|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 10, 2016 5:04:38 GMT -5
"""I've already proven that he said to still follow OT"""
he was speaking to the jews of the time with whom he lived and was one of
as those who are Christians follow or are ment to follow the words and teachings of Christ
not the history or rules of the practitioners of Judaism
the old testament is a history NOT of Christians but of Judaism...I would have thought this obvious in that there is an old testament and a new testament..a clear line between the two testements
|
|
Chelonian
xr
For she shall judge you...!
Posts: 356
|
Post by Chelonian on Aug 11, 2016 13:40:23 GMT -5
The Bible comes with both parts. Just because Christians are ignorant and can't accept the word of their so called saviour doesn't mean it should be taught that he didn't intend for followers to ignore laws.
You can't just follow one thing he says and not the other. He was allegedly talking to people of the time in general as amazingly, they were the ones alive to listen then.
You can't just say 'oh, he wasn't talking to me, but someone else' over one thing jesus teaches/says whilst claiming the other things he taught or said were intended for you. It doesn't work like that. Either bible believers should be consistent if they want to preach at others or they should just shut up and stew in their own hypocrisy.
|
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 12, 2016 6:36:06 GMT -5
yes the bible does come in parts...its a collection of parts more or less divided into the old and the new...the new testament also being in parts via different apostles of those who were with Christ and those who like Paul were not part of the original 12
Christianity is based purely on the teachings and life of Christ as told by the apostles and Pauls letters to the various peoples he visited and preached to...which is why its called Christianity and not new Judaism or what ever
Christianity has a different base than Judaism ie the commonalities are the beginning..the comandments...the aspects of ""God"" are quite different
the old testament is based purely on the Hebrew Jews and their history after the comanalities
|
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Aug 12, 2016 10:06:15 GMT -5
yes the bible does come in parts...its a collection of parts more or less divided into the old and the new...the new testament also being in parts via different apostles of those who were with Christ and those who like Paul were not part of the original 12 Christianity is based purely on the teachings and life of Christ as told by the apostles and Pauls letters to the various peoples he visited and preached to...which is why its called Christianity and not new Judaism or what ever Christianity has a different base than Judaism ie the commonalities are the beginning..the comandments...the aspects of ""God"" are quite different the old testament is based purely on the Hebrew Jews and their history after the comanalities You seem to have a good understanding of these things Mouse. Would you agree that during the time of Jesus it was his teaching was more of a Jewish movement as a Rabbi to existing Jews, as they still maintained the Jewish requirements such as the eating restrictions and the practice of circumcision. From that expansion of the teachings of the Rabbi Jesus had only a moderate success in the expanding of the number of followers. Then with Paul (that is primarily Paul although Peter seems to have been important in that early development) and his dropping of those requirements in his preaching to the to the Gentiles (i.e., Pagans) expanding the teachings of Jesus so that converts began to expand much more rapidly. From my perspective it also helped that expansion due to Paul being a highly educated and sophisticated individual (he spoke at least three languages) and a successful business person. That is, most of those to whom he preached were Pagans oriented to single communities and Paul’s experience began to connect these disassociated communities so that they began to see themselves as working together. Then add to that Paul’s understanding of developing the collection of funds from among the followers, rather than having the Pagan approach of relying on a major and rich benefactor, and a viable and growing support organization began to come together. Then with the conversion of Constantine, this (then) existing organization supported the Roman governmental structure. It seems that a number of factors came together at the right time for the support of what was evolving into the more modern Christianity of today. |
|
|
|
Post by beth on Aug 12, 2016 14:03:44 GMT -5
Then with Paul (that is primarily Paul although Peter seems to have been important in that early development) and his dropping of those requirements in his preaching to the to the Gentiles (i.e., Pagans) expanding the teachings of Jesus so that converts began to expand much more rapidly. From my perspective it also helped that expansion due to Paul being a highly educated and sophisticated individual (he spoke at least three languages) and a successful business person. That is, most of those to whom he preached were Pagans oriented to single communities and Paul’s experience began to connect these disassociated communities so that they began to see themselves as working together. Then add to that Paul’s understanding of developing the collection of funds from among the followers, rather than having the Pagan approach of relying on a major and rich benefactor, and a viable and growing support organization began to come together. Then with the conversion of Constantine, this (then) existing organization supported the Roman governmental structure. It seems that a number of factors came together at the right time for the support of what was evolving into the more modern Christianity of today. No doubt the higher ups in the Pagan communities were disenchanted with Paul. It's surprising a significant number of conversions were achieved. Trading in a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses for the One God seems rather extreme. |
|
Chelonian
xr
For she shall judge you...!
Posts: 356
|
Post by Chelonian on Aug 12, 2016 20:23:14 GMT -5
yes the bible does come in parts...its a collection of parts more or less divided into the old and the new...the new testament also being in parts via different apostles of those who were with Christ and those who like Paul were not part of the original 12 Christianity is based purely on the teachings and life of Christ as told by the apostles and Pauls letters to the various peoples he visited and preached to...which is why its called Christianity and not new Judaism or what ever Christianity has a different base than Judaism ie the commonalities are the beginning..the comandments...the aspects of ""God"" are quite different the old testament is based purely on the Hebrew Jews and their history after the comanalities If Christians believe in god then they should follow god in the OT too. Just because the 'son of god' is in the NT doesn't mean the OT is irrelevant. Again, Christians are lazy Catholics. And even many Catholics are lazy and don't bother to follow their god properly. The Bible is the 'word of god' (as we are so told). To not follow it's teachings - even part of it is to ignore god's word. If I were god and had passed down all these things on how to behave I'd be mighty pissed that my followers were ignoring my words in favour of excuses. |
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Aug 12, 2016 22:09:07 GMT -5
yes the bible does come in parts...its a collection of parts more or less divided into the old and the new...the new testament also being in parts via different apostles of those who were with Christ and those who like Paul were not part of the original 12 Christianity is based purely on the teachings and life of Christ as told by the apostles and Pauls letters to the various peoples he visited and preached to...which is why its called Christianity and not new Judaism or what ever Christianity has a different base than Judaism ie the commonalities are the beginning..the comandments...the aspects of ""God"" are quite different the old testament is based purely on the Hebrew Jews and their history after the comanalities If Christians believe in god then they should follow god in the OT too. Just because the 'son of god' is in the NT doesn't mean the OT is irrelevant. Again, Christians are lazy Catholics. And even many Catholics are lazy and don't bother to follow their god properly. The Bible is the 'word of god' (as we are so told). To not follow it's teachings - even part of it is to ignore god's word. If I were god and had passed down all these things on how to behave I'd be mighty pissed that my followers were ignoring my words in favour of excuses. Your points are well taken. If I were a religious person I would be completely and totally committed, even to th epoint that people I know would not like to talk to me. I've often thought, that if I was religious I would make a good and strong evangelist. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 13, 2016 2:54:52 GMT -5
Men wrote
"""It seems that a number of factors came together at the right time for the support of what was evolving into the more modern Christianity of today.""
yes I agree a number of factors came together ..as with any movement religious/social/financial etc the events of the time and times are paramount in the success of a thinking/ideology/movement ..without the right conditions you don't get ideas of cure or problem solving
""Would you agree that during the time of Jesus it was his teaching was more of a Jewish movement as a Rabbi to existing Jews, as they still maintained the Jewish requirements such as the eating restrictions and the practice of circumcision. From that expansion of the teachings of the Rabbi Jesus had only a moderate success in the expanding of the number of followers.""
well he wasn't a a rabbi in the accepted form of the day...his teachings imo were more universal than the closed shop of Judaisms various levels ..less insistent on the rabbinical laws and a more universal approach of how individuals could have an individual relationship with god..good v evil etc and the personal responsibilities of the individual toward both God and themselves and the wider communities
|
|
|
|
Post by beth on Aug 13, 2016 3:19:03 GMT -5
Some Protestant churches choose to be "New Testament Churches". I'm sure Jewish people are glad to claim the Old Testament as their own. The church I grew up in used both, but with a little greater emphasis on the New Testament.
I'm not a big fan of the book of Revelation, but have always liked Genesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 13, 2016 3:19:13 GMT -5
yes the bible does come in parts...its a collection of parts more or less divided into the old and the new...the new testament also being in parts via different apostles of those who were with Christ and those who like Paul were not part of the original 12 Christianity is based purely on the teachings and life of Christ as told by the apostles and Pauls letters to the various peoples he visited and preached to...which is why its called Christianity and not new Judaism or what ever Christianity has a different base than Judaism ie the commonalities are the beginning..the comandments...the aspects of ""God"" are quite different the old testament is based purely on the Hebrew Jews and their history after the comanalities If Christians believe in god then they should follow god in the OT too. Just because the 'son of god' is in the NT doesn't mean the OT is irrelevant. Again, Christians are lazy Catholics. And even many Catholics are lazy and don't bother to follow their god properly. The Bible is the 'word of god' (as we are so told). To not follow it's teachings - even part of it is to ignore god's word. If I were god and had passed down all these things on how to behave I'd be mighty pissed that my followers were ignoring my words in favour of excuses. imo the old testament is irelevent to the new testament except as historical background I have never been of the understanding that the Bible is the word of god..and have no idea where that thinking came from..as the bible is patently NOT the word of god...but the words of man..well actually many men and many translations from the original Aramaic to Latin to Greek to English/German etc etc by the time of the convocation of Nicene ...Christianity had during those first 400 years moved way beyond the original teachings ideals and practices and the convocation would take it even further away from its origins for example in the early church women played a huge role...yet were reduced to a side role of being nothing more than a token nod as the men took control the early churches too were simplistic Gathering in secret or openly depending on the politics of place and time mans intervention took Christianity way way beyond gatherings and firmly into the realms of social control it went from simple beliefe into complicated rules and regulations in the hands of powerful and ambitious men an industry a political tool where mamon was worshipped and god played little part other than as a metorphorical stick with which to beat as one pope stated[urban]...""it has served us well this myth of Christ"" only the comandments are known as the word of god...Not the bible as a whole as that simply couldn't be realistic or feasible in any way only the koran is thought to be the word of god in the three Abrahamic books ...not the Torrah or the Bible |
|
Omega
