fenwar

You've got to love it, it's ace. Oh - you can download a Real Audio version here (requires Real Player): http://www.cs.unc.edu/~taylorr/lockridge_sermon.html Or an mp3 version here: http://www.churchnext.net/resourcing_free_...scribable.shtml (This site has various jazzy versions; the one labelled "speech mp3" is the plain one I think.)

Which to John's original readers meant exactly one thing: Nero. The mark is the number, in so much as it is Nero's name. Those who pledged their allegiance to the name of Nero obviously didn't literally scrawl it across their foreheads or on their wrists - but in God's eyes they might as well have.

But pornography is one of many corruptions of something God made - the sexual relationship between man and wife. Sex is a wonderful thing which God created - and it was good. Sin has corrupted that by exploiting the desire and offering other ways of fulfilling it. Likewise slavery is a corruption of a relationship of submission and obedience. Jesus showed how such a relationship was designed to work when he washed his disciples' feet. Those with power are supposed to wield it for the benefit of those without. Slavery exploited that by saying "why not use that power for yourself?"

Sins are cast into the depths of the sea or the bottom ( depending on translation) of the sea and then we see the sea is no more. Where does it go? It seems that all the sins go with it. Or it could be that at least one of these expressions is a metaphor, not intended to be taken literally?

Arthur, you make me laugh.

And there I was thinking someone might crack a gag about a whirlwind revival in the Church of Scotland... ohwellnevermind

Just another opinion for the mix, speaking as someone who doesn't believe in a literal "mark" - the seal is not anything physical but a spiritual truth - if you're saved, you're sealed. It is basically John's way of saying to the believers "don't be afraid - the world may be full of evil but God's made a promise to you that's signed, sealed and delivered." Hope that helps, Fenwar

You are still using individual verses quoted out of context, as though they were simple "statements of fact". They're not. That's not what the Bible is. In that very same epistle, John writes: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. " What you need to look at is what John is actually addressing. Gnosticism suggests that the physical and spiritual worlds are completely separate. Gnostics excused their sin by suggesting that flesh - in fact the whole physical world - was intrinsically evil anyway. They habitually sinned yet claimed to be sinless on the grounds that their "spiritual" side was unaffected by their physical sinfulness. From the very first words John is setting himself against this worldview. God is present in the physical world as much as the spiritual, hence "what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands". He counters many other aspects of gnosticism including the "secret knowledge" its adherents claimed to have. "God is light and in him there is no darkness at all" - in other words, nothing hidden. In the passages you have quoted from, John is saying that Christians do not habitually sin, but his language does not rule out involuntary sin. Hence the importance of confession (see also James 5) which ensures that the Christian's sin does not go "excused" like the Gnostic's. He also says that the Gnostic's claim to be sinless is a lie. I have tried to keep this post brief so if anything doesn't make sense feel free to ask for more detail. I hope it's helpful. Fenwar PS: Converted instantly - yes. Where does it say he has been "born again"? Where does it say he never sinned again?

Spot on.

I don't think Fiosh is claiming to be "born of God". The concept that Christians should be immediately "born of God" or "born again" is a modern one, arising from an unfortunately rigid, literalist application of certain passages from John without properly recognising the metaphors they were using, or the audiences and situations they were addressing. I've tried to show by analogy that the apparent "contradiction" is simply describing a very real "tension" in the life of a Christian, between their compulsion to sin and their desire to become more like Jesus. Do my earlier posts on this thread make sense to you? Fenwar

Not from the Jewish synagogues where the gospel was first preached then? Christians first met in houses because they were under persecution, making them unable to meet in public buildings or spaces. Until the persecution in Jerusalem (led by Saul) the believers had met in the temple courts. Hardly a pagan concept! You are spot on that tithing was a very practical arrangement to ensure the Levites were provided for. But I would disagree with your objection to this principle being applied today. There is nothing wrong with a professional pastorate, and in fact in many situations it is vital to have full-time ministers to ensure that everyone's pastoral needs can be met. It's not the only way to organise church; it may not even be the best way. But it's certainly not a bad way. Fenwar

When did the church crucify Christ? I don't quite see what this is getting at... nor is it apparent to me how John's letter indicates that he is addressing such a church. Could you explain this one in more detail? Thanks, Fenwar

You don't seem to have understood my post. I'm trying to explain "what the Bible actually says". What Paul actually means. It's not an either/or question. To insist that it must be is to confine oneself to a narrow view of scripture before you even begin trying to interpret it. John says, "Beloved, we are God

Thanks, that's helpful.

The original question wasn't about Iraq so let's not turn this into a debate about Iraq! I am sure that it is evident to swaltonb2003 that this is clearly not something that is a cut-and-dried issue. These quotes are used rather selectively, too... At that moment, Jesus was on the brink of being arrested. He knows, of course, that he must go to the cross. But it is vital that his disciples do not get arrested or killed. What he tells them to do is for that time and that time alone, as he fulfils his mission on earth. "Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied." (Luke 22.35-38) To suggest that he actually wants his disciples to use force is to completely misunderstand him. Which is forgivable, of course - even the disciples thought that was what he meant! "When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him." (Luke 22.49-51, emphasis mine) Not literally, Leonard. Jesus is using a metaphor here to tell his disciples about the divisive nature of the gospel - to receive it and preach it will turn people against them. The church was not built with the sword. This is much more helpful. I think this is why the original poster asked the question; he or she has not seen this in action and is under the impression that "many Christians have given up trying" to love their neighbour. So it would be worth exploring this angle in more depth - how do we love our neighbour when we are at war with them - rather than the current unhelpful debate which basically boils down to "why our neighbour deserved to be attacked". Fenwar

Hi again TempestTossed, thanks for your reply... This is certainly how it's presented at face value, but I think there's a lot more to it than this, both in depth and breadth. Christian belief covers a wide spectrum of views on the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection (as well as there being plenty of variation on what "hell" is all about... ranging from eternal through temporary to annihilation... but that would be yet another Massive Tangent.) I would say my views tend to be somewhat more liberal than the majority of posters here (although I could point you to sites where my views look very conservative too!) This is a subject I love to explore and my own opinions are certainly not set in stone, so I appreciate the opportunity to have someone else probe and test them.

I'd just point out that these two statements aren't mutually exclusive...

Hi swaltonb, While (as the replies so far indicate) Christians are supposed to love their enemies, pursue peace and avoid hostility, they also have a responsibility as citizens of their country (for example see Paul in Romans 13.) From this the case can be made that if the government of one's country calls citizens to arms, Christians should participate. It's not an issue that has 100% consensus as it is obviously open to interpretation; some would say this is OK when the military action is in self-defence but would not support aggression against another country, others (myself included) would prefer to seek peaceful resolution at any cost. But I am sure there isn't a single Christian here who actually wants to be at war with anyone. Those who view it as "necessary" I am sure do so with great reluctance. Hope that helps, Fenwar

This seems a little convoluted to me... As Deacon said, I don't see why they'd need to do this if they could have just stoned him as a blasphemer...? You do have a point that they might have been worried about the reaction to such an execution, but I don't think the crowd yelling "crucify!" were too upset that Jesus had been arrested and was about to be killed; it seems that as far as Jesus' popularity went it was not a problem for the Jewish leaders to sway people against him. I just thought the most likely scenario was that the execution of Stephen, and the other persecutions described in Acts, were illegal as far as Roman law went. (This was what M45510G1C said.) After all Stephen's stoning is hardly the result of careful legal consideration - "But they covered their ears, and with a loud shout all rushed together against him."

I think it's worth taking a broader look at the nature of Biblical "sacrifices". If you put them in terms of "transactions" quite often the picture is blurred because we have the wrong starting point. In the Old Testament, the Israelite sacrificed one of his lambs and got forgiven for his sins, right? Wrong. In this picture the Israelite is down one lamb and up one batch of forgiven sins; God is up one lamb and down one "forgiveness unit" from his infinite store. But the thing is, the sacrifice is meant to represent the Israelite's acknowledgement that all his lambs - and thus all his possessions, and even his very life and being - belong to God. (That's why the sacrifice had to be from the best of the flock - it is representative of his whole flock.) Wind back the tape to the very beginning: God created everything, gave every man his life, and gave this Israelite his lambs. In reality the Israelite has "lost" nothing - because he had nothing to begin with. And because of this, he "receives" much, much more - not just the forgiveness aspect but the provision of the rest of that flock. I hope that makes sense so far - sacrifices aren't necessarily transactional, they are more about acknowledgement. So we come to Jesus' sacrifice. On the cross, he lays down his life - his humanity. (It's worth noting that this isn't the first sacrifice he's made - in order to become human he has already laid down the trappings of his "divine nature", but that's a different theological tangent altogether... ) Anyway. Again the "transactional view" is clouded. What is it that Jesus is laying down? Something he did not have in the first place. In fact something that none of us "have" as our own. Our very humanity - our life, our being - was created by God and belongs to God. This is why Paul talks about Christians being a "living sacrifice" to God - we lay down our lives because they belong to God in the first place. Jesus' resurrection is a very clear indication that this is what sacrifice is meant to be about. If we completely lay down our life then we get it back - and more besides. As Jesus himself puts it, "For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it." Hope that helps to some extent? Let me know if it doesn't make sense, I have tried to keep things brief but can go into more detail if you want. Fenwar

I don't think this is an either/or question, and once again it is because people have held such a tight, literal view of scripture, squeezing meanings out of the words that the authors never intended. If I were to say "Chelsea have won the league already" (helpful skim reading for those of you who don't follow English football ) I would "literally" be incorrect - there are plenty more matches to go in the season and they are a long way from securing the title. But that doesn't mean I'm "wrong" - they are runaway leaders, winning all their games so far, and it is pretty much inevitable that they will finish as champions. In a similar way when Paul says "So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" he is not saying "this is an absolute, instant transformation". In the context of the chapter he is clearly talking about the tension between our "earthly tent" - our sinful, human nature - and our "heavenly dwelling" - which is the new creation. He is writing to encourage Christians and points to the Holy Spirit as the "guarantee" - the evidence that this transformation is inevitable. Just as Chelsea can point to Roman Abramovich's pot of gold as the "deposit guaranteeing their inheritance" of the league... Hope that analogy didn't lose too many people Much of the scripture quoted around this issue is being read as some kind of "absolute statement of theological truth". What the authors are actually doing is writing to encourage people struggling with the tension between knowing they will be made perfect, and not actually being there yet. They are encouraging believers to stay focussed on their future, promised state, not their present inner struggles. John's letter is perhaps more of an admonishment against those who are suggesting that Christians should still have their sinful nature - in other words that they should not be struggling against it. Obviously to allow oneself to sin is to take a step backwards from the goal - to believe that the way we are now is the way we are always meant to be. So as John puts it in that epistle, "Beloved, we are God

Hi Dad Ernie, I'm not sure I follow the logic you are describing at all. I don't read the "1,000 years" in Revelation 20 as a literal one thousand rotations of the Earth around the Sun, but this is not because of any "complications" arising from interpreting passages elsewhere (I don't see what relevance the parable of the Sheep and the Goats has to this?) I read it this way because Revelation uses highly symbolic language throughout, and 1,000 is a highly symbolic number. Overall I think the intent of the passage is to encourage those who are facing martyrdom for their faith - they will receive a greater reward. (One view here is that John is basically saying martyrs will receive their resurrection bodies immediately in heaven, and reign there with Christ until the final judgement, unlike the rest of us who will wait until that day to be resurrected.) Hope that made sense Fenwar

You don't need the entire Bible to preach the gospel. Look at the sermons in Acts - many of them are simply ultra-condensed versions of the OT and gospels. The apostles were selective in their preaching, telling the audience what was most important and relevant to them. (E.g. the contrast between Paul's sermons to the Jews in Thessalonica and the Pagans in Athens!) As the author of the project has said this is for people who otherwise would not have bothered trying to read the whole Bible; it is obviously not intended as a substitute. It also acts as a companion to the Bible as it sets the books in their historical and literary contexts, which is vital when trying to understand their message 2,000 years on. It definitely sounds like a good idea to me.

Hi Token Atheist, thanks for your replies, By "eyewitness accounts" I mean Peter actually telling Mark what he had seen. (I would subscribe to the view that Mark wrote either just before or soon after Peter's death - that his primary intention was to preserve Peter's testimony for the benefit of the church.) I think muddled things slightly as it's the external evidence that is most significant - such as the fact that John Mark was close to Peter (Acts) and the writings of the church fathers (Eusebius and Irenaeus referring to Papias, and Justin Martyr's reference to the memoirs of Peter - unless those are the pseudepigraphia you are referring to?) The internal evidence is a little less conclusive, my own teacher referred to little details such as the healing of Peter's mother in law and the "rough-and-ready" style of the gospel suiting Peter's character, which are rather thin I must admit. Now that's interesting... I did a quick Google on this and (on my cursory viewing of the first few sites) couldn't find any dates relating to the Pythagorean version of the story, do you have anything to hand? Even assuming that John was aware of the story, it seems rather too deliberate to be a simple "fabrication" and is more likely a reference. If you know of an actual copy of the text then maybe it would be interesting to compare the variations between the two. This Wikipedia article suggests that the author of John could have been making a deliberate reference by using the number 153 but makes no mention of the version of the story involving Pythagoras himself. Which words? All I can find are general parallels in terms of ascetisism and egalitarianism. You could certainly say that Jesus' teaching bore many similarities to Cynicism but I don't think it justifies the conclusion that it was derived from Cynicism. If you know of any actual textual similarities then they would certainly be worth considering though. I don't see how it's quite so embarrassing, except perhaps the clumsiness of the sentence. I don't think Matthew is intending to create an image of Jesus straddling both animals. What sticks out for me is that Matthew doubles up other things without being "confused" by Hebrew parallelism, such as having two demon-possessed men in Gadarenes. This suggests to me that it is an intentional device on his part. Either that or he had very bad eyesight. Fenwar

Hmmm... Hello Token Atheist, you make some interesting points but reach some conclusions I'm not sure about. Hope you don't mind if I probe: Token Atheist: An unknown author wrote the "Mark", which was first version, which set Paul's divine Christ in an earthly setting and attributed to it/him some of the wisdom sayings from the Cynic school of philosophy that formed part of his religious group's teachings. He combining Paul's mystic religion and his group's Cynic-philosophy based religion in a similar way to the way that modern day New Agers combine Native American Shamanism with Celtic traditions. This view didn't have things like the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. Those elements were added later. The internal evidence (as well as external data) suggests that Mark is primarily influenced by Peter's eyewitness accounts, rather than anyone's theology. I have not heard this view before although I'd be interested to see sources/dates for the Cynic sayings/views you suggest were attributed to Jesus. In particular, the author of the "Gospel of Matthew" was keen to make his version of the Jesus story appeal to Jews, so he made it as a Midrash - with most of the story taken from Old Testament stories and stitched together to make Jesus appear to be the Jewish Messiah. Almost... although the bulk of the narrative is taken from Mark. The Jewish appeal is more from the Torah-like fivefold structure but I agree that elements like the "Sermon on the Mount" have been used to create echoes of Moses, in order to portray Jesus as the new Lawgiver. The "Gospel of John" was a much later addition, after Christianity had gone through many theological changes. That is why it is so different from the other three "Synoptic" gospels. Or it could be that it was written for an entirely different purpose. I certainly agree that the chronology has been freely re-organised by John. What I think he's doing, though, is appealing to the more mystical elements of Judaism by linking themes in Jesus' teaching and miracles to Jewish festivals and feasts. (I also have time for the view that John "puts words into Jesus' mouth" to the extent that he was not inventing new theology but explaining Jesus' significance to a group that Jesus himself did not have the opportunity to address. Does that make sense? In short, it's "what he would have said".) The authors of "Matthew" and "Luke" read this. That is why they set the birth story there. They wanted people to make the connection. One could actually say that Jesus himself did certain things deliberately to spell out the connection. He did not need to ride into Jerusalem on a donkey - he could have walked in just like anyone else; the point of the prophecy being that the Messiah was not actually coming to make war with men, but was coming in humility to serve. Jesus is drawing attention to this text, which many people (including his own disciples) seemed to have overlooked in forming their mental conception of the Messiah (Jesus did not want to stir up a revolt!). You seem to have picked up on the key differences between the gospels but gone down a very different route with the evidence than I have seen anyone else go down... A few other points from the thread: And why do you think that this bunch of people would be under a death sentence - there were lots of messianic and mystic cults around at the time. But this was the first one that had really been perceived as a threat by the religious leaders - who preferred peaceful subjugation to Messianic uprising any day of the week. It was the religious leaders who handed Jesus over to be crucified, and the religious leaders (Saul included) who persecuted and executed the first Christians. Not the Romans. (At least, until Christianity actually reached Rome.) IanC: The burden of proof lies on those who say he existed, and he was who some say he was. Just taking the first part of that sentence though... if I deny that Julius Caesar existed, is the burden of proof on you to show that he did? What if I suggested he nothing but a myth created by a power-hungry Roman politician, whose cronies would write legends, carve statues, and forge coins, in order to create the illusion of a "line" of Caesars, and thus allow this conspirator to claim absolute power for himself? As history goes on and people, events and places become part of the more distant past, it becomes easier to question them and dispute their factuality. What is not taken into account in the demand for proof is human tradition. 10 years after Jesus, no-one questioned his existence. As far as I am aware none of the ancient documents written against Christianity (e.g. Celsus) actually question the existence of Jesus. It just wasn't an issue. Human tradition preserved the memory of this man. Perhaps it embellished it, but even Santa Claus is based on a real, historical person. The modernist approach which starts from scratch has achieved much, but I think it goes too far when it suggests that human tradition cannot be considered evidence. Token Atheist: All of the various historians and writers that should have mentioned him fail to do so. Which ones? How many histories of 1st Century Judaea are there? I am satisfied by the documentary evidence and the continued existence of the Christian church. This doesn't necessarily prove that Jesus was who the church say he was - the alternative is that the disciples were misguided or deceptive - but I don't see how the writers of the gospels and Acts could have pulled off such a huge deception without there being some kind of historical figure to underpin it. Maybe 300 years later, yes. But 30? That's a tall order. There would be enough people around who would know that they had made the whole thing up. These documents simply wouldn't have been preserved. They'd have failed like all the other messianic and mystic cults around at the time. Token Atheist: The interesting thing here, is that the earliest Christian writings didn't base their stories around a man at all. Take Paul, for example. In the letters of Paul (the actual letters of Paul, not the pseudographia that were written later and had his name applied to them), Jesus the person is never talked about. I really don't see where you've got this view from. Which epistles do you think Paul actually wrote? Paul's "undisputed" letters include 1 Thessalonians ("...his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead - Jesus..." or "you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out...") and 1 Corinthians ("For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve..."). I can't see how you can conclude that Paul is referring to Jesus as anything other than a real person here. Do you agree with the "undisputed" letters? He makes no mention of where or when Jesus lived, or any biographical details of his life - as if he does not have any records of this, either. Does he need to, though? Most of the time Paul is writing to churches or to leaders of churches. He is not laying out the basics of his theology or explaining the gospel for the first time to these people, but (in most cases) filling in gaps in their belief that have led to their practice going astray. Compare the teaching of the epistles with Paul's sermons in Acts - in which he directly preaches that Jesus is the Messiah. Yes, I know Acts was written later, but it is describing events that took place before Paul wrote. The point is that Paul had already been to the places to whom he is writing (you don't even need Acts to establish this in the cases I've quoted above). The original text of Mark simply leaves us with an "empty tomb" mystery implying that Jesus has been taken up to Heaven Ummm.... not sure where you're getting this from. First of all the authenticity of Mark 16.9-20 is uncertain, but far from disproven. Secondly, even if the abrupt ending is original, we still have the angels telling Mary that Jesus has been raised from the dead and that the disciples will see him in Galilee. FogLight: We also know that the "Bible" saw quite a few incarnations (edits) which we can assume were an attempt to "fix" contradictions and continuity and that the church made a concerted effort to get rif of the evidence of these edits. Unfortunately (for Christianity) some versions or peices survived. Christianity today merely tries to dismiss these as rogue works... Can you cite a specific instance of this? I can certainly think of a few textual variations where it looks like the scribe has added a clarification or corrected what they thought was a mistake (e.g. John 5.4). The thing is, I know about these variations because Biblical scholars know about them. The alternate readings are found in the footnotes. They are not hidden away or kept secret. Fenwar Feel Free To Disagree