Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: 2Corrie on October 04, 2015, 08:07:32 PM
-
The Lord was Jewish!
Well you learn something everyday :o
-
So why does Christianity & Christians exist ?!!?!?
-
Jesus was Jewish, yes.
Christianity became disconnected from its roots, so lost very very much.
Crumbs from under the table, remember?
Did it really become disconnected from its roots, Rose? After all, the Christian Bible includes the Hebrew Bible and any serious Christian preacher will reference the Jewish context and culture of Jesus' time, yet Jesus preached to and dealt with people who weren't Jewish - such as the Roman Centurion, the Samaritan woman and the people of the Decapolis.
-
One simple question......
Did Jesus preach a NEW religion ????
-
So why does Christianity & Christians exist ?!!?!?
Nick, the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible makes it very clear that the Jewish people were chosen by God to fulfill a very specific task - to be a witness (a light) to the peoples who live around them. That they failed in this is also pretty clear from the documents. The New Testament picks up on clues from that Hebrew Bible re-stating this task and reminding both the Jewish people and the people of the world that God loves the whole world - not just a given nation.
As I say, God's chosen vehicle for the dissemination of this information had failed, and Christ came to remind us all and to renew the process.
Sadly, over the centuries some parts of the church have fallen into the same trap as the Jews did centuries ago and assumed that the message was only for them.
-
One simple question......
Did Jesus preach a NEW religion ????
Possibly not; rather he taught a renewed relationship.
-
So did some of Jesus' time too who were NOT Jewish. The Jews acted as if it was for them & have done ever since. ;)
Now it's the turn for Christians to 'feel superior' to all others. Only Muslims have excelled at this !!!! As taught so blatantly in The Quran !!!! ;) :o ::)
-
ONCE AGAIN H
Why are you all not JEWISH ?!!?!?!
-
So did some of Jesus' time too who were NOT Jewish. The Jews acted as if it was for them & have done ever since. ;)
Not all the Jews, Nick. Remember that the early Church developed on the foundation of the Jewish population in many places but with an understanding that the message was for the Gentiles as well.
Now it's the turn for Christians to 'feel superior' to all others. Only Muslims have excelled at this !!!! As taught so blatantly in The Quran !!!! ;) :o ::)
Yet, there is nothing in any of Jesus' teaching, or that of any of the other New Testament authors that says that Christians should feel superior to anyone else. If anything, the NT teaching is that Christians ought to be 'servants' - those who help others. If anything, I think the days when the Church did feel superior are long on the wane.
-
ONCE AGAIN H
Why are you all not JEWISH ?!!?!?!
Purely and simply because of what John wrote in his Gospel - Chapter 3, verse 16 & 17.
“16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
The Jews weren't chosen as his messengers because of anything they had done: they were chosen to be messengers. The message is for all humanity.
-
H
Please refresh me as to what part of the Jewish !!! Bible was John writing in ????
Wouldn't the Jews want to convert all NON-Jews TO Jews ???
-
H
Please refresh me as to what part of the Jewish !!! Bible was John writing in ????
Which part of the Jewish Bible did you think he was writing in? What part of the Jewish Bible did I say John was writing in?
Wouldn't the Jews want to convert all NON-Jews TO Jews ???
Judaism isn't a proselytising faith; in order to be a true Jew one has to have Jewish blood through one's mother, so it is technically impossible to convert to Judaism. One can return to the faith of one's forefathers if you have Jewish blood within you, but it is technically not possible for a 'pure' Gentile to become a Jew..
-
Agree about the Jews etc.
NOW you said
Purely and simply because of what John wrote in his Gospel - Chapter 3, verse 16 & 17.
The Christian part of the Bible has little to NO relevance to Jews.
-
The Christian part of the Bible has little to NO relevance to Jews.
Wrong, Nick: Jesus made it very clear that what he taught had as much relevance to the Jews as it did to everyone else. Nowhere did he suggest that what he was teaching was purely for the Gentiles; nor did he ever teach that it was purely for the Jews. On a number of occasions he pointed out that he was 'for the world' eg I am the light of the world (John 8 ); in John 4 he says: ‘Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.’ There is no reference to a particular race or nation here. In John 6 he says: 'For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’ In the next chapter he says: ‘Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.’ In chapter 11 he talks about how ‘I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die.' At no point was there a statement that any of his teaching only applied to the Jews.
I accept that several of these would have been said to Jewish people, but when the context of his teaching is taken into account - to Gentiles and to Jews - it is clear that he is saying that these are global truths for the totality of humanity. Certainly the original apostles came to understand them as such.
-
YES but MY point is Jesus wasn't creating a new religion. So-called Christians have done that in His name !!!
As I asked before, did Jesus come to create a new religion or to, if you like, refresh the old one ????
BTW The Jews, by their very existence, have proved they have no real use for the 'Christian' part of YOUR Bible. Christians would not exist otherwise.
-
ONCE AGAIN H
Why are you all not JEWISH ?!!?!?!
Christianity is a religion that is as much Greek as Jewish and although it arose mainly in the Jewish community - which was also Greek in character - it quickly spread to non Jewish communities. Saint Paul documents the frictions between the two branches especially in respect to circumcision and dietary laws.
Anyway, the Jewish part of the church was more or less wiped out in the 70's by the Romans along with the rest of Jerusalem
-
YES but MY point is Jesus wasn't creating a new religion. So-called Christians have done that in His name !!!
Yet people were teaching this new and or refreshed faith long before there were 'so-called Christians'.
As I asked before, did Jesus come to create a new religion or to, if you like, refresh the old one ????
I suppose the answer to this would depend on how you define a religion. The OED defines the term thus:
1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion
1.1 [count noun] A particular system of faith and worship: the world’s great religions
1.2 [count noun] A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: consumerism is the new religion
Which are you opting for? To tell you the truth, I find all three definitions somewhat inadequate because there is very little reference to 'relationship', which Jesus was really quite hot on.
The Jews, by their very existence, have proved they have no real use for the 'Christian' part of YOUR Bible. Christians would not exist otherwise.
And the relevance of that to the debate is what?
-
A great piece of writing here.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/09/christianity-judaism
-
Anyway, the Jewish part of the church was more or less wiped out in the 70's by the Romans along with the rest of Jerusalem
I would disagree. Even in the early part of the 1st Century AD there were Jewish populations dotted around the Mediterranean, with their synagogues. In fact, most of the early evangelistic work was done through these synagogues - just look at how often Paul, for one, made a beeline for 'the synagogue' when ever he arrived in a new place. It was only after he had preached in the synagogues that he moved to other places - like the market place of the governor's office. If you look at the early history of the Church, there were as many Jewish believers as there were Gentile believers - by no means all of them in Jerusalem.
-
Relevance IS...
if the Jews had paid attention & took in all one of their own !!!! said then there'd probably be only 'Christians' around now.
These people who were preaching this refreshed religion were ALL Jews????
When exactly did these 'heretics' become Christians ???
-
A great piece of writing here.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/09/christianity-judaism
There is nothing new here, Rhi. Geza Vermes published a book of essays (ranging from 1970 to 2010) on this topic in 2010 ; there have been attempts by Jewish authors to 'reclaim' Jesus (their terminology) as a Jew throughout my lifetime.
Oddly enough, for all the attempts to suggest that he wasn't Jewish according to hymns and carols, those are often the places that are the most specific about his origins - 'O Little Town of Bethlehem' and 'Once in Royal David's city' spring to mind.
As for the art, the problem with the comment in the Guardian is that there are representations of Christ as a whole host of ethnicities. He is an 'Everyman' figure in a way - taking on the form of whatever ethnic group chooses to portray him.
Finally, the suggestion that "It (Jesus was a Jew) is certainly not the view of most Christians" certainly doesn't ring true in my experience. I have met people who don't realise that he was Jewish, but the majority of them have not been Christians, whilst the vast majority of Christians I know are pretty clear that he was a Jew.
-
Relevance IS...
if the Jews had paid attention & took in all one of their own !!!! said then there'd probably be only 'Christians' around now.
Not quite sure what you're trying to say here - its a bit garbled (lateness of the hour?). I assume you are arguing that if all the Jews had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, then there would be no Jews around. The answer to that is 'who knows' - after all, the fundamental truths of what Jesus taught came out of Judaism.
These people who were preaching this refreshed religion were ALL Jews????
Its hard to tell. If the story about the woman from Samaria John 4) is anything to go by, no they weren't.
When exactly did these 'heretics' become Christians ???
Tradition places the appearance of the term in Antioch somewhere between 40 and 44AD. Note that it is generally thought to have been a derogatory name at first.
-
I would disagree. Even in the early part of the 1st Century AD there were Jewish populations dotted around the Mediterranean, with their synagogues.
And yet Christianity completely ignores many Jewish religious laws. Why do you think that might be?
Clue: the Church wasn't being run by Jews.
-
And yet Christianity completely ignores many Jewish religious laws. Why do you think that might be?
We had a thread on just this topic earlier in the summer.
Clue: the Church wasn't being run by Jews.
Interestingly, the early church was run by Jews (Peter, James, John, (sons ofZebedee) Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew/Nathaniel, Thomas, Matthew, James (son of Alphaeus), Simon the Zealot, Thaddeus-Judas, not forgetting Paul and Barnabbas) and it was they who were instrumental in pointing out that Christ had taught that he had come to fulfill the 'law', and to develop greater ones.
-
Jesus was Jewish, yes.
Christianity became disconnected from its roots, so lost very very much.
Crumbs from under the table, remember?
Did it really become disconnected from its roots, Rose? After all, the Christian Bible includes the Hebrew Bible and any serious Christian preacher will reference the Jewish context and culture of Jesus' time, yet Jesus preached to and dealt with people who weren't Jewish - such as the Roman Centurion, the Samaritan woman and the people of the Decapolis.
You have changed your tune - every time I have referenced the OT in realtion to Christian belief you have told me that Christians only relate to the NT and the OT is not relevant to Christianity!
Like I have said before - you will talk any rubbish as long as it supports your verion of Christianity.
-
Rose
I think I love you !!! :D 8)
-
The Lord was Jewish!
Well you learn something everyday :o
Well he certainly wasn't a Christian, a religion which was created well after his death with him as the icon!
-
Nonsense Hope. It's not technically impossible at all.
People can convert to Judaism if they want, I've looked into it.
I've looked into it as well, Rose and been told by several rabbis that one can't be a full Jew without Jewish blood somewhere on one's mother's maternal side.
Furthermore, conversion is to a specific denomination of Judaism, as opposed to Judaism as a whole, and often one's conversion under the requirements of a given demonination will not be accepted by other denominations. Then, there are certain denominations who won't accept any conversions. I have spoken to Hasidic Jews who say that it is impossible to convert to that form of Judaism (though I have also spoken to what you might call 'lapsed' Hasidic Jews who say one can).
A convert is supposed to be treated equally to any born Jew.
The problem is that further down the line, genealogies struggle to get past the 'Gentile' convert, thus making proof that one is a Jew difficult.
Regarding Ruth, she was not a convert. She was married to a Jew and chose to accompany Naomi back to Israel when Naomi's two sons died. If you look at the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew, you will find four occasions when someone is referred to as being the son of X - Judah, Salmon, Boaz and David BY Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and 'the wife of Uriah' respectively. Clearly, there is something different about these 4 women - they were all non-Jews.
-
Interestingly, the early church was run by Jews (Peter, James, John, (sons ofZebedee) Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew/Nathaniel, Thomas, Matthew, James (son of Alphaeus), Simon the Zealot, Thaddeus-Judas, not forgetting Paul and Barnabbas) and it was they who were instrumental in pointing out that Christ had taught that he had come to fulfill the 'law', and to develop greater ones.
Paul documents that the leaders of the church in Jerusalem (James and John) were quite keen on the Jewish laws being maintained. However that part of the church didn't survive the 70's.
-
Nonsense Hope. It's not technically impossible at all.
People can convert to Judaism if they want, I've looked into it.
I've looked into it as well, Rose and been told by several rabbis that one can't be a full Jew without Jewish blood somewhere on one's mother's maternal side.
You'd better get on with fixing the Wikipedia page then because it totally contradicts you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Judaism
-
Paul documents that the leaders of the church in Jerusalem (James and John) were quite keen on the Jewish laws being maintained. However that part of the church didn't survive the 70's.
I am aware of the point you are making, but Early Church History suggests that the Judaising element of the church had lost out to the more mainstream element some years - perhaps even a couple of decades - before the destruction of Jerusalem.
-
You'd better get on with fixing the Wikipedia page then because it totally contradicts you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Judaism
"The procedure for conversion depends on the sponsoring denomination, and depends on meeting the requirements for a conversion to that religious or non-religious branch or denomination. A conversion in accordance with the process of a denomination is not a guarantee of recognition by another denomination." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Judaism
-
Well he certainly wasn't a Christian, a religion which was created well after his death with him as the icon!
No, Floo, Christianity wasn't created 'well after' Jesus' death. As we know from Acts, it began to be preached a month or two after his resurrection. The term 'Christian' was originally a derogatory reference to the followers of Christ by the non-Christians in Antioch about 10 years later.
If you are going to make such a claim, please make sure that - for your own benefit - it actually has the remotest degree of validity to it.
-
You'd better get on with fixing the Wikipedia page then because it totally contradicts you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Judaism
"The procedure for conversion depends on the sponsoring denomination, and depends on meeting the requirements for a conversion to that religious or non-religious branch or denomination. A conversion in accordance with the process of a denomination is not a guarantee of recognition by another denomination." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Judaism
Surely on that basis you cannot convert to Christianity either?
-
Surely on that basis you cannot convert to Christianity either?
Whilst I have heard of someone converting to Catholicism, I've never heard of anyone converting to Baptistism or Methodistism; Anglicanism or Brethrenism. Generally people will say that they have become a Christian and attend a Catholic, CofE/Anglican, Baptist, Brethren, Methodist, Orthodox, etc. church.
-
No, I get that but surely you are treating Christianity and its various denominations/sects/subcults, differently from Judaism and its various denominations/sects/subcults? If one cannot convert to Judaism on the basis some bits of it may not accept you, then the same is true of converting to Christianity.
-
Well he certainly wasn't a Christian, a religion which was created well after his death with him as the icon!
No, Floo, Christianity wasn't created 'well after' Jesus' death. As we know from Acts, it began to be preached a month or two after his resurrection. The term 'Christian' was originally a derogatory reference to the followers of Christ by the non-Christians in Antioch about 10 years later.
If you are going to make such a claim, please make sure that - for your own benefit - it actually has the remotest degree of validity to it.
Assuming Acts is accurate, itself was written well after Jesus popped his clogs.
-
AAAGGGHHHH
Wasn't Jesus' job to REFRESH JUDAISM NOT create a new faith ?!?!?!?
-
Paul documents that the leaders of the church in Jerusalem (James and John) were quite keen on the Jewish laws being maintained. However that part of the church didn't survive the 70's.
I am aware of the point you are making, but Early Church History suggests that the Judaising element of the church had lost out to the more mainstream element some years - perhaps even a couple of decades - before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Well we don't know. Obviously Paul won his battle to not make his converts convert to Judaism because he says so and that would have been in the 40's or 50's, but we do not know what happened with James' branch because history is totally silent on the subject.
-
You'd better get on with fixing the Wikipedia page then because it totally contradicts you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Judaism
"The procedure for conversion depends on the sponsoring denomination, and depends on meeting the requirements for a conversion to that religious or non-religious branch or denomination. A conversion in accordance with the process of a denomination is not a guarantee of recognition by another denomination." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Judaism
Which denomination were your alleged rabbis?
-
No, I get that but surely you are treating Christianity and its various denominations/sects/subcults, differently from Judaism and its various denominations/sects/subcults? If one cannot convert to Judaism on the basis some bits of it may not accept you, then the same is true of converting to Christianity.
No no no.
Rules that apply to other religions do not apply to Christianity because it is the particular One True Way that Hope believes in. Christianity is special, hence, "special pleading".
-
Well he certainly wasn't a Christian, a religion which was created well after his death with him as the icon!
No, Floo, Christianity wasn't created 'well after' Jesus' death. As we know from Acts, it began to be preached a month or two after his resurrection. The term 'Christian' was originally a derogatory reference to the followers of Christ by the non-Christians in Antioch about 10 years later.
If you are going to make such a claim, please make sure that - for your own benefit - it actually has the remotest degree of validity to it.
Assuming Acts is accurate, itself was written well after Jesus popped his clogs.
Paul's own writing backs up the idea that Christianity was spreading soon after Jesus' death. After all, Paul started out by persecuting Christians outside of Judea fairly soon after the death of Jesus and it had to have time to get to his part of the World.
-
Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Before Israel even existed.
I think the answer is in understanding the covenants.
-
Assuming Acts is accurate, itself was written well after Jesus popped his clogs.
Paul's own writing backs up the idea that Christianity was spreading soon after Jesus' death. After all, Paul started out by persecuting Christians outside of Judea fairly soon after the death of Jesus and it had to have time to get to his part of the World.
Thanks for that jeremy. Jaks, the majority of Biblical scholars give an authorship date for Paul's letter to the Galations - the first of his epistles that we have - of between 45 and 55 AD. We also know that the churches he was writing to had been visited by him previously. We also know that he had been involved in the events that surrounded the death of Stephen sometime around 34 AD. He had then gone on to persecute the early church prior to his conversion - hence his journey to Damascus during which he saw his vision of Christ.
jeremy, the Bible suggests that Christianity hadn't so much travelled to his 'part of the world' - Tarsish - but that he had travelled to Jerusalem perhaps even arriving there before the death and resurrection of Christ. However, for him to have travelled to Syria (Damascus) when he did suggests that the faith had been spreading out from Israel very early on.
-
Assuming Acts is accurate, itself was written well after Jesus popped his clogs.
Paul's own writing backs up the idea that Christianity was spreading soon after Jesus' death. After all, Paul started out by persecuting Christians outside of Judea fairly soon after the death of Jesus and it had to have time to get to his part of the World.
Thanks for that jeremy. Jaks, the majority of Biblical scholars give an authorship date for Paul's letter to the Galations - the first of his epistles that we have - of between 45 and 55 AD. We also know that the churches he was writing to had been visited by him previously. We also know that he had been involved in the events that surrounded the death of Stephen sometime around 34 AD. He had then gone on to persecute the early church prior to his conversion - hence his journey to Damascus during which he saw his vision of Christ.
jeremy, the Bible suggests that Christianity hadn't so much travelled to his 'part of the world' - Tarsish - but that he had travelled to Jerusalem perhaps even arriving there before the death and resurrection of Christ. However, for him to have travelled to Syria (Damascus) when he did suggests that the faith had been spreading out from Israel very early on.
Still quite a time after.
-
Still quite a time after.
If you regard a month or two 'quite a long time', jaks.
-
No no no.
Rules that apply to other religions do not apply to Christianity because it is the particular One True Way that Hope believes in. Christianity is special, hence, "special pleading".
As I said previously, jeremy, with the possible exception of Catholicism (I have heard a few people refer to having converted to Catholicism) Christians do not claim to have converted to a particular denomination. They claim to have converted to/become Christians. The different sects/denominations of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. are far more discrete than the Christian denominations.
-
We also know that [Paul] had been involved in the events that surrounded the death of Stephen sometime around 34 AD.
Unlikely.
jeremy, the Bible suggests that Christianity hadn't so much travelled to his 'part of the world' - Tarsish - but that he had travelled to Jerusalem perhaps even arriving there before the death and resurrection of Christ.
No.
Paul himself strongly implies he didn't go to Jerusalem - at least not to persecute Christians - before his conversion. He says that, when he visited Jerusalem a number of years later, the Christians did not know him. The implication, therefore, is that he did not persecute them at any time, otherwise they would surely know him.
Acts should be regarded as a very unreliable document.
-
Christians do not claim to have converted to a particular denomination. They claim to have converted to/become Christians.
What they claim is irrelevant. It's what they are that counts.
The different sects/denominations of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. are far more discrete than the Christian denominations.
Really? Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, Methodists. These are just the discrete denominations that come off the top of my head. There are many more.
-
Christians do not claim to have converted to a particular denomination. They claim to have converted to/become Christians.
What they claim is irrelevant. It's what they are that counts.
I agree, but that is rather outside the scope of this perticular thread.
Really? Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, Methodists. These are just the discrete denominations that come off the top of my head. There are many more.
Read my post again, j. I used the phrase ' ... more discrete than ... '
At the same time, I notice that you have included Mormons and JWs which are not even sects, let alone denominations of Christianity. Secular law counts them as separate religions, as does Christianity.
-
At the same time, I notice that you have included Mormons and JWs which are not even sects, let alone denominations of Christianity. Secular law counts them as separate religions, as does Christianity.
It's fractal. It's like beetles in the evolutionary tree, millions of species, but in relation to the wider tree they're all just one branch of the insects.
Trinitarianism has managed to propagate the view that it's the one true Christianity, but a more rational system would use the word Christianity to cover all faiths centred on the NT.
There's less difference between the lot of them than there was between flavours of 1st-century Judaism.
Actually though, Jewish and Christian thinking has dominated the culture to the extent that even we atheists are somewhere way down that branch of the tree.
The answer to the question Why aren't we all Jews? is that we all are, it's just that the word Jew has become much more specialised than it used to be.
If Tiberius or Tacitus came back today, they'd think we were all Jews. Even the neo-pagans would think like Jews to an ancient Roman mind. Their thinking was stranger than we can imagine.
-
Christians do not claim to have converted to a particular denomination. They claim to have converted to/become Christians.
What they claim is irrelevant. It's what they are that counts.
I agree, but that is rather outside the scope of this perticular thread.
Really? Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, Methodists. These are just the discrete denominations that come off the top of my head. There are many more.
Read my post again, j. I used the phrase ' ... more discrete than ... '
At the same time, I notice that you have included Mormons and JWs which are not even sects, let alone denominations of Christianity. Secular law counts them as separate religions, as does Christianity.
Christianity has many dogmas, doctrines, sects and cults, some crazier than others. I regard the extreme fundies as being a cult.
-
Read my post again, j. I used the phrase ' ... more discrete than ... '
Isn't more discrete like almost unique?
-
The Lord was Jewish!
Well you learn something everyday :o
Because all are sons of God now no difference between Jew and Gentile all who believe what God has said are children of the most high God.
Christian -ity is an insult name for those who believe Jesus is the Jews promised Messiah.
-
How can you be a 'son' of the deity if you are female?
-
How can you be a 'son' of the deity if you are female?
Because there is no difference between male and female in Christ.
Children of God whether male or female all priests together.
-
How can you be a 'son' of the deity if you are female?
Because there is no difference between male and female in Christ.
Children of God whether male or female all priests together.
The use of the word 'son' implies a male of the species doesn't it?
-
How can you be a 'son' of the deity if you are female?
Because there is no difference between male and female in Christ.
Children of God whether male or female all priests together.
The use of the word 'son' implies a male of the species doesn't it?
'Son of' is a Hebrew idiom probably used because of a deficiency in adjectives in the language. Others are 'father of', 'brother of' 'daughter of' 'mother of'. Two of Jesus followers were referred to as 'sons of thunder' which is translated as impetuous. Son of man .... human (qualities), son of God .... divine (qualities).
-
It's fractal. It's like beetles in the evolutionary tree, millions of species, but in relation to the wider tree they're all just one branch of the insects.
I like the analogy, RG, but when one looks at the JWs and Mormons, you realise that they are closer to Islam in the way that they regard Jesus as a human and a prophet than to Christianity.
Trinitarianism has managed to propagate the view that it's the one true Christianity, ...
whereas I would argue that non-Trinitarian ideas have tried to jump on the 'Christian' bandwagon, rather than Trinitarianism propogating the 'view that it's the one true Christianity'. I accept that it wasn't until the 3rd century or so that the Trinitarian principle was finally tied down, but when one looks at the New Testament, even the oldest documents have it as a core concept, without which the life, death and resurrection of Jesus actually has no meaning. Furthermore, the idea of a single God being multi-faceted goes back to the Old Testament
... but a more rational system would use the word Christianity to cover all faiths centred on the NT.
In fact that would be one of the most irrational ideas out. There are so many sects and groupings who use the name 'Jesus/Christ' as a sort of hook, but without using any of the rest of the NT, as to make that a non-starter. You might as well continue to call Buddhism a sect of Hindism!!
There's less difference between the lot of them than there was between flavours of 1st-century Judaism.
I'd disagree; the difference between, say, Mormonism and mainstream Christianity is probably greater than between Islam and Christianity.
The answer to the question Why aren't we all Jews? is that we all are, it's just that the word Jew has become much more specialised than it used to be.
Sorry, but the word Jew has very specific meanings, both ethnically and religiously.
If Tiberius or Tacitus came back today, they'd think we were all Jews. Even the neo-pagans would think like Jews to an ancient Roman mind. Their thinking was stranger than we can imagine.
I very much doubt it. After all, even they realised the difference between the Jews and the early Church
-
The use of the word 'son' implies a male of the species doesn't it?
But does the original Greek word actually have a gender connotation, Floo? Its the problem of arguing theologically from a 3rd or 4th language basis.
-
It's fractal. It's like beetles in the evolutionary tree, millions of species, but in relation to the wider tree they're all just one branch of the insects.
I like the analogy, RG, but when one looks at the JWs and Mormons, you realise that they are closer to Islam in the way that they regard Jesus as a human and a prophet than to Christianity.
Then they're as stupid as Islam. What exactly did Jesus do to qualify as a prophet?
-
How can you be a 'son' of the deity if you are female?
Because there is no difference between male and female in Christ.
Children of God whether male or female all priests together.
The use of the word 'son' implies a male of the species doesn't it?
It implies heirship as in:
Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
-
What they claim is irrelevant. It's what they are that counts.
I agree, but that is rather outside the scope of this perticular thread.
Not when we are arguing about what they are.
Really? Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, Methodists. These are just the discrete denominations that come off the top of my head. There are many more.
Read my post again, j. I used the phrase ' ... more discrete than ... '
At the same time, I notice that you have included Mormons and JWs which are not even sects, let alone denominations of Christianity.
You are claiming that Christianity is less discrete than denominations of other religions and yet here you are pointing out that two offshoots of Christianity: Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnessism are both so discrete that many Christians (and secular law according to you, but I have my doubts) don't regard them as being Christian sects at all.
You have just proved my point.
-
Well I would share communion with any born again methodist, baptist, Anglican, brethren, etc brother, but I would most certainly not with a JW or Mormon!
-
Well I would share communion with any born again methodist, baptist, Anglican, brethren, etc brother, but I would most certainly not with a JW or Mormon!
Another confirmation of the point.
-
You are claiming that Christianity is less discrete than denominations of other religions and yet here you are pointing out that two offshoots of Christianity: Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnessism are both so discrete that many Christians (and secular law according to you, but I have my doubts) don't regard them as being Christian sects at all.
You have just proved my point.
Except that, if you look at their histories, they are not off-shoots of Christianity.
-
It would greatly help all concerned if you could actually tell us exactly WHAT Christianity is ?!?!?!?
NOT what YOU think it is but what IT ITSELF tells us it is, please????
-
Well I would share communion with any born again methodist, baptist, Anglican, brethren, etc brother, but I would most certainly not with a JW or Mormon!
Another confirmation of the point.
What, confirmation that Mormonism and JWs aren't Christian? I suspect that 2Corrie wouldn't take communion with LDSs or JWs because their understanding of 'The Lord's Supper' is so different to any mainstream Christian denomination.
-
It would greatly help all concerned if you could actually tell us exactly WHAT Christianity is ?!?!?!?
NOT what YOU think it is but what IT ITSELF tells us it is, please????
I assume that you are asking me, Nick?
Jesus makes it very clear that the understanding that led to its adherents being known as 'Christians' some 10-12 years after his death and resurrection is all about relationship; relationship with the Creator God and relationship with other believers. He also makes it very clear that this wasn't something merely for the Jews - in fact, salvation would come 'from' the Jews, that it was for all humanity for all time, and that it was dependent on his death and resurrection from the death.
-
Yes H, it WAS for you thanks.
Did Jesus come to make us all Christians or 'better' Jews?
-
How can you be a 'son' of the deity if you are female?
Because there is no difference between male and female in Christ.
Children of God whether male or female all priests together.
The use of the word 'son' implies a male of the species doesn't it?
It implies heirship as in:
Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
It is sexist! :o
-
How can you be a 'son' of the deity if you are female?
Because there is no difference between male and female in Christ.
Children of God whether male or female all priests together.
The use of the word 'son' implies a male of the species doesn't it?
It implies heirship as in:
Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
It is sexist! :o
Pathetic! If Jesus refers to God as "Father," that is enough for me. Your opinion is as narrow and thoughtless as ever.
-
All 3 Abrahamic religions are sexist. It's how those pathetic 'men' of the period tried to keep the ladies 'down'.
No wonder they hate any religion which celebrate the female principle re goddesses etc ;) ;D
Nick
-
All 3 Abrahamic religions are sexist. It's how those pathetic 'men' of the period tried to keep the ladies 'down'.
No wonder they hate any religion which celebrate the female principle re goddesses etc ;) ;D
Nick
Pagans?
-
Which group are you asking me to put Pagans in ?!?!??
-
You are claiming that Christianity is less discrete than denominations of other religions and yet here you are pointing out that two offshoots of Christianity: Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnessism are both so discrete that many Christians (and secular law according to you, but I have my doubts) don't regard them as being Christian sects at all.
You have just proved my point.
Except that, if you look at their histories, they are not off-shoots of Christianity.
Yes they are.
-
Which group are you asking me to put Pagans in ?!?!??
Whichever group honour the feminine deity equally with the male.
Why so surprised? (At least I presume that ?!?!?? represents surprise)
-
Not at all surprised. 8)
I love this kind of attitude to 'balance'. :)
It's just WHY some bloody religions have been so unbalanced for so many 100s if not thousands of years. ::) ;) ;)
NO????
Nick
-
Yes they are.
In 1870, Charles Taze Russell and others formed a group in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to study the Bible. During the course of his ministry, Russell disputed many beliefs of mainstream Christianity including immortality of the soul, hellfire, predestination, the fleshly return of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, and the burning up of the world. In 1876, Russell met Nelson H. Barbour; later that year they jointly produced the book Three Worlds, which combined restitutionist views with end time prophecy. The book taught that God's dealings with humanity were divided dispensationally, each ending with a "harvest," that Christ had returned as an invisible spirit being in 1874 inaugurating the "harvest of the Gospel age," and that 1914 would mark the end of a 2520-year period called "the Gentile Times," at which time world society would be replaced by the full establishment of God's kingdom on earth. Beginning in 1878 Russell and Barbour jointly edited a religious journal, Herald of the Morning. In June 1879 the two split over doctrinal differences, and in July, Russell began publishing the magazine Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, stating that its purpose was to demonstrate that the world was in "the last days," and that a new age of earthly and human restitution under the reign of Christ was imminent.
Taking your viewpoint into account, Buddhism is merely an off-shoot of Hinduism, and Chrisrtianity is merely an off-shoot of Judaism. The JWs have always been at odds with mainstrean Christianity, denying many, if not all of the main stances of Christianity.
The same goes for Mormonism, who only real similarity to Christianity is its use of the name Jesus Christ in its official title. Otherwise, its teachings are often completely different to the teachings of Christ.
-
Floo,
What sex is this Lord you write prayers to?
-
Which group are you asking me to put Pagans in ?!?!??
Whichever group honour the feminine deity equally with the male.
So, that would mean that Paganism is pretty well equivalent to just about every other religion that has separately gendered deities. I think I'm right in saying that the only two religions that have a non-gender specific deity are Judaism and Christianity.
-
Which group are you asking me to put Pagans in ?!?!??
Whichever group honour the feminine deity equally with the male.
So, that would mean that Paganism is pretty well equivalent to just about every other religion that has separately gendered deities. I think I'm right in saying that the only two religions that have a non-gender specific deity are Judaism and Christianity.
Arguable that they do, and no.
-
Which group are you asking me to put Pagans in ?!?!??
Whichever group honour the feminine deity equally with the male.
So, that would mean that Paganism is pretty well equivalent to just about every other religion that has separately gendered deities. I think I'm right in saying that the only two religions that have a non-gender specific deity are Judaism and Christianity.
Arguable that they do, and no.
If the Christian god is non-gender specific why is the Lod's Prayer called te Paternoster and why Our Father?
Please Hope - stop trying to convince people that your god is not male.
-
If the Christian god is non-gender specific why is the Lod's Prayer called te Paternoster and why Our Father?
Please Hope - stop trying to convince people that your god is not male.
Matt, if you look at the context in which the Lord's Prayer was introduced, the 'Father' it refers to was the Jewish God, and the Jewish God was (and is) regarded as having 144 facets; 72 of these facets are masculine in nature, 72 are feminine in nature. Even Jesus points out that there is neither male nor female in the deity (in other words, no one aspect is prominent).
-
If the Christian god is non-gender specific why is the Lod's Prayer called te Paternoster and why Our Father?
Please Hope - stop trying to convince people that your god is not male.
Matt, if you look at the context in which the Lord's Prayer was introduced, the 'Father' it refers to was the Jewish God, and the Jewish God was (and is) regarded as having 144 facets; 72 of these facets are masculine in nature, 72 are feminine in nature. Even Jesus points out that there is neither male nor female in the deity (in other words, no one aspect is prominent).
Then why, on the cross, does he ask his FATHER why he has been forsaken!
Give it up Hope you are not going to convince anyone that your god is NOT gender specific no matter how far you use your supposed total knowledge of absolutely everything to twist things.
Over the years of reading your posts I have lost all faith in your ability to accept that things are NOT as you would wish them.
-
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them Gen 1:27
-
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them Gen 1:27
Thsi does not change the point of my post to Hope!
It does not change the fact that the Christian churches has held the female in an inferior status for centuries - that women are still having to fight for equality in the Christian church and, regardless of Genesis the church has been rather more attentive to 1 Corinthians 14:34
In my belief both sexes are equal for one without the other is sterile.
-
Buddhism is merely an off-shoot of Hinduism, and Chrisrtianity is merely an off-shoot of Judaism.
Yes, I'm not sure I agree with your use of the term "merely". It seems to me to be merely an attempt to trivialise the relationship in the cause of your argument.
-
It does not change the fact that the Christian churches has held the female in an inferior status for centuries - that women are still having to fight for equality in the Christian church and, regardless of Genesis the church has been rather more attentive to 1 Corinthians 14:34
In my belief both sexes are equal for one without the other is sterile.
I see, now that your argument has been shattered, you have chosen to bring in the 'church'. Sadly, for me, I have to agree fully with your criticism of the church. Despite some people's understandings, I think the early church worked to be equitable, but once the paternal Roman state took over, the thinking of the church was forced to match their thinking.
-
Then why, on the cross, does he ask his FATHER why he has been forsaken!
Matt, if you look at the context in which this was said, the 'Father' it refers to was the Jewish God, and the Jewish God was (and is) regarded as having 144 facets; 72 of these facets are masculine in nature, 72 are feminine in nature. Even Jesus points out that there is neither male nor female in the deity (in other words, no one aspect is prominent).
-
It does not change the fact that the Christian churches has held the female in an inferior status for centuries - that women are still having to fight for equality in the Christian church and, regardless of Genesis the church has been rather more attentive to 1 Corinthians 14:34
In my belief both sexes are equal for one without the other is sterile.
I see, now that your argument has been shattered, you have chosen to bring in the 'church'. Sadly, for me, I have to agree fully with your criticism of the church. Despite some people's understandings, I think the early church worked to be equitable, but once the paternal Roman state took over, the thinking of the church was forced to match their thinking.
My argument has NOT been shattered and it will not be shattered as long as Christ's words on the cross change from"Father, why hast thou forsaken me!"
Until you can somehow change those words, your God is MALE MALE MALE.
Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith. This is NOT the Church, this is Chritianity and all your ducking, diving weaving twisting is not ever going to change that no matter how much you try to separate Christanity from the Christian church.
As I said earlier Over the years of reading your posts I have lost all faith in your ability to accept that things are NOT as you would wish them.
-
Hope
(Even Jesus points out that there is neither male nor female in the deity (in other words, no one aspect is prominent).)
This does NOT mean the same thing as your expo. Neither means exactly that - something OTHER THAN, to me. Not ALL things in perfect balance.
Nick
-
Taking your viewpoint into account, Buddhism is merely an off-shoot of Hinduism, and Chrisrtianity is merely an off-shoot of Judaism. The JWs have always been at odds with mainstrean Christianity, denying many, if not all of the main stances of Christianity.
The same goes for Mormonism, who only real similarity to Christianity is its use of the name Jesus Christ in its official title. Otherwise, its teachings are often completely different to the teachings of Christ.
You mean, the teachings of your species of church, which they claim to be the teachings of Christ. But they would, wouldn't they.
But the only "evidence" they've got in support of that claim is their holy book, which they wrote themselves.
Not much different really. The Mormons' claims are equally strong, or equally weak.
-
Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.
The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.
-
Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.
The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.
It doesn't?
It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.
You cannot claim the god of the Ot is differnt to the god of tnhe NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!
The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.
-
Yes H, it WAS for you thanks.
Did Jesus come to make us all Christians or 'better' Jews?
Christ came with a new covenant so we are the Children of God. Where all acceptable to him whether Jew or Gentile. So the fulfillment of the New Covenant and all who are part of that new covenant are the Children of God.
-
Yes H, it WAS for you thanks.
Did Jesus come to make us all Christians or 'better' Jews?
Christ came with a new covenant so we are the Children of God. Where all acceptable to him whether Jew or Gentile. So the fulfillment of the New Covenant and all who are part of that new covenant are the Children of God.
You might believe tat to be true, but where is the evidence?
-
Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.
The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.
It doesn't?
It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.
You cannot claim the god of the Ot is differnt to the god of tnhe NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!
The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.
Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
-
Yes H, it WAS for you thanks.
Did Jesus come to make us all Christians or 'better' Jews?
Christ came with a new covenant so we are the Children of God. Where all acceptable to him whether Jew or Gentile. So the fulfillment of the New Covenant and all who are part of that new covenant are the Children of God.
You might believe tat to be true, but where is the evidence?
Honestly Floo. I am not surprised at the way in which Christians treat your posts on subjects like this.
When are you going to get off the roundabout of evidence and proof.
Religion in all its forms is a matter of faith!
You have faith that there are no gods; Christians, Jews, Mormons, Sikhs, Hindus and all the other plethora of religious belief (NOTE - BELIEF) including Pagans believe and have faith to the contrary.
Neither side - I emphasise NEITHER SIDE - yours or ours, can provide evidence or proof of our belief it is a matter of faith and no matter how many times anyone states that it is a fact, again on either side of the divide, to consider it so is a delusion.
My belief is faith - as far as I am concerned it is highly likely that no-one, neither theist or atheist, will ever, in my lifetime or yours, be able to provide proof or evidence.
This constant going round and round in circles of "Prove it/provide evidence - No, you provide proof/evidence" has only one outcome, that of us rotating in ever-decreasing circles at ever-increasing speeds until we disappear up our own fundaments in a shower of orange pips.
And, before the inevitable post from one of our Christian bretheren, their Bible is NOT either proof or evidence.
-
Yes H, it WAS for you thanks.
Did Jesus come to make us all Christians or 'better' Jews?
Christ came with a new covenant so we are the Children of God. Where all acceptable to him whether Jew or Gentile. So the fulfillment of the New Covenant and all who are part of that new covenant are the Children of God.
You might believe tat to be true, but where is the evidence?
Honestly Floo. I am not surprised at the way in which Christians treat your posts on subjects like this.
When are you going to get off the roundabout of evidence and proof.
Religion in all its forms is a matter of faith!
You have faith that there are no gods; Christians, Jews, Mormons, Sikhs, Hindus and all the other plethora of religious belief (NOTE - BELIEF) including Pagans believe and have faith to the contrary.
Neither side - I emphasise NEITHER SIDE - yours or ours, can provide evidence or proof of our belief it is a matter of faith and no matter how many times anyone states that it is a fact, again on either side of the divide, to consider it so is a delusion.
My belief is faith - as far as I am concerned it is highly likely that no-one, neither theist or atheist, will ever, in my lifetime or yours, be able to provide proof or evidence.
This constant going round and round in circles of "Prove it/provide evidence - No, you provide proof/evidence" has only one outcome, that of us rotating in ever-decreasing circles at ever-increasing speeds until we disappear up our own fundaments in a shower of orange pips.
And, before the inevitable post from one of our Christian bretheren, their Bible is NOT either proof or evidence.
Help me!! I largely agree with that!!
-
Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.
The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.
It doesn't?
It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.
You cannot claim the god of the Ot is differnt to the god of tnhe NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!
The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.
Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.
-
Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.
The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.
It doesn't?
It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.
You cannot claim the god of the Ot is differnt to the god of tnhe NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!
The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.
Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.
Did you get that fact on Wikipedia? If so it isn't true.
-
Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.
The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.
It doesn't?
It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.
You cannot claim the god of the Ot is differnt to the god of tnhe NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!
The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.
Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.
Did you get that fact on Wikipedia? If so it isn't true.
I have made the point more than once in the past: if you are using Wiki in debate to make an argument, then you should quote the sources, and allow people to check their reliability, veracity, etc Kids at school are taught such basic procedures.
-
Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.
The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.
It doesn't?
It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.
You cannot claim the god of the Ot is differnt to the god of tnhe NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!
The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.
Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.
Did you get that fact on Wikipedia? If so it isn't true.
I have made the point more than once in the past: if you are using Wiki in debate to make an argument, then you should quote the sources, and allow people to check their reliability, veracity, etc Kids at school are taught such basic procedures.
so why did you make the point by stating something that is incorrect?
-
Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.
Did you get that fact on Wikipedia? If so it isn't true.
No - from the Senior Professor of History at my daughter's university - stated as a warning when giving out the first research assignment of the first term of the BA (Hist) degree course.
-
Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.
The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.
It doesn't?
It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.
You cannot claim the god of the Ot is differnt to the god of tnhe NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!
The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.
Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.
Did you get that fact on Wikipedia? If so it isn't true.
I have made the point more than once in the past: if you are using Wiki in debate to make an argument, then you should quote the sources, and allow people to check their reliability, veracity, etc Kids at school are taught such basic procedures.
so why did you make the point by stating something that is incorrect?
What was incorrect?
-
Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.
The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.
It doesn't?
It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.
You cannot claim the god of the Ot is differnt to the god of tnhe NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!
The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.
Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.
Come on then. Let's see your evidence. Lilith is just rabbinical speculation at best.
-
Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.
The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.
It doesn't?
It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.
You cannot claim the god of the Ot is differnt to the god of tnhe NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!
The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.
Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.
Did you get that fact on Wikipedia? If so it isn't true.
I have made the point more than once in the past: if you are using Wiki in debate to make an argument, then you should quote the sources, and allow people to check their reliability, veracity, etc Kids at school are taught such basic procedures.
so why did you make the point by stating something that is incorrect?
I didn't - ad orientem did
-
Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.
Whilst that may be the case, do you actually have any evidence that your story has any truth, Matt? After all, the OT creation story is a theological treatment of the early history of the earth, not a historical one.
Just to let you know that the midrashic (Jewish folklore) roots of the Lilith story are to be found referenced in a number of other sources other than wikipedia - such as:
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/eve-women/7evelilith.html
http://gnosis.org/lilith.htm
http://bit.ly/1HtQHeq (from biblicalarchaeology.org)
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/lilith-lady-flying-in-darkness/
http://www.art.net/~schong/lilithmyth.html
Interestingly, the Biblical Archaeology article traces her roots to Babylonian demonology, from where she migrated to Hittite, Egyptian, Jewish and Greek lore.
-
Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.
Did you get that fact on Wikipedia? If so it isn't true.
No - from the Senior Professor of History at my daughter's university - stated as a warning when giving out the first research assignment of the first term of the BA (Hist) degree course.
then he's as wrong as you are. You have to be careful citing wiki but it is not an instant fail as you have posted.
-
nope, your statement that any citation of wiki is an instant fail at any level of exam and High School is incorrect, no matter what your daughter's prof said.
-
No - from the Senior Professor of History at my daughter's university - stated as a warning when giving out the first research assignment of the first term of the BA (Hist) degree course.
Matt, as far as I'm aware, referencing wikipedia is perfectly acceptable even up to further degree level, provided that it isn't the only referenced source for something.
-
Hope and Nearly Sane
Sorry, but I would rather take the Professor's word for it that take a stupiud chace of having a pice of work failed or thrown our for re-writing. There are innumerable other, more reliable sources.
-
Hope and Nearly Sane
Sorry, but I would rather take the Professor's word for it that take a stupiud chace of having a pice of work failed or thrown our for re-writing. There are innumerable other, more reliable sources.
That's nice, but he is wrong. I know several teachers and as Hope says they take it as a useful tool when backed up as an acceptable citation. That I know one would show that you and the dear prof are wrong.
-
Hope and Nearly Sane
Sorry, but I would rather take the Professor's word for it that take a stupiud chace of having a pice of work failed or thrown our for re-writing. There are innumerable other, more reliable sources.
That's nice, but he is wrong. I know several teachers and as Hope says they take it as a useful tool when backed up as an acceptable citation. That I know one would show that you and the dear prof are wrong.
Have it your own way.
-
Hope and Nearly Sane
Sorry, but I would rather take the Professor's word for it that take a stupiud chace of having a pice of work failed or thrown our for re-writing. There are innumerable other, more reliable sources.
That's nice, but he is wrong. I know several teachers and as Hope says they take it as a useful tool when backed up as an acceptable citation. That I know one would show that you and the dear prof are wrong.
Have it your own way.
Not mine, just how it is. People are not absolutely failed in university or High School for citing wiki.
-
Hope and Nearly Sane
Sorry, but I would rather take the Professor's word for it that take a stupiud chace of having a pice of work failed or thrown our for re-writing. There are innumerable other, more reliable sources.
That's nice, but he is wrong. I know several teachers and as Hope says they take it as a useful tool when backed up as an acceptable citation. That I know one would show that you and the dear prof are wrong.
Have it your own way.
Not mine, just how it is. People are not absolutely failed in university or High School for citing wiki.
If you are talking of exams, how do you know why people have failed, if they have failed?
-
I know they are not failed simply for citing wiki because of the guidance given by the schools that I am aware of on this. It is not about individual cases, it's about policies.
-
I know they are not failed simply for citing wiki because of the guidance given by the schools that I am aware of on this. It is not about individual cases, it's about policies.
And also, how do schools know that Wiki has been cited, and it is not some other source, being used?
-
I know they are not failed simply for citing wiki because of the guidance given by the schools that I am aware of on this. It is not about individual cases, it's about policies.
And also, how do schools know that Wiki has been cited, and it is not some other source, being used?
Er because it is a 'citation'. You do understand how citation works?
-
Yes H, it WAS for you thanks.
Did Jesus come to make us all Christians or 'better' Jews?
Christ came with a new covenant so we are the Children of God. Where all acceptable to him whether Jew or Gentile. So the fulfillment of the New Covenant and all who are part of that new covenant are the Children of God.
You might believe tat to be true, but where is the evidence?
Honestly Floo. I am not surprised at the way in which Christians treat your posts on subjects like this.
When are you going to get off the roundabout of evidence and proof.
Religion in all its forms is a matter of faith!
You have faith that there are no gods; Christians, Jews, Mormons, Sikhs, Hindus and all the other plethora of religious belief (NOTE - BELIEF) including Pagans believe and have faith to the contrary.
Neither side - I emphasise NEITHER SIDE - yours or ours, can provide evidence or proof of our belief it is a matter of faith and no matter how many times anyone states that it is a fact, again on either side of the divide, to consider it so is a delusion.
My belief is faith - as far as I am concerned it is highly likely that no-one, neither theist or atheist, will ever, in my lifetime or yours, be able to provide proof or evidence.
This constant going round and round in circles of "Prove it/provide evidence - No, you provide proof/evidence" has only one outcome, that of us rotating in ever-decreasing circles at ever-increasing speeds until we disappear up our own fundaments in a shower of orange pips.
And, before the inevitable post from one of our Christian bretheren, their Bible is NOT either proof or evidence.
Christians often state as factual what is quoted in the Bible, when there is usually no evidence to support it. I make no apology for pointing it out over and over again!
-
I know they are not failed simply for citing wiki because of the guidance given by the schools that I am aware of on this. It is not about individual cases, it's about policies.
And also, how do schools know that Wiki has been cited, and it is not some other source, being used?
Er because it is a 'citation'. You do understand how citation works?
Er, yes, but I'm suggesting that no source is specified, yet the student is clearly using one.
-
If no source is specified, it is not a citation.
-
If no source is specified, it is not a citation.
Then, of course, the comment or argument cannot be properly evaluated, and the student must be assessed accordingly.
-
If no source is specified, it is not a citation.
Then, of course, the comment or argument cannot be properly evaluated, and the student must be assessed accordingly.
so no original argument can be properly evaluated.
-
Adam's first wife left him and Eden because she refused to be subservient to man - and she was so reviled that she is referred to as the first witch - Lillith.
The whole Lilith thing does not belong to Christian belief.
It doesn't?
It was the same god that created Lilith that is worshipped by Christians.
You cannot claim the god of the Ot is different to the god of the NT only when is uits your argument - he either is or isn't - he cannot be both!
The Christian religion has the biggest percentage of spin-doctors of any group except politics.
Lilith is belongs to Jewish mythology, nothing more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
OH Jews have mythology too?? ???
Bet Christians don't ?!?!?!? ;) ;) ::)
-
Wikipedia is so factually reliable that to reference it in any level of High School or University examination is to gain an instant fail.
You seem to be arguing that, if it is Wikipedia, it is false. This is a fallacy.
-
No - from the Senior Professor of History at my daughter's university - stated as a warning when giving out the first research assignment of the first term of the BA (Hist) degree course.
There's a difference between citing Wikipedia in an academic paper and using it to back up an argument on an internet forum.
-
And also, how do schools know that Wiki has been cited, and it is not some other source, being used?
Because that's what citing a source actually means. You know that Wikipedia has been cited because the citation says "from Wikipedia".
-
Er, yes, but I'm suggesting that no source is specified, yet the student is clearly using one.
That has a different name. It's called "plagiarism".
-
Er, yes, but I'm suggesting that no source is specified, yet the student is clearly using one.
That has a different name. It's called "plagiarism".
A word you should be well-acquainted with.
-
Er, yes, but I'm suggesting that no source is specified, yet the student is clearly using one.
That has a different name. It's called "plagiarism".
A word you should be well-acquainted with.
Reported post.