"bearing His Cross"

[DarthOkkata]

I'm confused by something a 'faithful' customer brought up today. I've heard it before, but now it's fresh in my mind.

 

What exactly does 'We must all bear his cross' mean anyway?

 

Isn't that why he supposedly died in the first place? So we wouldn't have too?

 

I'm confused by the Christian notion that 'suffering' makes you better in the eyes of God. It's making life suck on purpose, just so Jesus will love you more. Even as a former Christian, I am at a bit of a loss on this behavior pattern.

 

Why on earth would I want to bear any of the weight, [emotional or otherwise\ when he finished carrying the stupid thing thousands of years ago anyway?

 

Sounds like crying over spilled milk to me.

[Gary Thompson]

There's a link on this post where some dick explains it. His explanation is irrational but it's the way that fundies think.

[Guest fatalGlory]

What exactly does 'We must all bear his cross' mean anyway?

 

Hoping to shed some light (and hopefully give everyone something to chew on that won't be labelled as 'fundy'). The Bible passage (or one of the several similar) in question seems to be Mark 8:34 which says:

 

And he called to him the crowd with his disciples and said to them, If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

 

To give just a little context, Jesus continues in the next two verses to say:

For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?

 

Compare these statements to Paul's explanation in 2 Corinthians 1:5

 

For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.

 

The answer to the question, "what is meant by 'we must all bear his cross'?" is that people could hardly call themselves disciples or followers of Christ if they were not prepared to follow in his footsteps, undergoing hardship and suffering for the sake of the gospel, for the sake of bringing the lost back to God. It is not that we bear our sins just as Christ bore them, but rather that his loving self-sacrifice becomes a template for our own lives.

 

I'm confused by the Christian notion that 'suffering' makes you better in the eyes of God.

 

I'm confused by how this came to be seen as a Christian notion. This sounds closer to the Hindu doctrine of karma than anything else to me. Perhaps in Roman Catholicism (which is not Christianity strictly speaking) the doctrine of penance may carry this idea in a lot of people's minds but it is very much AGAINST the core message of Christianity.

 

Romans 8:3-4 says this

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

 

the righteous requirement of the law, fulfilled in us. The gravity of that statement cannot be underestimated. In the eyes of God, the Christian is absolutely 5 star, 10 out of 10 perfect, as if God was looking at Jesus himself. How can you be any better than that? This leaves now room for the idea that, as you put it, "suffering makes you better in the eyes of God". All have fallen short of the glory of God, but by dying in our place, Christ has made us as perfect as he was in God's sight.

 

As Rev. A.M. Toplady put it so beautifully in the hymn 'Rock of Ages':

 

Could my zeal no respite know

Could my tears forever flow

All for sin could not atone

You must save and You alone

 

The idea of "making life suck on purpose, just so Jesus will love you more" is, if anything a slap in the face to Jesus. Do we really presume to imply that the One who suffered ultimate rejection for us loves us anything less than completely?

 

Hope that helps clear some confusion.

[insanezenmistress]

What exactly does 'We must all bear his cross' mean anyway?

 

 

 

id like to try a bite at this one. forgive me no i did not read the other posts i merely skimmed them because iw anted to speak up. when i was a christian this thing bothered me too. i mean if christ paid for my sins a why do i still fuckign sin and why did he tell me i also had to die to sin.

 

 

this is not a theology debate, i pondered it a while and christians had no idea so i had to figure it for myself. and i figured........maybe christs death ment he showed us how to live and he lived wiht out sin so that we could learn to let sins power over us go........i was under the impression that we become christians and god part was to gradaully reverses the fall of man with in us.

 

 

and the quote is that we msut all bear OUR cross......anyway to back a up second...when iw as a christians i started to notice the holy message was changing ( atleast by my holy rolling preception it was..once upon a time preachers seems to teach you how to apply the bible to your life.once upon a time it seems to me that there was unity and growth perhaps it was my subjective experience while the great deal of other humans there got indoctrinated.

once upon a time we knew what it was to bear our crosses daily and it ment personal growth and personal prayer and discovery of your personal holy ghost within.............at least it was to me.

[Amanda]

What exactly does 'We must all bear his cross' mean anyway?

 

Hoping to shed some light (and hopefully give everyone something to chew on that won't be labelled as 'fundy'). The Bible passage (or one of the several similar) in question seems to be Mark 8:34 which says:

 

And he called to him the crowd with his disciples and said to them, If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

 

To give just a little context, Jesus continues in the next two verses to say:

For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?

Fatal Glory, I think it is saying that people pick up their own cross, their own burdens, and follow these teachings and ways of Jesus to resolve their own issues. What good is it for them to still try to do it their own ways of vendictiveness and hatred in gaining worldly things and being a jerk for their own life?

 

It seems the original teachings of Jesus were seen as really Atheistic in that it taught self empowerment, much like our Atheist movement today. God is within us, we too are gods, and God must work through us. This came across as Atheistic at the time and seems to be contributing to much of the reason for these followers of Jesus' persecution in this pious environment of Greeks, Romans, and Jews. Gods were known to control everything and we were weak and helpless.

[Lycorth]

If Jebus' so-called "sacrifice" were of any power at all, then there should be no more crosses to bear. Otherwise, if sin, evil, the devil, and all make and manner of suffering still exists, and the world isn't magically restored to the paradise of the Garden of Eden™, then what good is Jebus' death? Clearly, it is only a self-serving act by a self-serving god, designed for drama and attention as well as indulging in sado-masochistic pleasures. If it doesn't remove anything bad or wicked from the world, it was clearly a useless act, made all the more wicked by the fact it is presented by this god as something we must believe in or else suffer eternal torture for our disagreement.

 

Good thing Jebus doesn't exist, or else life would truly suck

[Kurari]

If Jebus' so-called "sacrifice" were of any power at all, then there should be no more crosses to bear. Otherwise, if sin, evil, the devil, and all make and manner of suffering still exists, and the world isn't magically restored to the paradise of the Garden of Eden™, then what good is Jebus' death? Clearly, it is only a self-serving act by a self-serving god, designed for drama and attention as well as indulging in sado-masochistic pleasures. If it doesn't remove anything bad or wicked from the world, it was clearly a useless act, made all the more wicked by the fact it is presented by this god as something we must believe in or else suffer eternal torture for our disagreement.

 

Good thing Jebus doesn't exist, or else life would truly suck

 

Good point, Varokhar.

 

Except this doesn't seem to apply to "life" it applies to the Afterlife. Nothing changed here in the "real" world, but from what I concluded (and somebody correct me if I'm wrong) about this whole thing is something incredibly cosmic got rearranged in the Afterlife and Heaven. Jesus's sacrifice somehow did...I dunno, some kind of restructuring of the order of things in the spiritual world?

 

So, if we are to bear Jesus's cross, follow in his footsteps, we can to go to Heaven. Somehow his sacrifice of our sins made this all possible. Which leaves me wondering: What was God doing with all the souls that came to Him before Jesus was born and all the people who died without hearing the gospel? What happened on a spiritual level that changed all of a sudden? Didn't Heaven exist before Jesus or was it kind of a new "procedure" rewrite?

 

Such as:

 

"To: All Staff, Inhabitants of Earth

From: God <LAlmighty@HeavenCorps.hev>

Subject: Christanity v. 1.0.0 Going Live!

 

As all of you well know, we're having some big changes going on up here in Heaven Corps for the last 40 years or so, and I am I'm pleased to announce all our hard work has finally paid off! The phasing out of Judiasm v. 10.5.0 and install of Christianity v. 1.0.0 has been a tremendous success! Your senior Sys Admin Jesus Christ got the servers up and running last night, so we're going live next Monday at 8am sharp! I expect Judiasm and all other processing religions to be completely off our servers in the next three years or so from now, so start doing back up and conversion of all data as soon as possible as well as help your collegues convert theirs too. We're all a team here, so lend a hand where it's needed!

 

I'm certain all of you are sad to hear of Jesus's resignation and departure from this company to our home offices in The Sky, but he's promised he won't be gone for good! He's going onto bigger and better things for Heaven Corps., so I hope you all take the time to say goodbye and tell him how much you appreciate all his fine hard work. He's been nailing himself to his work for quite some time now and I know he could use the break from all the miracles he's pulled off for us!

 

I hope that you all paid attention during Heaven System training, and would like to remind you if you have questions about Christianity 1.0.0, to please see your Supervising priests for clarfication. Jesus will be back briefly in three days time to answer any questions and perform some last minute miracles before his departure, and would like everyone to know he will be available for personal consultations on the new Heaven System: Christianity v. 1.0.0

 

Lets all start Christianity 1.0 off with a positive outlook and a great new start!

 

God"

[Guest fatalGlory]

I have to politely disagree with you Amanda.

 

It seems the original teachings of Jesus were seen as really Atheistic in that it taught self empowerment, much like our Atheist movement today. God is within us, we too are gods, and God must work through us.

 

Biblically speaking, Jesus' teachings were not about self-empowerment at all. In John 15:5 Jesus says this:

 

I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

 

The life of the disciple of Jesus is about utter dependence on Jesus, not on one's self. Toplady's words I stated above are accurate again, "You must save and You alone". Furthermore, it seems very strange to call Jesus' teaching "atheistic" in any sense. Jesus is continually concerned with something called "the kingdom of heaven", He begins preaching for the first time in Matthew 4:17 like so:

 

From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

 

Jesus is quite convinced that there is an afterlife and that it is a kingdom (ie. it has a King). Hardly atheistic.

 

God is within us, we too are gods, and God must work through us.

 

This sounds much more like panthesim than atheism. The Bible does teach how the God the Spirit lives within the Christian, but to say that "we too are gods" is very much a step too far. Remember what happened with King Herod? He was struck dead by an angel of the Lord for not denying the idea when a crowd he spoke to yelled out that he was less a man than a god. The first two of the ten commandments deal explicitly with the issue of serving only the one true God. And that God must work through us? I think that God has proven Himself more than capable of handling His own affairs throughout history. Created the universe, brought plagues down upon Egypt to rescue the Jews from slavery, crumbled the walls of Jericho, parted the red sea. To insinuate that God needs us I can only find to be a fallacy.

 

Gods were known to control everything and we were weak and helpless.

Actually, I think that the Greeks and Romans at least (and probably a lot of Jews) had underestimated how truly helpless they were in comparison to God. AFAIK the Greeks and Romans were in the habit of trying to manipulate their gods' will via things like sacrifices. And Jesus spent much time in his ministry telling off Jews who tried to earn their way into the kingdom of heaven by their piety.

 

The essence of the gospel is depending only on the sacrifice of Jesus for salvation for just that reason - we ARE helpless to save ourselves.

 

Varokhar, your question is a very good one, and God has seen fit to put the answer in His word. God has said in Revelation 21:4 that these things will end, that Christ's death was effective.

 

He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.

 

But why has it not happened immediately? There is a very good reason, we read it in 2 Peter 3:9

 

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

 

The point being, the message of the gospel of grace is that the burden of our sins is no longer ours to carry. But God is patient and is allowing people time to come to repentence and accept that gift. In the meantime, He calls those who would be disciples of Christ to conform to Christ's likeness and endure whatever hardships are necessary to spread grace to the lost.

[Guest fatalGlory]

Kurari, the answer is that people were saved by the death of Christ even before his arrival on the earth, they merely did not know (most of them) that this was the reason. They had the sin offerings that were symbollic of the true sacrifice of Christ. Abraham is a good example. Romans 4:3 says this:

 

For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.

 

Just as after Christ, people before Christ were justified by grace through faith ("Abraham believed God"). They placed their trust in God instead of themselves.

[Grandpa Harley]

Aren't stigmatics supposed to be sharing Jesus' suffering on our behalf (I've never understood why they should get the wounds in the wrong place if that were the case... but then I'm not RC)?

[Kuroikaze]

The life of the disciple of Jesus is about utter dependence on Jesus, not on one's self. Toplady's words I stated above are accurate again, "You must save and You alone". Furthermore, it seems very strange to call Jesus' teaching "atheistic" in any sense. Jesus is continually concerned with something called "the kingdom of heaven", He begins preaching for the first time in Matthew 4:17 like so:

 

From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

 

Jesus is quite convinced that there is an afterlife and that it is a kingdom (ie. it has a King). Hardly atheistic.

 

Not necessarily, If you were well read on theology you would know many theologians think that when Christ talks of the kingdom of heaven he is talking about an attempt to create a sort of utopia on earth. In Matthew Jesus very much spoke in the same line as the OT prophets. He spoke about caring for the poor and diseased rather than just ignoring them like most of Jewish culture did. the phrase is "the kingdom of heaven is AT HAND" not something that would happen when people died. Perhaps not atheistic, but certainly not focused on some "pie in the sky"

 

And that God must work through us? I think that God has proven Himself more than capable of handling His own affairs throughout history. Created the universe, brought plagues down upon Egypt to rescue the Jews from slavery, crumbled the walls of Jericho, parted the red sea. To insinuate that God needs us I can only find to be a fallacy.

 

yeah, God has handled his affairs SOOOO WELL its not like people ever committed mass slaughter in his name....oh wait.. the crusades....or burned "witches" to death....oh wait they did that too.....well at least God prevented the Jews from being subjected to horrible mistreatment and death right? Oh wait the holocaust....yeah God has been running stuff so well

 

In my opinion if there is a god then he is apparently either totally lazy or completely incompetent . The only examples you can provide of god "running things well" are instances in the bible which lack ANY supporting historical evidence. On the other hand all the instances I list are back up by mountains of historical data...and suggest that no one is looking out for us...but us.

 

Actually, I think that the Greeks and Romans at least (and probably a lot of Jews) had underestimated how truly helpless they were in comparison to God. AFAIK the Greeks and Romans were in the habit of trying to manipulate their gods' will via things like sacrifices. And Jesus spent much time in his ministry telling off Jews who tried to earn their way into the kingdom of heaven by their piety.

 

Yes, and the jews also made sacrifices to "manipulate" god...this was common to almost every ancient religion.

 

The essence of the gospel is depending only on the sacrifice of Jesus for salvation for just that reason - we ARE helpless to save ourselves.

 

yes...so simple, create a fake illness (sin) and then offer them a cure they don't need....just give us 10% of your income...

 

 

The point being, the message of the gospel of grace is that the burden of our sins is no longer ours to carry. But God is patient and is allowing people time to come to repentence and accept that gift. In the meantime, He calls those who would be disciples of Christ to conform to Christ's likeness and endure whatever hardships are necessary to spread grace to the lost.

 

No God to offend...therefore no sin to carry in the first place....nothing calling you to do anything but the voices in your head. Trust me I've been where you are...and that voice isn't a god...its just the manifestation of your own inner uneasiness and desire.

[Amanda]

Biblically speaking, Jesus' teachings were not about self-empowerment at all. In John 15:5 Jesus says this:

 

I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

 

The life of the disciple of Jesus is about utter dependence on Jesus, not on one's self. Toplady's words I stated above are accurate again, "You must save and You alone". Furthermore, it seems very strange to call Jesus' teaching "atheistic" in any sense. Jesus is continually concerned with something called "the kingdom of heaven",

Fatal Glory, you do have to admit that this verse is mthologically/metaphorically speaking. We can not literally abide in him or he in us, but perhaps his teachings... right?

 

Jesus not Atheisitic oriented? Yes, he was about self empowerment, and yes he was about the kingdom of heaven, and he states the kingdom of heaven, which is the kingdom of God, which is within you.

 

Lu 17:21

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

[Grandpa Harley]

"Jesus is quite convinced that there is an afterlife and that it is a kingdom (ie. it has a King). Hardly atheistic."

 

Dragging fact upside that statement... Aramaic didn't support concepts like an 'afterlife'. The Kingdom as an external entity is a Greek/Classical idea. The kingdom was a state of mind, not a place.

[mwc]

The idea of "making life suck on purpose, just so Jesus will love you more" is, if anything a slap in the face to Jesus. Do we really presume to imply that the One who suffered ultimate rejection for us loves us anything less than completely?

By this reasoning, then, the very idea that the Law (the Torah) which was handed down to the world by this god himself and considered to be perfect and eternal and something to not show us how bad we are but something to bring us only closer to him, could be later interpreted by Paul, and xians in general, as a detriment is a slap in the face to YHWH.

 

But in case you're not sure about this I've quote mined a few verses from those poor folks in the OT that had to deal with this burden:

Psalms 1:2

But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

 

Psalms 19:7

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

 

Psalms 37:31

The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide.

The Psalmist (David?) sure hated the Law. Yikes! I can see where Paul got his ideas from. It was sure a good idea for Paul to "overturn" the Law, right?

 

Proverbs 28:4

They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.

 

Proverbs 28:7

Whoso keepeth the law is a wise son: but he that is a companion of riotous men shameth his father.

 

Proverbs 28:9

He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.

 

Proverbs 29:18

Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.

Hmmm...maybe not. I guess Paul isn't such an ideal "role model" after all. Oh, and don't confuse all this with any "replacement" theology. I'm simply talking about Paul's lies and misrepresentations about the Law. If he can't be trusted to get that right he can't be trusted with much else.

 

mwc

[Amanda]

"Jesus is quite convinced that there is an afterlife and that it is a kingdom (ie. it has a King). Hardly atheistic."

Grandpa Harley, IMO, the afterlife is more like reincarnation. This is illuded to many times, and I believe much of it has been edited out to a great extent too. Further, IMO, this kingdom is to be eventually established right here on earth. The kingdom of God is within us, is to come out of us, so that the will of the God within us be done on earth as it is in heaven. Heaven and earth are to become one. The 'King' of 'heaven' can be found within us all, and is a matter of manifesting out of us, through each of us, onto the earth.

 

'Jesus', IMO, is not Atheistic in that the core sense of sacredness within us all is God. However, for the concepts of that time, which believed that Gods were outside of us, this was really quite Atheistic to them. Then for Jesus to consider it not robbery to be equal to God was a bit much for them...

Dragging fact upside that statement... Aramaic didn't support concepts like an 'afterlife'. The Kingdom as an external entity is a Greek/Classical idea. The kingdom was a state of mind, not a place.

Thanks for sharing that piece of information. I think these NT teachings are about a war between heaven and hell that is within, and the side that wins is the side we feed the most.

[mwc]

Grandpa Harley, IMO, the afterlife is more like reincarnation. This is illuded to many times, and I believe much of it has been edited out to a great extent too. Further, IMO, this kingdom is to be eventually established right here on earth. The kingdom of God is within us, is to come out of us, so that the will of the God within us be done on earth as it is in heaven. Heaven and earth are to become one. The 'King' of 'heaven' can be found within us all, and is a matter of manifesting out of us, through each of us, onto the earth.

Have you ever considered the idea that if people simply started acting "right" that it would bring about "change" on this earth? Each person is therefore a potential "messiah" in their own right? There is no need to try to reconcile any afterlife or things like that. If people behave themselves (the "golden" rule aka "The Torah") then the "kingdom of god" (the "goodness") within each person will be revealed or manifested on the earth? More simply put: If everyone acted nice then everything would be nice...just like paradise.

 

mwc

[Amanda]

Have you ever considered the idea that if people simply started acting "right" that it would bring about "change" on this earth? Each person is therefore a potential "messiah" in their own right? There is no need to try to reconcile any afterlife or things like that. If people behave themselves (the "golden" rule aka "The Torah") then the "kingdom of god" (the "goodness") within each person will be revealed or manifested on the earth? More simply put: If everyone acted nice then everything would be nice...just like paradise.

 

mwc

MWC, why do I get the feeling that I don't say what I mean real well? I try. You articulate ideas so wonderfully well. I love your post here.

[Grandpa Harley]

"Jesus is quite convinced that there is an afterlife and that it is a kingdom (ie. it has a King). Hardly atheistic."

Grandpa Harley, IMO, the afterlife is more like reincarnation. This is illuded to many times, and I believe much of it has been edited out to a great extent too. Further, IMO, this kingdom is to be eventually established right here on earth. The kingdom of God is within us, is to come out of us, so that the will of the God within us be done on earth as it is in heaven. Heaven and earth are to become one. The 'King' of 'heaven' can be found within us all, and is a matter of manifesting out of us, through each of us, onto the earth.

 

'Jesus', IMO, is not Atheistic in that the core sense of sacredness within us all is God. However, for the concepts of that time, which believed that Gods were outside of us, this was really quite Atheistic to them. Then for Jesus to consider it not robbery to be equal to God was a bit much for them...

Dragging fact upside that statement... Aramaic didn't support concepts like an 'afterlife'. The Kingdom as an external entity is a Greek/Classical idea. The kingdom was a state of mind, not a place.

Thanks for sharing that piece of information. I think these NT teachings are about a war between heaven and hell that is within, and the side that wins is the side we feed the most.

It may well be your opinion, but I'm pretty certain it's not supported in Aramaic thought, which is pretty alien even to modern Jewry, let alone us... Hell, the conventional meanings of the words 'Good' (the word in Aramaic also means ripe, complete, finished, timely) and 'Evil' (unripe, incomplete, unfinished, taken at the wrong time) don't apply... Effectively we're making up stories around an inaccurate Greek paraphrase. It's akin to reading 'The Message' Bible with no knowledge of the accreted dogma of 1600 years and the KJV. The Greeks (with their long exposure to Hinduism) may well have been talking of reincarnation, but not necessarily Aramaic.

[Grandpa Harley]

Grandpa Harley, IMO, the afterlife is more like reincarnation. This is illuded to many times, and I believe much of it has been edited out to a great extent too. Further, IMO, this kingdom is to be eventually established right here on earth. The kingdom of God is within us, is to come out of us, so that the will of the God within us be done on earth as it is in heaven. Heaven and earth are to become one. The 'King' of 'heaven' can be found within us all, and is a matter of manifesting out of us, through each of us, onto the earth.

Have you ever considered the idea that if people simply started acting "right" that it would bring about "change" on this earth? Each person is therefore a potential "messiah" in their own right? There is no need to try to reconcile any afterlife or things like that. If people behave themselves (the "golden" rule aka "The Torah") then the "kingdom of god" (the "goodness") within each person will be revealed or manifested on the earth? More simply put: If everyone acted nice then everything would be nice...just like paradise.

 

mwc

 

The concept is more in line with the role of Messiah, rather than what Christians said about him. In many resepcts, Jesus would be clearing the way for the 'real' messiah, if the 'sacrificial lamb' idea was being played out (although there is minimal evidence that the Messiah would be defeated that way... hence the Resurrection deal.)

[Amanda]

Effectively we're making up stories around an inaccurate Greek paraphrase.

What Greek paraphrase are you referencing here? Are you speaking of a specific one or of all of them in general?

[Grandpa Harley]

Effectively we're making up stories around an inaccurate Greek paraphrase.

What Greek paraphrase are you referencing here? Are you speaking of a specific one or of all of them in general?

 

 

All of them. They're paraphrases in Greek of collected oral traditions in Aramaic, transcribed into Greek by enthusiastic amateurs. It took 330 years for a professional scribe to get anywhere near the texts. Greek can only paraphrase Aramaic, since there are basic syntactic and philosophical differences. And a lot of the Bibles we have use the Latin Vulgate in the mix.

 

So... Oral Aramaic for 70 to 100 years, amateur Greek Scribes for ~300 years, translated to Latin, mixed with old Greek and translated into English in the popular version. I'd say that amounted to paraphrase, no?

[Amanda]

So... Oral Aramaic for 70 to 100 years, amateur Greek Scribes for ~300 years, translated to Latin, mixed with old Greek and translated into English in the popular version. I'd say that amounted to paraphrase, no?

Grandpa Harley, it seems to me that the original text, which we are not privy to having, was probably pretty close to what was being offered at the time of "Jesus". These copies of copied text which we have today seems to definitely have been "enhanced," not to mention history's mastery of spin by those who wanted to use it to validate a different agenda of their own.

 

However, if we go back through these teachings via concordances and lexicons (some better than others), we can find a message that actually makes sense and has significance, IMO. It seems to me the whole story has to make sense in the context of its other parts. If it does not, it has obviously been tampered with in some way, but a core idea remains. These translations, including the KJV has clearly confused a lot of its meanings, IMO, yet researching these words back to their prime root meaning can often suggest a clearer intention of the ultimate word that is now being used.

[Grandpa Harley]

So... Oral Aramaic for 70 to 100 years, amateur Greek Scribes for ~300 years, translated to Latin, mixed with old Greek and translated into English in the popular version. I'd say that amounted to paraphrase, no?

Grandpa Harley, it seems to me that the original text, which we are not privy to having, was probably pretty close to what was being offered at the time of "Jesus". These copies of copied text which we have today seems to definitely have been "enhanced," not to mention history's mastery of spin by those who wanted to use it to validate a different agenda of their own.

 

However, if we go back through these teachings via concordances and lexicons (some better than others), we can find a message that actually makes sense and has significance, IMO. It seems to me the whole story has to make sense in the context of its other parts. If it does not, it has obviously been tampered with in some way, but a core idea remains. These translations, including the KJV has clearly confused a lot of its meanings, IMO, yet researching these words back to their prime root meaning can often suggest a clearer intention of the ultimate word that is now being used.

Based on thirty years of paddling around the subject, I think your opinion is ill informed at best. The concordances and lexicons go back to the Greek if you're lucky, the Latin Vulgate if you're not, not the oral tradition in Aramaic. Half of the 'core' ideas couldn't be communicated in Aramaic, so you've got one Greek view of one oral tradition followed by a lot of work to plaster over the cracks and interpolations that made things make sense to whoever was writing it later, the ideas becoming more and more remote from what could be said by a first century Jew.

 

But hey, if your opinion helps you sleep nights, that's fine.

[Guest fatalGlory]

yeah, God has handled his affairs SOOOO WELL its not like people ever committed mass slaughter in his name....oh wait.. the crusades....or burned "witches" to death....oh wait they did that too.....well at least God prevented the Jews from being subjected to horrible mistreatment and death right? Oh wait the holocaust....yeah God has been running stuff so well

 

yes...so simple, create a fake illness (sin) and then offer them a cure they don't need....just give us 10% of your income...

 

These two statements strike me as misguided and perhaps hypocritical. Where I have pointed to direct acts of God, you have pointed attrocities commited by people who claim to be doing God's bidding and then blame God for their actions. Scripture speaks of these people:

 

For many will come in my name, saying, I am the Christ, and they will lead many astray. - Matthew 24:5

 

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. - 1 John 4:1-2

 

So, you believe that heinous crimes and terrible acts are frequently commited by mankind throughout history. But you also claim that sin is a fake and we don't need a cure? Bluntly, I disagree.

[Grandpa Harley]

Define 'Sin'... would that be murder, or being gay, or eating shellfish, or not having tassels, or not haitng my mother?

 

Tell us, O wise one, what is 'Sin'?