Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOf course it makes a difference. The gospels were redacted by Pauline Christians. And in any case: the essence of Jesus has nothing to do with his words.
As Paul's writings are the oldest existing Christian texts, and the gospels postdate them by decades, I would not treat the words of Jesus as gospel truth myself.
Jesus repeatedly emphasized following HIS word, HIS commandments, etc. The fact that Paul's words were written down earlier is neither here nor there.
The Christian mythos ndicate inner transformation as the ultimate goal: in this case of becoming one with God.
'It seemed to me' ... 'I asked a swami about that' ... Impressive.
What did Jesus actually teach? What knowledge did he explicitly impart - in words that survive in the Gospels?
12 Mar 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThat's funny, but not as funny as your original statement:
Thought I'd make them cleaner.
Why do you have a problem with that? People do it all the time on this forum.
'Just taking a guess, but English isn't your primary language is it? That said, I acknowledge that one needs to have a certain level of command of the English language with me' (emphasis added).
Read it out aloud. It's perfectly obvious why you took four edits to 'clean up' that post.
12 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOf course it makes a difference. The gospels were redacted by Pauline Christians.
Of course it makes a difference. The gospels were redacted by Pauline Christians. And in any case: the essence of Jesus has nothing to do with his words.
'It seemed to me' ... 'I asked a swami about that' ... Impressive.
What did Jesus actually teach? What knowledge did he explicitly impart - in words that survive in the Gospels?
The words of Jesus carry a message. If one wishes to have Him as their "Lord", seems reasonable that one should follow that message. Jesus seemed to think so:
Luke 6
46“Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47“Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: 48he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built.
And in any case: the essence of Jesus has nothing to do with his words.
Jesus seemed to think differently. Here is but one passage of many:
"John 15:7-11
7 “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 “My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. 9 “Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. 10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love"
Just for grins, what do you see as the "essence of Jesus".
'It seemed to me' ... 'I asked a swami about that' ... Impressive.
Sorry but that's the way it went down. Since it wasn't what they normally taught and it may be different than your knowledge of vedanta, it seemed important to include.
Why do you seem to have a problem with it? Or am I reading something into your post that isn't there?
What did Jesus actually teach? What knowledge did he explicitly impart - in words that survive in the Gospels?
Don't know what you might expect me to say here. If you're really interested, pick up a Bible.
12 Mar 12
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou're really too much.
That's funny, but not as funny as your original statement:
'Just taking a guess, but English isn't your primary language is it? That said, I acknowledge that one needs to have a certain level of command of the English language with me' (emphasis added).
Read it out aloud. It's perfectly obvious why you took four edits to 'clean up' that post.
I added an 'lol', took out "with me" which was superfluous and may have cleaned up some typos. The meaning is the same either way.
And yes it ended up taking me four edits to do so.
Why are you being so childish?
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe answer is fairly clear: Jesus imparted no explicit knowledge whatsoever. Parables for the masses, riddles for the apostles. Nothing unusual there: good teachers don't spoon-feed their pupils; the work is up to them.
[b]What did Jesus actually teach? What knowledge did he explicitly impart - in words that survive in the Gospels?
Don't know what you might expect me to say here. If you're really interested, pick up a Bible.[/b]
Whatever uses they might be turned to, the Gospels are not an instruction manual for Christian living. Words are of little use in apophasis ... One may be perfectly unacquainted with the 'words of Jesus' and yet get on with the work. Much as the Bodhidarma was mocked by cultured monks for his uncouth, illiterate ways - yet attained the goal.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSince the Man called Jesus or Yahshua is eternally linked to the Son of God as
That is why it would be a mistake to 'worship Jesus'.
the Christ there is no way to worship the Son of God without including Jesus in
that worship. Jesus is both the son of man and the Son of God. You obviously
don't get it. When one worships the Son, he also worships the Father and the
Holy Spirit. Jesus said that no one comes to the Father but through Me.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsSome basic research into the contemporary meaning of terms like 'Son of God' (hint: it was a common honorific not exclusive to Jesus) would dispel this woolly thinking - but I don't have time to lay it out.
Since the Man called Jesus or Yahshua is eternally linked to the Son of God as
the Christ there is no way to worship the Son of God without including Jesus in
that worship. Jesus is both the son of man and the Son of God. You obviously
don't get it. When one worships the Son, he also worships the Father and the
Holy Spirit. Jesus said that no one comes to the Father but through Me.
So anyway - how does one go about 'worshipping Jesus'?
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageRead the New Testament and you will see how He was worshipped. That
Some basic research into the contemporary meaning of terms like 'Son of God' (hint: it was a common honorific not exclusive to Jesus) would dispel this woolly thinking - but I don't have time to lay it out.
So anyway - how does one go about 'worshipping Jesus'?
should give you a clue as to how you should worship Him.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHalf this thread is of different people complaining to you, your pushing it all off
Listen KJ, you're not one that should be talking about "making [oneself] better understood".
Plus, if you can set your pride aside, you have to admit you have trouble comprehending the written word.
on all of them, I'd step back and listen to what everyone else is saying.
Kelly
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneRetired, practicing, newly ordained; pastor, associate pastor, youth leader, choir director, pew sitter: they are all equal in at least one regard. Ignorance is rampant among today's Christians, irrespective of position, education or denomination.
For a little while, I've had a series of short discussions with a retired pastor regarding the teachings of Jesus. Recently he acknowledged that he reads the words of Jesus through the lens of the writings of Paul and others whereby essentially making the New Testament/Bible his "Lord" rather than Jesus. It was refreshing that he had the intellectual hone ...[text shortened]... lsewhere should take heart in knowing it is possible to get some measure of it.
Comments?
Of course the red letter words are decisively different than the entire rest of the Bible! Where is the intellectual honesty in such a pronouncement? If you want to give this retired pastor props for admitting he'd never reconciled the obvious differences between the discourses of the Lord Jesus Christ and the delineation of the mystery spiritual life mostly fleshed out by Paul, go ahead. I don't see such an admission as a source of pride, but rather shame!
I can't imagine the folks who labored under this pastor were any better off for having done so, given his acknowledged failure to become a master builder--- despite his "intellectual honesty" now. Upon ordination, he was charged with being fully equipped, in season and out of season, to aggressively undertake a commanding and expert understanding of the whole of doctrine. The whole of doctrine necessarily includes exegetic and isagogic study, paving the way for clear understanding of what each passage says, who it was said to, and the purposes thereof... and then reconciling the same for the partakers of the mystery spiritual life sitting in front of you.
To fail to reconcile any passage of Scripture with the whole of Scripture is embarrassing. However, to fail on such a momentous portion of Scripture is nothing short of abysmal.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageA little off, but mostly on.
The answer is fairly clear: Jesus imparted no explicit knowledge whatsoever. Parables for the masses, riddles for the apostles. Nothing unusual there: good teachers don't spoon-feed their pupils; the work is up to them.
Whatever uses they might be turned to, the Gospels are not an instruction manual for Christian living. Words are of little use in ...[text shortened]... idarma was mocked by cultured monks for his uncouth, illiterate ways - yet attained the goal.
Well said.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf anything, FreakyKBH, your remarks regarding competent teaching would seem understated. Please see the simple equation contained in the second post to this gf thread:
Retired, practicing, newly ordained; pastor, associate pastor, youth leader, choir director, pew sitter: they are all equal in at least one regard. Ignorance is rampant among today's Christians, irrespective of position, education or denomination.
Of course the red letter words are decisively different than the entire rest of the Bible! Where is the ...[text shortened]... g. However, to fail on such a momentous portion of Scripture is nothing short of abysmal.
Thread 145620
