Thanks Oliver

Couldn’t agree more about churches trying to impose their agendas and the primacy of (educated) conscience. That’s what I found so offensive about Pell’s recent stem cell foray – not that the church has things to say about politics, nor even that it seeks to influence its members, but that Pell tried to use the threat of religious sanctions to coerce members into voting against their consciences. Utterly out of order and, happily, unsuccessful.

Paradoxically, I believe the original Jesus movement was a reaction against much the same type of religious authoritarianism, though it quickly evolved its own hierarchy of function and authority, and tried to back-cast its interpretations to its stories about Jesus’ words and deeds. Hence we should be very careful about assuming that Jesus actually said what (for example) John’s gospel has him saying, still less that we can be confident in interpreting the meaning of titles such as “son of God”, “son of man”, “holy one of god” etc.

It’s hard to imaging the faith having survived without some type of institutionalisation (I started a discussion about this with Boaz_David on another forum but left off as it was a bit off-topic). But we much always guard against the compromises and pitfalls that entails.

Still, taking the bible “seriously but not literally”, it and the lives it points to have an awful lot to teach us.

"It’s hard to imaging the faith having survived without some type of institutionalisation" - Rhian

That's right. Else, another group cum cult cum sect would have become Western/Orthodox religion. With creed, an institution sets parameters and instills top-down interpretation. When was the last time someone midst a Christian service interrupted the priest to say "let's stop here for a minute mate" and discuss this rite for a while? Contrarily, when lecturing, I invite interruptions. Likewise, the notion that a Pope speaking ex cathedra or the collected works (The Bible) of a Council being infallible is unacceptable

Oliver.. Jesus 'flipping out' ... please look at the passage closely, and note 'it is written' then compare this with Luke 24:44-49 and consider it again. :) thanx.

I note you 'religio/racism there too "Russian Orthodix" *smack* :)

Rhian... you said:

"In fact it's striking how little the Gospels other than John have to say about what Jesus' Messiahship means."

Perhaps they were not so concerned with 'proving' or promoting the patently obvious ?

Mark 2:5

When Jesus saw their faith, he said ... "Son, your sins are forgiven."
Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

... But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."

Note:

1/ The Religious leaders understood that Him forgiving sin is a claim to Deity.
2/ Jesus KNEW that such a statement by Him would produce that outcome.
3/ He healed the man to demonstrate his true authority was from above.
4/ We see the following concepts which appear partly contradictory.
a) "Forgiving" a divine act.
b) "Son of Man" a messianic title.
c) "I have authority on earth" suggesting that it was 'allocated by another'

In trinitarian terms, we are seeing here what is described as the 'hyperstatic union'.

So, Mark is quite clear that Christ Jesus is 'God'.(the Son)

One reason I personally get excited by all this is my own experience of healing. It was as quick and as dramatic as for this cripple, but not on the same scale. A lingering fracture.. healed.. instantly. Who can describe the feeling ? It was like a dream.. where you are flooded with all the love and warmth that you desperately would like in real life.. and I did.

Blessings.

BOAZ,

ME A RACIST?

"I note you 'religio/racism there too 'Russian Orthodix' " - BOAZ

I was joking about Jesus' religion based on his actions. Actually, I had the iconic St Issacs Cathedral in mind when, I made my remark:

My point was/is Jesus (a) had bad temper and (b) treated a building as an icon. Maybe, he didn't flip-out every day, nor, on most days did he believe a building was the house of a god (blasemy). Even if Jesus didn't act like this 99.999%, he cannot be said to have a led a "perfect" life. Perfect means no slip-ups. None.

I haven't had the time to check this... Jesus -as an adult- smiting of a tree. Most parents would reprimand their children for exhibiting such malevolent behaviour. Hope he didn't, man or god.

Nothing against the Russians. The same cannot be said of the Christians directing the building of St. Isaacs. Criminals were not forgiven, instead thousands under forced labour in custody died constructing the dome. I feel sad for the dead Russians, not the Christians building the icon.

Herein, it is the Christian Church, not me, that is racist and non-compromising, persecuting the pagans*, the crusades [several times] and the ethnic cleansing of the Jews [several times].

[*The brilliant philosopher and mathematician Hypatia being led by a church lector to her death, being a significant historical example of the persecutions of pagans:

"On a fatal day, in the holy season of Lent, Hypatia was torn from her chariot, stripped naked, dragged to the church, and inhumanly butchered by the hands of Peter the reader (sic.) and a troop of savage and merciless [Christian, added] fanatics: her flesh was scraped from her bones with sharp oyster-shells, and her quivering limbs were delivered to the flames." - Gibbon]

US Christians and the US Christian press suppressed Einstein's [an agnostic] address to Lincoln University, which condemned racisms. Further, I suspect most members of the Klu Klux Klan were Protestant Christians.

BOAZ: Can you point to any Muslims or Freethinkers in the KKK?

TEMPTATION OF JESUS

If Jesus were God and was tempted by the devil, who would have supplied the architecture of the objects of the temptation? Jesus himself?

Think about it. Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, and, the Father is responsible the potential for all physical and non-physical possibilities.

Were the devil able to create kingdoms, the means to be able to do so, must have been provided by the creator of the materal, related physics, whatever. The devil cannot make it happen unless Jesus and his godhead friends allow it. Hence, Jesus would have been complicit in the devil having the means to deliver. Else, if the devil controls some independent physics or realm, then the Jesus is not god or we have polythesism.

Boaz: "One reason I personally get excited by all this is my own experience of healing. It was as quick and as dramatic as for this cripple, but not on the same scale. A lingering fracture.. healed.. instantly. Who can describe the feeling ? It was like a dream.. where you are flooded with all the love and warmth that you desperately would like in real life.. and I did."

Sorry Boazy, but given your record of disingenuous comments and outright porkies in this forum, forgive me for not believing you. As they say in the justice system, you are hardly a "reliable witness".

The biblical healing story is undoubtedly a mythical account concocted by credulous others with similar pathologies with respect to the truth. You can believe what you like, but you really should desist from proclaiming your delusions as actual, objective truth.