on gravity itself, as you can pin Evils on God. The best we can say about God is that there is some degree of Predictability in His Actions.

But this is a matter of trying to judge God. And even if that is understandable; even if it is defensible, it isn't entrirely useful. It isn't useful to know what God ought to Do. It is useful to know what I ought to do, and what I ought to feel.
 
 
Seth
08:54 / 27.06.02
The existence of suffering is central to the Bible - otherwise God would not have allowed the fallen angels access to Earth. The fact that God is easily able to encompass Satan’s actions within His own will is shown in some of the more mysterious passages of scripture (read that GKC Introduction to Job, or the Gospels, for example), and nicely eliminates one duality from the list. Suffering makes the Earth a refining fire - it can be a catalyst for change and progression. And the fact that there’s so much needless suffering can be attributed to our good selves relaxing in our freedom of choice... so no, I don’t believe that if God were all good, He’d negate suffering. On the contrary, its existence seems central to His goodness (another paradox).

I really didn’t explain that very well



The Holy Spirit is a person, first and foremost: He is ascribed characteristics of grief, love, knowledge, will, and pleasure, which all show that He is something more than the typical ‘energy force’ that many people describe Him as (although He has those elements as well). Although He is referred to as a He whenever He appears in the Bible, one associated word is shekinoh, meaning the immanence of God, sometimes even a geographical area in which His omnipresence is made more manifest for a time (also one of the ten sephirot, something I know a lot less about). Shekinoh is a term commonly associated with the femininity of God. I prefer to think of every aspect of the Trinity containing both male and female qualities. In the Bible, the words used for the Holy Spirit were ruach (Hebrew) and pneuma (Greek), which both typically translate as wind, breath, or spirit. He is also referred to as paraclete or comforter. If anyone’s interested I’ll post some more later on the specific stuff that the Holy Ghost usually gets up to.
 
 
gozer the destructor
13:31 / 27.06.02
Expresionless, can you give any examples of the Holy Spirit manifesting personality traits?
 
 
Seth
14:06 / 27.06.02
Sure. I did a theology course on the subject a few years back, but it'll be tomorrow before I can get to a PC with my old notes.

The last thing I thought I'd see here is a Barbelith Bible Study
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
19:00 / 27.06.02
God is allegedly all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good—as any God worthy of the name must be.

If God is all-good, then He cannot desire anyone to suffer.
If God is all-knowing, then He is aware of suffering.
If God is all-powerful, then He can end suffering.

But He doesn't.

The argument then ensues that, given the existence of evil, there cannot exist a God who is all-powerful and all-good and all-knowing.

Yeah, B.C. Johnson did a whole bit about that, the conclusion being either that a.) One of the three attributes is not the case, or b.) there is no God. I think he went with the first one. John Hick countered with his "Why God Allows Evil", an essay which mainly said "evil and suffering exist so we can see that good and pleasure exist as well". But hell, we all saw that coming, I'm sure.
 
 
Saint Keggers
02:59 / 28.06.02
Just a quickie on the whole 'If you meet the budha in the road, kill him' bit. I was watching Joseph Campbell the other day and his explanation was the reason you should kill the budha is he's obviously a false budha...why? Because 'YOU' are the budha. I like that.
 
 
Loomis
08:31 / 28.06.02
Re interpreting the holy spirit, I'm not sure if all Muslims believe this, or whether only some groups, but iirc there is a belief that Christians interpreted/translated the references incorrectly, and that the "comforter" of whom Jesus spoke, and whom he said would come after him, was actually Mohammed. Which is why they count Mohammed as the last and greatest of the prophets, because all the prophets before him led up to his arrival, and his receiving of the law which would guide humanity from then on.

Personally, I've always taken references to the holy spirit as metaphorical, simply Jesus saying "don't be afraid after I've gone, because the spirit of God is always with you (and always has been)". The division into the trinity seems unecessary, not to mention breaking one of the ten commandments- "thou shalt have no other gods before me". That's one of the biggest criticisms of Christianity from an Islamic point of view- the heresy of worshipping any other God but Jehovah.
 
 
gozer the destructor
10:15 / 28.06.02
Yeah but every bible scholar worth half a toss knows that the trinity is not a bible doctrine and was a symptom of the council of nicea's decision that God, Jesus and The holy ghost was made of the same thing. Anyone got some info on the islamic tales of Christ the early years, i remember reading some story thats in the koran about him either killing or ressurecting a flock of birds when he was younger. A slight tangent i know, but relevant to broadening the discussion to other angles.
 
 
Loomis
12:24 / 28.06.02
The Gospel of Barnabas has the okay of the Islamic community. I think it's the only one they think is a faithful record of the life of Jesus. But I don't know what the general scholarly view of its reliability is. I read it years ago so can't remember specifics but it was a good read. In it Jesus takes pains to point out that he's not God but just a prophet and stuff like that, which does sound a bit like those bits were added after the fact to add more weight to the Islamic version of events. Anyone know if it has any cred in the scholarly community? But those who vote for the "Jesus was just a man" line might be interested.
 
 
SMS
15:32 / 28.06.02
I'm not sure how useful the following is on Barnabas, but this is what I found. I didn't see anything specifically called The Gospel of Barnabas.

Do you mean The Letter of Barnabas?

A religious tract in the form of a letter which in its present form claims authorship by Paul's companion Barnabas actually seems to have been written anonymously ca 130 by a Christian teacher who admired the kind of allegorical interpretation of scripture found in the works of Philo of Alexandria, ... in Heb., and occasionally in Paul's letters.... (1145)

or the Epistle of Barnabas?

The Epistle of Barnabas gained recognition in Alexandria. It was quoted as the words of the Apostolic Barnabas (cf Acts 4:36-37; 9:27; 11:22-30; 15:13; Gal. 2:1-13) by Clement of Alexandria (e.g. Miscellanies 2:6; 7:5; 20). As late as Eusebius it was still among the disputed books, and Jerome, though counting it apocryphal, recognized that it was read by some in his day (ca 400, On Illustrius Men 6). (1221)
 
 
Seth
12:55 / 07.07.02
Gozer: Here's those references I promised, in which the Holy Spirit exhibits qualities that show Him to be a person rather than a force. If anyone doesn't have access to a Bible, I'll be happy cut and paste the references themselves from my CD Rom (but I'm assuming those that are interested will have one, and those that couldn't care less won't).

HS showing perception and judgement - Acts 7: 28
HS has a mind, also prays - Romans 8: 27
HS is capable of love - Romans 15: 30
HS teaches - 1 Corinthians 2: 10-11
HS chooses, displays will (depending on the translation, some have as "allots") - 1 Corinthians 12: 11
HS can be grieved - Ephesians 4: 30

There are also numerous references to HS speaking, a personal action: Mark 13: 11, Acts 13: 2, Acts 21: 11, 1 Timothy 4: 1, Revelation 2: 7.
 
 
Loomis
10:28 / 08.07.02
Cheers expressionless for getting this thread moving again.

SMS- The "Gospel of Barnabas" that I read was published on its own under that title, and not part of a body of apocryphal works. It's pretty long, compared to the other gospels anyway, so it couldn't be the letter. The epistle that you mention is probably the one. I can't remember whether the author claims to have been there or whether it was second hand info though, so whether it was Barnabas the apostle or Paul's missionary companion I can't recall. Will email my dad when i get off my arse. It's his copy.

As far as the Biblical references to the holy spirit go, to what extent are they less valid due to their origin in Paul's mouth? As I'm very much in the school of "Paul created the religion of worshipping Christ which was not even close to the intention of Jesus" as I suppose a few barbeloids are, it pretty much shuts me off to anything he wrote, which is obviously the bulk of the NT. But then jesus didn't write the gospels himself, so am I just being selective in the books to which I grant authority? Once you start choosing which books (canonical or apocryphal) you deem valid (in whatever degree), does the whole thing unravel? And does that then lead you to the position that it doesn't matter whether or not any of it is real? And does that matter?
 
 
higuita
10:48 / 08.07.02
Before I make my point, I should set out my store and make it clear that I don't like organised religion, hence there may be some prejudice.

With regard to Loomis' point on the subject of Paul [a more disagreeable character to kick off a religion you'd be hard put to find] I feel any work of his is 'tainted'. This extends backwards in a way, as I feel that any writings on the subject of the ineffable are tainted by the subjective approach of the people who wrote them.

I don't believe any book has a claim to be the word of god - I believe them to be the work of humans trying to explain their views on god. Let's not forget the consideration that these books might have the purpose of attempting to reinforce and inculcate faith [I use might as I consider that it's not universally applicable] - in effect what might be termed a propagandist tool, so I feel that they are troublesome from that point of view.

If we accept that there are mysteries to grapple with, that reason is a blunt instrument with which to probe these issues and that faith is the most important thing (which I'm happy to accept as an argument), can we not look at this as reflexive? Can you in fact say anything that makes sense in relation to the idea of a god?

I feel a reductio ad absurdem coming on, so I'm going for a smoke and a think.
 
 
grant
18:30 / 08.07.02
mr y asks good questions. My quick observation is that sense seems to get warped in the presence of the infinite.

>>>>>>>>>>

On the whatever it is of Barnabas, y'all should probably know that an epistle IS a letter. In the New Testament, they're named for the destination, because they're almost all written by Paul -- "Paul's Epistle to the Thessalonians" would be the full name of the book usually called Thessalonians.

>>>>>>>>>>>

This site - http://www.biblegateway.com is the most useful source of Bible information I've found. It consists of 11 translations of the Bible, searchable by passage and by word or phrase.

It doesn't have the Catholic Bible, but there's a database for that here:
New American Bible. Not as searchable.


So here's the King James 21st Century version and Young's Literal Translation version of a couple of the above passages on the Holy Spirit:

Acts 7
28 Wilt thou kill me as thou didst the Egyptian yesterday?'

Acts 7
28 to kill me dost thou wish, as thou didst kill yesterday the Egyptian?

---
Romans 8
27 And He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because He maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Romans 8
27 and He who is searching the hearts hath known what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because according to God he doth intercede for saints.

---
Mark 13
11 But when then shall lead you and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak; neither need ye premeditate. But whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

Mark 13
11 `And when they may lead you, delivering up, be not anxious beforehand what ye may speak, nor premeditate, but whatever may be given to you in that hour, that speak ye, for it is not ye who are speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
---
Revelation 2
7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the Tree of Life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.'

Revelation 2
7 He who is having an ear -- let him hear what the Spirit saith to the assemblies: To him who is overcoming -- I will give to him to eat of the tree of life that is in the midst of the paradise of God.

---
1 Timothy 4
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils,

1 Timothy 4
1 And the Spirit expressly speaketh, that in latter times shall certain fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and teachings of demons,

---
Acts 21
11 And when he had come unto us, he took Paul's girdle and bound his own hands and feet, and said, "Thus saith the Holy Ghost, `So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'"


Acts 21
11 and he having come unto us, and having taken up the girdle of Paul, having bound also his own hands and feet, said, `Thus saith the Holy Spirit, The man whose is this girdle -- so shall the Jews in Jerusalem bind, and they shall deliver [him] up to the hands of nations.'


---
Acts 13
2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, "Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."


Acts 13
2 and in their ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, `Separate ye to me both Barnabas and Saul to the work to which I have called them,'

---
Ephesians 4
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Ephesians 4
30 and make not sorrowful the Holy Spirit of God, in which ye were sealed to a day of redemption.



---
1 Corinthians 2
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so no man knoweth the things of God, but the Spirit of God.


1 Corinthians 2
10 but to us did God reveal [them] through His Spirit, for the Spirit all things doth search, even the depths of God,
11 for who of men hath known the things of the man, except the spirit of the man that [is] in him? so also the things of God no one hath known, except the Spirit of God.




Might be worth pointing out that the "spirit" in these passages might be faceless, but has a distinct persona, in the sense of "Holy Ghost" rather than "spirit of the law." More than an animating force... more like an essential identity.

I wonder if it could be argued that the Holy Spirit is that which enfolds Jesus into the Godhead - that without the Holy Spirit there could be no Word made Flesh, no identity as God in the fleshly historic person of that carpenter from Galilee.
 
 
Seth
22:05 / 08.07.02
LOL. That first reference should read Acts 15: 28. In my New Revised Standard it translates as:

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials..."

I got it muddled with the first reference in my notes (Acts 7: 51, which I didn't want to use, as it describes the response of people to the Holy Spirit, rather than actions or characteristics of the Holy Spirit).

As far as Paul goes, I'd be really interested to hear the full uncensored argument against him. Most of the accusations I've heard are based on stuff taken out of context. Give me some food for investigation and I'll look into it (since we've already exploded the sexist myth to an extent).

Grant: Isn't it interesting that Jesus' baptism, in which he receives the annointing of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, is deemed important enough to mention in the three synoptics and in John? There's not many other events that are deemed important enough to get a mention in the four Biblical gospels. Interesting that all three members of the Trinity are present and correct in the scene... in fact, Jesus' baptism is the starting point for His ministry, before which he doesn't engage in any miraculous acts. Of course, gospels outside the Bible differ on that point, but I'm intrigued as to why all four included in the canon include this section. It's a paradoxical scene; at the precise moment that Jesus chooses to identify Himself with sinful humanity in the act of public repentance, God and the Spirit choose to publically set Him apart.
 
 
NotBlue
22:42 / 08.07.02
Regardless of eitiology, I really, REALLY like the idea of a guy who just loved everyone and wanted everyone to be nice to each other and to be OK. It appeals to me on every level, there is no argument, you just feel it or you don't.
 
 
grant
13:44 / 09.07.02
That's an interesting way to look at the baptism - odd that the *birth* didn't get similar coverage.

I suppose the physical birth doesn't matter as much as the spiritual one. (Heck, looking on the Gateway, John and Mark both basically start with the baptism - nothing exists beforehand but the creation of the world.)

There's also the whole John the Baptist thing - one of the most interesting figures in the Bible, since it's his faith in the imminent Christ (He will be here soon!) that is rewarded. Well, and then he gets beheaded by perverts.

John is a lot more like the rest of us, I think. The Spirit moves through him, but rests elsewhere. Hmm. Thinkfood, that.

If I'm recalling correctly, he's also the figure of prophecy - the one the prophets said would come first, clearing the way for the Messiah.

Again, that weird inversion of service - the servant of the Lord as, in a way, the spiritual midwife of the Lord. The King kills us all (in violation of the Law), but as Humanity serves God, so God serves Humanity.... I wonder how contractual that would be. Religiously speaking, them Jews love a contract.
 
 
alas
03:23 / 10.07.02
going way back to the killing buddha part of the thread,
I'm not sure where you see the seperation deal in it. ...)

(and just remember, there's "a rat in separate" fyi)

Killing implies a lack of awareness of the connection between yourself and the other, and therefore will add to suffering and produce much bad karma. So to kill someone claiming to be the Buddha is no way to deal with problems, for one wanting to become enlightened.
----
On Christianity: Most Fundamentalists I know worship not God but the Bible (and a very specific kind of English-translation thereof, in fact). That's idolatry.
---
The oldest scrap of what Protestant Christians call the "New Testament"--the only one believed to be in the handwriting of the original scribe, is Pontius Pilate's question to Christ: "What is Truth?"

That's the big question, no?: what is truth? We come from an extremely rationalistic, late-capitalistic culture, so we tend to define "Truth" fairly narrowly. You can ask me a question like "Where did you come from?" and I can give you any number of true answers, Fictions can be more truthful sometimes than "true" stories and all stories are told from a perspective. All "facts" must be understood within the context of the culture they occur in.
 
 
higuita
08:26 / 10.07.02
All "facts" must be understood within the context of the culture they occur in.

So what do you feel the implications are for any religion in that circumstance, given that many religions rely on the existence of [an?] objective truth?
 
 
alas
17:09 / 13.07.02
i don't know that most religious traditions require or rely on an "objective" notion of truth, and as I see it Christ's preaching as it has been passed to me in the translated gospels that I have read and interpreted through the lens of my own, anglophon, North american context, is that objective truth, hard and fast rules, create their own kinds of idolatries. I'm not sure about other religions, but I know that if they are text-based there's no such thing as any sort of pure "objectivity": so there are many Muslims who strongly disagree with the spin that has been put on the Koran verse from which the subjection of women is drawn. I don't know about other faiths enough to comment, but certainly Taoism and Buddhism, as I understand them (which is limited) are not deeply rooted in the concept of "objective" knowledge as I think it is understood in the West.
So I guess I'm confused; could you explain a bit more for me what traditions you see as being based on objective truth?
 
 
grant
16:09 / 14.07.02
Yeah, that's one of the strengths of Buddhism and Taoism.
The Buddha's last words: "Pursue your studies with diligence." In other words, keep doing and experiencing for yourself.

There's a great Taoist poem, too, the basic gist of which was: "Well, Lao Tzu, if, as you said, he who talks a lot says nothing, then why did you write such a long book?" The Tao Te Ching, compared to other central texts, is really rather short. But not short enough for the hardcore Taoist.

Christ, on the other hand, was all "Only through me/my words shall ye achieve the Kingdom," (or whatever it was he said exactly). Which is a thought that really troubles me. That exclusivity clause seems to be behind a lot of the problems in the world. Heck, just last week a Lutheran elder got removed from his duties as a heretic for participating in an interfaith service - different Christian denominations. Which is really ODD, to me. Anyone care to unpack the "only through me" part of Christ's message?
 
 
higuita
14:43 / 16.07.02
I think I was looking at it from the point that god is supposed to be the objective truth. The only aspect that can be subjective about god is our understanding/experience of such a being, but most religion tries to argue that there is such a being as an existent fact.
I'll get back to you on this one though, as I'm not feeling one hundred per cent about it. It might be leading me into a solipsism. Homeward bound to bash my philosophy books to remember what the bloody hell I was werbling about.
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply