Post #175,412
9/21/04 12:01:51 PM
|

Nope, you're talking the same thing
According to Paul, the New Covenant went into effect after Christ died for our sins.
But where in the Bible is the new covenant actually specified?
Cheers, Ben
About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
|
Post #175,417
9/21/04 12:11:58 PM
|

Re: Nope, you're talking the same thing
That part, yes, it didn't go into effect till He died, I guess I didn't know it was Paul who explained it, I just knew Jesus brought it into effect. But Jesus TOLD them about it, so to speak. during the Last Supper.
My pastor says frequently, during communion, that we drink to the New Covenant which was brought about by the shedding of Jesus blood.
Nightowl >8#
"It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends." (Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).
|
Post #175,426
9/21/04 12:57:17 PM
|

No, you don't *know* that
You believe it, which is different kettle of fish entirely.
And you believe it, not because you have examined your beliefs or the relevant text, but because your pastor keeps on telling you that that's what was meant. Maybe your pastor is right. Maybe your pastor is wrong. Maybe you'd agree if you looked into it for yourself. Maybe you'd disagree.
But you know the answers to none of those questions because you've never attempted to apply critical thought to your own beliefs. You don't have to - lots of people don't. But I'd appreciate it if you could keep from confusing unexamined beliefs with actual knowledge.
Regards, Ben
About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
|
Post #175,440
9/21/04 1:55:08 PM
|

Re: No, you don't *know* that
You believe it, which is different kettle of fish entirely. I disagree. What people know is what they learn, see, or hear. I've learned and or heard it. Believing it is entirely different from having learned and or heard. I don't know any other description for know, other than, "I've thorougly researched this in triplicate and compared all the facts" and very very few people do that with anything or everything. For example, I KNOW the sky is blue. I don't know why it looks blue, but the evidence shows me it is blue. I know regular pianos have 88 keys, not because I've counted them, but because I've been told. So in this case, I know what I've learned, and I stated it. If it is incorrect knowledge, then that's different, I still know it as what I learned. And you believe it, not because you have examined your beliefs or the relevant text, but because your pastor keeps on telling you that that's what was meant. Maybe your pastor is right. Maybe your pastor is wrong. Maybe you'd agree if you looked into it for yourself. Maybe you'd disagree. I examined my beliefs long ago, and was happy in my original church. Since then, my faith was shaken, and I've been struggling with that ever since, so I am still re-finding my faith and my God. And I don't disagree. FuManChu gave you the scripture and said Jesus declared it, and that is what I said I knew. But you know the answers to none of those questions because you've never attempted to apply critical thought to your own beliefs. You don't have to - lots of people don't. But I'd appreciate it if you could keep from confusing unexamined beliefs with actual knowledge. How am I supposed to do that when I don't even know the difference? Like I said, knowledge is what I learn, see, or hear... it's not always correct. Some people analyze their religion, other people accept it. I don't analyze it, I believe in the basics, that God sent His son to die for us and take our sin away if we accept Him. That's the most important part to me, anyway. As I've said before... I don't normally get into religion discussions, and I've pretty much made my point where this one was concerned, thanks. Nightowl >8#
"It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends." (Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).
|
Post #175,829
9/22/04 8:01:44 PM
|

Ah, the fun of epistemology
First a disclaimer. Re-reading this thread I suspect that you may be saying, "I know what my Church teaches." While I've been reading that as, "I know what the Bible teaches." Those statements are different. If you meant the former, then everything else that I'm about to say can be disregarded... You believe it, which is different kettle of fish entirely.
I disagree. What people know is what they learn, see, or hear. I've learned and or heard it. Believing it is entirely different from having learned and or heard. I don't know any other description for know, other than, "I've thorougly researched this in triplicate and compared all the facts" and very very few people do that with anything or everything.
So if I tell you that up is down and the moon is made of green cheese, then you have heard that and by your definition now know that up is down and the moon is made of green cheese? I think not! As for your description of what "very very few people do", in fact it is what I have done on many things, and would likely do with everything had I infinite time to do it. Obviously there are different levels of certainty. But generally I won't grant that you know something until you have a pretty good idea why you think it, how to check it, and have enough knowledge to be able to answer common questions on it. For example, I KNOW the sky is blue. I don't know why it looks blue, but the evidence shows me it is blue. I know regular pianos have 88 keys, not because I've counted them, but because I've been told. Yes. And you know why you think it is blue. Furthermore if I came back with questions, you'd be able to make a reasonable attempt to answer them. For instance if I said, "If it is blue then why does it look at black at night?" you'd know about the role of the Sun. Also if I said, "But there's lots of grey and white up there" you'd know about clouds. As for pianos, if I challenged you on that, you'd know how to go to a piano and check for yourself how many keys it has. You might have trouble if I said, "Well I know that some pianos have 97 keys." But you'd guess that there are different models of pianos, even if you don't know that it is a Bosendorfer that can have that many keys. (I didn't know a second ago either until I checked Google.) So in this case, I know what I've learned, and I stated it. If it is incorrect knowledge, then that's different, I still know it as what I learned. How well do you know it? When boxley talked about Paul's role, you certainly didn't know what he was talking about well enough to recognize that he was talking about the same thing. That was even obvious to me - and I've never been inclined to Christianity nor have I ever studied the Bible! Nor, as you've admitted elsewhere, do you know the topic well enough to read the Bible and verify what you think it says. And you believe it, not because you have examined your beliefs or the relevant text, but because your pastor keeps on telling you that that's what was meant. Maybe your pastor is right. Maybe your pastor is wrong. Maybe you'd agree if you looked into it for yourself. Maybe you'd disagree. I examined my beliefs long ago, and was happy in my original church. Since then, my faith was shaken, and I've been struggling with that ever since, so I am still re-finding my faith and my God.
And I don't disagree. FuManChu gave you the scripture and said Jesus declared it, and that is what I said I knew.
If you read what FuManChu said in full, he went on to say that Paul wrote the end user documentation. What he means by that is that the majority of detail that people cite about what the New Covenant is and isn't comes from what Paul wrote. Which comes from a combination of Paul's understanding of what Jesus said and the particular situations that Paul was addressing. As FuManChu partially clarified, if you read what Jesus wrote and understand it in the same way that Paul did, you'll find that what Paul said logically flows from what Jesus said. However I think that FuManChu will agree that it is possible to read everything that Jesus said but not understand it like Paul did, in which case you'd think that Paul introduced stuff. FuManChu might go on to express his opinion that your understanding in this case would be a misunderstanding on your part. But deciding for yourself whether you agree with that further assertion would take learning a lot more about the Bible. But you know the answers to none of those questions because you've never attempted to apply critical thought to your own beliefs. You don't have to - lots of people don't. But I'd appreciate it if you could keep from confusing unexamined beliefs with actual knowledge. How am I supposed to do that when I don't even know the difference? Like I said, knowledge is what I learn, see, or hear... it's not always correct. Some people analyze their religion, other people accept it. I don't analyze it, I believe in the basics, that God sent His son to die for us and take our sin away if we accept Him. That's the most important part to me, anyway.
You could eliminate this issue by learning the difference. As I've said before... I don't normally get into religion discussions, and I've pretty much made my point where this one was concerned, thanks. Understood. Ben
About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
|
Post #175,831
9/22/04 8:09:33 PM
|

It was the former.
I know what my church (old one) taught. :)
Nightowl >8#
"It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends." (Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).
|
Post #175,834
9/22/04 8:23:38 PM
|

I realized that was likely...
after I'd typed up the bulk of the post.
I hate throwing that much typing away so I added the disclaimer and posted anyways...
Ben
About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
|
Post #175,835
9/22/04 8:27:10 PM
|

That's ok
It was still interesting to read, thanks.
Nightowl >8#
"It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends." (Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).
|
Post #175,833
9/22/04 8:18:42 PM
|

Re: Ah, the fun of epistemology
what does studying bare beavers have to do with religion? Oh, never mind, carry on regards daemon
|
Post #175,431
9/21/04 1:27:53 PM
|

Are you asking Owl or anyone? Luke 22, e.g.
Jesus declared new_covenant() and Paul wrote the end-user documentation. ;)
|
Post #175,435
9/21/04 1:37:52 PM
|

Thanks!
I KNEW He declared it. :)
Nightowl >8#
"It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends." (Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).
|
Post #175,438
9/21/04 1:48:05 PM
|

thats an interpretation :-)
These miserable swine, having nothing but illusions to live on, marshmallows for the soul in place of good meat, will now stoop to any disgusting level to prevent even those miserable morsels from vanishing into thin air. The country is being destroyed by these stupid, vicious right-wing fanatics, the spiritual brothers of the brownshirts and redstars, collectivists and authoritarians all, who would not know freedom if it bit them on the ass, who spend all their time trying to stamp, bludgeon, and eviscerate the very idea of the individual's right to his own private world. DRL questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #175,442
9/21/04 2:16:13 PM
|

Yessss......
You buy "WordPerfect for Dummies" and then declare that book to be a commentary on how to understand and use WordPerfect. If you want to call that an "interpretation", go ahead, I guess. ;)
I can't think of a single concept which Paul introduces in his commentary which isn't fundamentally grounded in an OT mindset. I can think of *plenty* of ideas and motivations which have been ascribed to both Paul and Jesus which don't have that grounding, mostly along the lines of "behavior X means Y in 21st-century white American culture; therefore when Jesus or Paul did X it means Y". Appalling anthropology, akin to writing a "WordPerfect for Dummies" which only talks about MS Word.
|
Post #175,449
9/21/04 3:10:41 PM
|

Well not to revisit our pauline discussions
his commentary about the role of women and men differs from the accepted norms of the OT. Actually his point about gentiles not having to convert to judaism to be christians was reasonable and being gentiles were not bound by contract to eat kosher but I dont recall where Jesus overthrew the covenant with the Jews and gave it to the gentiles, it was christians later that "interpreted" thats what Jesus really meant. thanx, bill
These miserable swine, having nothing but illusions to live on, marshmallows for the soul in place of good meat, will now stoop to any disgusting level to prevent even those miserable morsels from vanishing into thin air. The country is being destroyed by these stupid, vicious right-wing fanatics, the spiritual brothers of the brownshirts and redstars, collectivists and authoritarians all, who would not know freedom if it bit them on the ass, who spend all their time trying to stamp, bludgeon, and eviscerate the very idea of the individual's right to his own private world. DRL questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #175,501
9/21/04 5:26:06 PM
|

Well, that's a guess on your part.
"Can't I have just a little bit of peril?" ;)
In the absence of a document where Jesus spells it out, you choose to believe it was a late idea, and therefore an extraneous one. I will point out that Luke records some divine corroboration for Paul's ministry to the Gentiles: in Acts 9, the Lord told Ananias that Paul was to bear His Name to them. But more importantly, Peter (and the others who had been given direct authority over interpretation of the Covenant) accepted Paul's arguments (cf Acts 10). Peter attests in that passage to the "gift of the Holy Spirit" (considered a sign of the covenant) being "poured out" on the Gentiles. Not to mention Peter's own vision, which he uses as his argument in Acts 11, and which his hearers accept as authoritative. Although there continued to be a vocal minority who wished for all Christians to be circumcised, the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 shows a leadership "having become of one mind" on the matter.
All of which is to say, if you accept the visions and the apostles' consensus interpretation of prophecy as valid testimony, then there isn't much wiggle room. If you do not accept them, then you must *guess* what "really happened", since there is no accurate record. Again, I'm going to go with those who were actually there, witnesses to both Jesus in life and the events which transpired following his death--they had a much more complete picture of Jesus' position than you or I can have 2000 years later.
|