Re: Who do you say Jesus is?
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:14 pm
Vegetarian?karenprtlnd wrote:Potlucks
Hosted by Steve Gregg
https://theos.org:443/forum/
Vegetarian?karenprtlnd wrote:Potlucks
(a) "Unorthodox" in the sense of contravening the hegemonic stance of the church, shall we say.kaufmannphillips wrote:
Some "trinitarians" might not be monotheists, if their trinitarian theology is "unorthodox" - and many Christians do have "unorthodox" ideas about the Trinity, whether they are aware of it or not.
Jason wrote:
Unorthodox in the sense of not agreeing with the earliest Christian councils? The Bible nowhere gives us an orthodoxy of Trinitarian doctrine.
I do not hold Genesis as canonical either. My canon consists of the mitzvot given in the wilderness - so, portions of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. I don't treat the narrative portions as canonical. The mitzvot are the key: they are the terms of the covenant; they establish a concrete paradigm for conduct, and they evince quite limited concern for belief in either speculative theology or the sacred stories that surround them.Jason wrote:
Emmet, you mentioned that you hold Genesis as Canonical but not Dueteronomy. I'm wondering what your basis is for determining Canonical inclusion.
Some years ago I was involved in a very cool Jewish adult education program. It was sponsored by Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and it was not taught from a single denominational perspective; as it engaged different topics, it introduced different perspectives from various sources, be they ancient or modern, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or elsewise. The scope of the curriculum helped students acquire some breadth in Jewish literacy, and it would be great if there were some similar type of program for Christian studies. But many Christians do not want people to learn about different sorts of Christianity than their own.I believe that there can be many many churches of Jesus Christ, the LDS are great about this I think, and could make the christian community both fun, and interesting. Why are you this? Why am I that? This is how I am this....and this is how you are that..... Its all good. (Just don't hurt anybody).
Volley Ball
Potlucks
Musical gatherings
Lectures
etc... though diametrically opposed? Yes. (But only for the brave and the very mature perhaps...) This is not Northern Ireland you Know.
A simple "yes" would suffice. All kidding aside, the church has held different opinions on this throughout its history (especially early) and has, save for Rome, not had a single authority by which to govern Trinitarian orthodoxy. When the councils met to discuss this they were debating Scripture. Therefore it has always been the writings of the apostles and, before them, the prophets who decided these matters. Since the doctrine is somwhat fuzzy (I say somewhat because I AM a Trinitarian Christian) in scripture, we shouldn't make it a rule of orthodoxy.(a) "Unorthodox" in the sense of contravening the hegemonic stance of the church, shall we say.
Well, the bible contains the only real records of what Jesus and the apostles taught. Therefore, a rule of sola scriptura is hardly necessary if one understands where the source of authority for one's belief is derived. For the Christian our authority comes from Jesus and the apostles - specifically their written records. To a more subjective degree, we are governed by the leading of the Holy Spirit. And near as I can tell, the Holy Spirit has not informed me on these matters.(b) As Alanis Morissette could have noted, the bible nowhere gives us a hermeneutic of sola scriptura.
What reason do you have to assume the mitzvot actually came from the Creator? How do you know these laws were not the result of early human imagination? Christians hold that the OT prophets, including Moses, are speaking from YWHW because they predicted things that would later happen. You seem to reject the writings of the prophets, the only possible Divine link by which to ascribe authority, so why are you personally convinced the mitzvot laws are of Divine origin?I do not hold Genesis as canonical either. My canon consists of the mitzvot given in the wilderness - so, portions of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. I don't treat the narrative portions as canonical. The mitzvot are the key: they are the terms of the covenant; they establish a concrete paradigm for conduct, and they evince quite limited concern for belief in either speculative theology or the sacred stories that surround them.
No .kaufmannphillips wrote:
(a) "Unorthodox" in the sense of contravening the hegemonic stance of the church, shall we say.
Jason wrote:
A simple "yes" would suffice.
(a) Hegemony does not mean universality.Jason wrote:
All kidding aside, the church has held different opinions on this throughout its history (especially early) and has, save for Rome, not had a single authority by which to govern Trinitarian orthodoxy.
(a) A historical study of the councils would not reduce their decisions to the writings of the apostles and the prophets.Jason wrote:
When the councils met to discuss this they were debating Scripture. Therefore it has always been the writings of the apostles and, before them, the prophets who decided these matters. Since the doctrine is somwhat fuzzy (I say somewhat because I AM a Trinitarian Christian) in scripture, we shouldn't make it a rule of orthodoxy.
(a) Most Christians - historically and presently - belong to churches that do not reduce authority to the written records of Jesus and the apostles. Many Christians believe in authority found in the church itself.kaufmannphillips wrote:
(b) As Alanis Morissette could have noted, the bible nowhere gives us a hermeneutic of sola scriptura.
Jason wrote:
Well, the bible contains the only real records of what Jesus and the apostles taught. Therefore, a rule of sola scriptura is hardly necessary if one understands where the source of authority for one's belief is derived. For the Christian our authority comes from Jesus and the apostles - specifically their written records. To a more subjective degree, we are governed by the leading of the Holy Spirit. And near as I can tell, the Holy Spirit has not informed me on these matters.
(a) The mitzvot may or may not come from the Creator in a conventional sense. But one way or the other, the situation remains the same: whether the immediate result of human imagination or of extraordinary mystical encounter, the mitzvot are the stipulations of a commitment to G-d.kaufmannphillips wrote:
I do not hold Genesis as canonical either. My canon consists of the mitzvot given in the wilderness - so, portions of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. I don't treat the narrative portions as canonical. The mitzvot are the key: they are the terms of the covenant; they establish a concrete paradigm for conduct, and they evince quite limited concern for belief in either speculative theology or the sacred stories that surround them.
Jason wrote:
What reason do you have to assume the mitzvot actually came from the Creator? How do you know these laws were not the result of early human imagination? Christians hold that the OT prophets, including Moses, are speaking from YWHW because they predicted things that would later happen. You seem to reject the writings of the prophets, the only possible Divine link by which to ascribe authority, so why are you personally convinced the mitzvot laws are of Divine origin?