Post #104,636
6/3/03 12:36:02 PM
|
Too bad he was wrong.
Jesus didn't teach an idea. He actively brought about the end of one contract between God and humanity while instituting another, better one. This is the fundamental difference between Christianity and other religions (it's about action, not ideas), which is why btw I have such a hard time with Christian mystics.
Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
|
Post #104,644
6/3/03 1:48:20 PM
|
No he didnt
He explained the proper way to observe the law, later Paul created Christianity over the objections of the Diciples.
YMMV :-)
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
"I hit him so hard in the head his dog shat a turd in the shape of Jesus" Leonard Pine
|
Post #104,653
6/3/03 3:57:16 PM
|
How is e.g. the Lord's Supper about the Law?
"This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."
Nice idea about Paul, which one can debate separately, but the fact remains Jesus saw himself and his sacrifice as a new covenant. At the least, one must grant (if you accept Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as authoritative) that Jesus was a religious subversive, since the religious establishment (*not* the state) continually tried to kill him. If there was to be no change in the covenant, what otherwise could have been the reason for his death (which is made clear to be a conscious choice)? Without the institution of the new covenant, his death meant nothing, was nothing other than a nice show.
Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
|
Post #104,702
6/3/03 8:56:06 PM
|
okay, we can leave Paul out of it
assuming you are speaking of luke 36 thru 28. Well translations aside, testament, covenant lets look at the scene.
Jesua knows his time is coming in a couple of days. Breaks bread and sez to the boys, eat this in rememberance of me. He takes a glass of wine and sez this is my blood, drink this in rememberance of me as I will not taste wine again until we all meet on the other side in the afterlife and have a few toddies together again.
Somehow if I was to destroy the Covenant of Abraham with the blessing of Hashem I would be rather more specific like we no longer have to obey the mosaic law. He never did that, His entire teaching was based on living the law with your heart, not like a hypocritical asshole which the pharisee SECT was practicing it. This is common practice in Judaism even today, exhortations by those who feel the mainstream has lost the meaning of G_d and man's place in the universe. Some produce good, others I wish them nothing. In Islam today the same thing happens, except you are likely to be killed by those disagreeing with you.
The last supper is among a band of brothers with a leader who knows his time is short, I have attended similar functions where participants know they will not meet again in this life and have drunk many, sometimes too many toasts to those who went before, absent comrades.
After all if we took this as gospel there would only be catholics in the christian world :-)
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
"I hit him so hard in the head his dog shat a turd in the shape of Jesus" Leonard Pine
|
Post #104,714
6/3/03 10:15:08 PM
|
God didn't destroy the Covenant of Abraham
Many people broke the Covenant of Abraham, and Jesus was sent with a New Covenant. One that is better and forgives sins, also one that covers Gentiles as well. I am not saying that it ignores mosaic laws, but Jesus said he came to fullfill those laws, not to break them. Still he forgave the woman who had the affair, and the Mosaic laws said she was to be stoned. So that shows that he changed things a bit, no longer requring stoning for adultry, but rather forgiving the sin and saying "Don't do that again".
The way I see it, both Covenants are valid. Jesus just offered a better way of being forgiven because a vast majority of the people could not follow the Covenant of Abraham, so a new one was made. Jesus never revoked the Covenant of Abraham, as far as I can read in the bible, but he did offer a new one. If not, why is he forgiving adultresses instead of having them stoned?
"If you're going to cheat, cheat fair. If there's anything I hate it's a crooked crook!" -Moe Howard
|
Post #104,762
6/4/03 8:52:07 AM
|
the covenant was between G_d and Abraham
concerning his decendants, the Jews and Beduins and their decendants today. The covenant is G_d's to keep, not people for people are useless at such things. If as you say that JC brought a new covenant, it would have only applied to the folks that were the receiptiants of the OLD covenant. No gentiles allowed.
Now in no way am I trying to disabuse christianity as a faith for without faith and belief we are meaningless, just explaining why it doesnt work for me.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
"I hit him so hard in the head his dog shat a turd in the shape of Jesus" Leonard Pine
|
Post #104,837
6/4/03 1:10:55 PM
|
Jesus included gentiles
he even healed Romans, one Roman soldier was sick and bedridden and Jesus healed him, another had his ear cut off and Jesus healed him. Jesus spread his word and healing power for everyone, not just the receiptiants of the OLD covenant.
Jesus said that we are all his children.
"If you're going to cheat, cheat fair. If there's anything I hate it's a crooked crook!" -Moe Howard
|
Post #105,269
6/7/03 11:26:29 PM
|
Lazarus and the Rich Man
There is a parable in the New Testiment about a man named Lazarus and the Rich Man. The Rich man had everything he needed and Lazarus was poor and begged for scraps. When both died, Lazarus was in Abraham's bossom and the Rich Man was in Hell being tormented. I always thought it was about the rich going to Hell for abusing the poor, but it has deeper meanings apparently: [link|http://www.whereisgod.info/English/Lazarus_parable.htm|http://www.whereisgo...zarus_parable.htm] Lazarus is a Gentile, and the Rich Man is Jewish according to this translation.
So we see that the Jews were "rich" because they had a covenant with God, with promised blessings. Who does Lazarus symbolize in the parable? Lazarus symbolizes the Gentiles, who were excluded from the covenant. The Gentiles were in poverty, relatively speaking, owing to the fact that God's covenant and blessings were not available to them... yet. They were outside the rich man's "gate," so to speak, "desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man\ufffds table." The covenant and its blessings were only available to the "rich man" - the Jews - to whom Jesus addressed the parable.
When Lazarus died in the parable, he next appeared at Abraham's bosom, meaning that he became a very close or special friend of Abraham. To lean on another's chest or bosom was, in their time, indicative of a close friendship. An example of this was the relationship between the apostle John and Jesus: John 13:23 recounts that "Now there was leaning on Jesus\ufffd bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved."
Now, what was the significance of the death of Lazarus, and his appearance as a special friend of Abraham? Lazarus' death signified a change in the Gentiles' status with God: a covenant was made available to them, made possible by the sacrificial death and resurrection to eternal life of Jesus. The terms of the new covenant are summarized in John 3:16:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Why are the Gentiles (those who are true Christians) shown in the parable to be bosom friends of Abraham? Because they have the same belief or faith in God that Abraham had. Through faith the Gentiles can attain the righteousness of Abraham; they spiritually have bosom closeness with Abraham as indicated in the parable. The apostle Paul described Abraham's faith, and showed that Christians are righteous because they have faith like Abraham's:
It gives a twist on things, Jesus was trying to teach something here. Jesus is Jewish himself, yet he talked about his own people falling out of favor with God. But I don't think that the original covenant was revoked, just that a new one was added and things got changed a bit and some roles got reversed. Just something to think about, I had recently found this out myself while surfing for Lazarus on Google. It just hit this topic we were discussing.
"If you're going to cheat, cheat fair. If there's anything I hate it's a crooked crook!" -Moe Howard
|
Post #105,270
6/7/03 11:51:21 PM
|
Re: Lazarus and the Rich Man
I wanted to add that the Rich Man hadn't listened to Moses and the Prophets and apparently hadn't followed Mosaic law because of that. It was a warning from Jesus that God didn't like those who disobeyed him, even if they were covered by the Covenant, and they could have their place replaced by gentiles. It was like Jesus was teaching some sort of Reform, saying to obey God or else. A very powerful message in those times and these times.
"If you're going to cheat, cheat fair. If there's anything I hate it's a crooked crook!" -Moe Howard
|
Post #104,729
6/4/03 12:57:20 AM
|
So what was the reason for his death?
If the Last Supper was just a good ol' boys get-together, then what purpose did the crucifixion have? Or do you simply deny he had foreknowledge of his betrayal; i.e. that his death wasn't planned or necessary?
Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
|
Post #104,760
6/4/03 8:46:48 AM
|
he had foreknowledge all right
some have even suggested that he had to force Judas into informing on him. Others have suggested that he leaned on Judas for strength in the coming trial. Considering how many crucifictions were carried out in that era the cause of death is not by itself significant because after all if it happened today would you wear a little electric chair around your neck? Of course not.
His death was planned by many some with knowledge aforethought. Without his death, his message would have been lost in less than a generation instead of being tweaked and woven into the tapestry that is christianity today. I rather suspect he would/is not be thrilled with the state of the message today.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
"I hit him so hard in the head his dog shat a turd in the shape of Jesus" Leonard Pine
|
