Thread: Purgatory: Core Beliefs Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000808
Posted by BalddudeCrompond (# 12152) on :
 
I'm trying to arrive at a definition for what being 'a christian' means. I don't mean little nitpicky details (which I love) but just pretty basic, easily identifiable practices/beliefs that can be used as a guideline pretty much diferentiate between say, a jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc....

I vote for:

Believes that Jesus is God/Son of God

Believes that Virgin Mary was a virgin when she conceived JC(not necessarily stayed a virgin)

Believes that JC was crucified on a cross, died and was resurrected from the dead, BODY and SOUL and then returned back to heaven

Believes in some form of Baptism (sprinkle, immerse, whichever)

Some form of Communion/Eucharist/Lord's table/supper (consubstan-transsubstna-emblems-symbols,whatever) which must be consumed in communion with other believers

Believes in some sort of ordained ministry

Recognizes the Bible alone as Scripture. This doesn't mean that all religious practices have to be directly from the bible, but rather that there are no other books that determine belief.

Believes that the Holy Spirit is present today in the world as God.

[ 26. July 2011, 07:28: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
Good luck. The Church has been arguing over what the Core Beliefs of a Christian are for 2,000 years (cf. the book of Acts, pretty much every epistle).
 
Posted by Fëanor (# 14514) on :
 
While part of me just wants to grab some popcorn and watch the ensuing discussion, I feel I must ask the OP:

Why do you feel the Apostle's (or better yet, the Nicene) Creed is insufficient for this task? I note from your profile that you're Episcopalian -- as such you must have heard one or both at least once. If you were confirmed, then you've publicly affirmed the Apostle's Creed as an adult at least once.

I mean, reading down your list I notice the bits designed to exclude:
Which may be your perogative, but most would say the traditional creeds do this quite well. Are you trying to leave room for Oneness Pentecostals?
 
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
I'm trying to arrive at a definition for what being 'a christian' means. I don't mean little nitpicky details (which I love) but just pretty basic, easily identifiable practices/beliefs that can be used as a guideline pretty much diferentiate between say, a jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc....

I vote for:

Believes that Jesus is God/Son of God

Believes that Virgin Mary was a virgin when she conceived JC(not necessarily stayed a virgin)

Believes that JC was crucified on a cross, died and was resurrected from the dead, BODY and SOUL and then returned back to heaven

Believes in some form of Baptism (sprinkle, immerse, whichever)

Some form of Communion/Eucharist/Lord's table/supper (consubstan-transsubstna-emblems-symbols,whatever) which must be consumed in communion with other believers

Believes in some sort of ordained ministry

Recognizes the Bible alone as Scripture. This doesn't mean that all religious practices have to be directly from the bible, but rather that there are no other books that determine belief.

Believes that the Holy Spirit is present today in the world as God.
I must admit, this list may strike some as remarkably narrow, especially if the purpose is not to acknowledge the Creeds, but rather to differentiate between Christians and Muslims.

For example - if a person professed to believe all the things you listed apart from one of them - then does that make them a candidate to be considered a Muslim or a Jew? I think you'll find that most Muslims and Jews would consider that idea absurd.

If you want a definition of "Christian" that will distinguish Christians from Jews and Muslims, and which is likely to be accepted not only by Christians but also Muslims and Jews too - then you're stuck with one thing. And that one thing would be the idea that the story of Jesus should be the primary focus of religion. Nothing less, and nothing more.

Add anything more than that, and you're starting to distinguish between the different denominations of Christianity - although, at a push, I may concede that the idea that Jesus is the Son of God is a defining characteristic of Christianity. If someone believes that Jesus is the Son of God, then they are likely to be regarded as sufficiently "Christian" to be regarded as a Christian by Muslims, Jews and atheists, even if they don't believe anything else.

But on the other hand, the idea that a religious practice can be called "Christian" when it doesn't have anything even remotely to do with Jesus, would probably be considered absurd to both Christians and non-Christians, in my opinion.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
At the loosest end I'd start with the name. Believing the historical Jesus (whatever he was like) is special in the Christ like manner(whatever that is).

Beyond that point I have no qualms with saying I'm using a definition that contradicts with their self-identity, and mine makes more sense than theirs (in the same way the woman's only gym isn't going to let me abuse that word to let me in).

That would include people I'd vastly disagree with Hong Xiuquan for example, and exclude people I'd agree with everything (even morals) except, well, of course the Christian bit.

But as a vague giving words some meaning, it does me.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...If you want a definition of "Christian" that will distinguish Christians from Jews and Muslims, and which is likely to be accepted not only by Christians but also Muslims and Jews too - then you're stuck with one thing. ..
But, why would you care if it was accepted by Muslims and Jews? The point of a statement of faith/core beliefs/creed is simply to outline what you believe, not what others think you believe.
 
Posted by Fëanor (# 14514) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...If you want a definition of "Christian" that will distinguish Christians from Jews and Muslims, and which is likely to be accepted not only by Christians but also Muslims and Jews too - then you're stuck with one thing. ..
But, why would you care if it was accepted by Muslims and Jews? The point of a statement of faith/core beliefs/creed is simply to outline what you believe, not what others think you believe.
But what's at hand is not just a statement of faith, it's a statement of faith that will distinguish. In order to distinguish, you need to describe (at least indirectly) what you're trying to distinguish from. The polite way to describe adherents of a religious belief is to use the way in which they describe themselves.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
I'm trying to arrive at a definition for what being 'a christian' means. I don't mean little nitpicky details (which I love) but just pretty basic, easily identifiable practices/beliefs that can be used as a guideline pretty much diferentiate between say, a jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc....
Your list would exclude many people who reasonably consider themselves Christian, including, I'd wager, many of your fellow church-goers. For instance, while I believe in the virgin birth, I don't think I'd be quick to de-Christianize someone who doesn't. If it were my call, that is.

With a nod to the Epistle to the Romans, how about a Christian is someone who confesses "Jesus is Lord" and believes that God raised him from the dead?
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
...In order to distinguish, you need to describe (at least indirectly) what you're trying to distinguish from. The polite way to describe adherents of a religious belief is to use the way in which they describe themselves.
Those who look for counterfeit money don't study counterfeit money, they study real money. If it isn't real money, it is, by definition, counterfeit.

The same can be said of Christianity: If you define Christian, all who don't meet that definition are not Christian.
 
Posted by Fëanor (# 14514) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
...In order to distinguish, you need to describe (at least indirectly) what you're trying to distinguish from. The polite way to describe adherents of a religious belief is to use the way in which they describe themselves.
Those who look for counterfeit money don't study counterfeit money, they study real money. If it isn't real money, it is, by definition, counterfeit.

The same can be said of Christianity: If you define Christian, all who don't meet that definition are not Christian.
But the question was not to distinguish Christians from faux-Christians, but rather to distinguish Christians from Jews or Muslims. One can learn to distinguish USD from GBP a lot quicker if one has samples of both.

[ 06. April 2011, 20:23: Message edited by: Fëanor ]
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
...to distinguish Christians from Jews or Muslims. ...
That difference should be obvious, then:.

"Jesus is God" does the trick.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
The problem with this approach is that it runs afoul of the way humans actually categorize things--the setting up of Venn diagram-like criterion sets is very ex post facto. What we really do (there is psychological research on this) is form a prototype image of "Christian" (usually, if we are Christians, this means "someone like me." If we aren't, it may mean "someone like Ned Flanders," "someone like Rowan Williams," "someone like Fred Phelps," or "someone like Billy Graham") and group people according to how nearly they resemble our prototype. Having created this very fuzzy set, we may then try to draw clear lines around it. All very well until we try to get agreement on those lines with people who have different prototypes, even though they themselves may fall very close to our prototype. This seems particularly fraught in the case of Christianity, since there seems to be an implicit assumption by many that part of being on the inside of the circle is being in agreement on who is inside. IMHO, it's a fool's errand.
 
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...If you want a definition of "Christian" that will distinguish Christians from Jews and Muslims, and which is likely to be accepted not only by Christians but also Muslims and Jews too - then you're stuck with one thing. ..
But, why would you care if it was accepted by Muslims and Jews? The point of a statement of faith/core beliefs/creed is simply to outline what you believe, not what others think you believe.
Not according to the OP it isn't. I quote:
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
I'm trying to arrive at a definition for what being 'a christian' means. I don't mean little nitpicky details (which I love) but just pretty basic, easily identifiable practices/beliefs that can be used as a guideline pretty much diferentiate between say, a jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc....
If you want a meaningful definition of being a Christian means that allows you to differentiate Christians from Muslims, Jews and Hindus - then Muslims, Jews and Hindus need to agree on that definition. If they don't, then there's no point in having that definition.

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Those who look for counterfeit money don't study counterfeit money, they study real money. If it isn't real money, it is, by definition, counterfeit.

The same can be said of Christianity: If you define Christian, all who don't meet that definition are not Christian.
Yes - but it doesn't follow from that, that anyone who doesn't meet the definition for Christian is a candidate for being considered a Muslim or a Jew. Remember, the question the OP asked was about how to distinguish Christians from Muslims and Jews. This presupposes that there is actually a difference, that can be identified by both Christians and Muslims.

If Muslims do not agree with Christians on what it means to be a Christian, then they are not qualified to pronounce on whether anyone is a Christian or not. Likewise, if Christians do not agree with Muslims on what it means to be a Muslim, then Christians are not qualified to pronounce on whether anyone is a Muslim or not. This means that Christians cannot assume that just because someone is a Christian, they are automatically not a Muslim - because it's possible for someone to be a Christian under Christian definition, yet also a Muslim under Islamic definition, at the same time.

If both parties are not agreed on how each party is defined, then it's possible for each of the parties to change their self-definition so as to fit the other guy's self-definition. In other words, if Christians and Muslims don't agree on what it means to be Muslim, then Muslims can change what it means to be Muslim so as to fit what Christians previously thought it meant to be Christian. What would Christians do if that happened? Will they change their own definition of what it means to be Christian, just to prove a point about how different they are from Muslims?

Muslims need to be agreed with Christians on what it means to be a Christian too - otherwise, they can rightfully accuse Christians of being shape-shifters.

Of course, that does beg the question of how important it really is to distinguish Christians from Muslims. Personally, I don't think it's important at all; if the meanings of words and language should alter to the point that the definition of Christianity and Islam should happen to coincide at some point in the future, then it's really not that big a deal. There's nothing in the Bible that says you mustn't be a Muslim if you want to be a Christian.
 
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :
 
What has belief got to do with it? Isn't a Christian one who follows Christ and seeks to be transformed by the Spirit of Christ, demonstrating the fruit of that same Spirit and continuing the mission and mandate of Christ to declare, demonstrate and deliver the Kingdom of God. Do terms like 'follower of Jesus' or even better 'disciple of Jesus' sum it up better? The bottom line is it's not so much a matter of right belief, cos we'll all believe different things - hence the divisions in the Christian church. It's much more important who you're following. (IMHO) Brian McLaren puts it so much better than I ever could in his book "A generous orthodoxy"
 
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
What has belief got to do with it? Isn't a Christian one who follows Christ and seeks to be transformed by the Spirit of Christ, demonstrating the fruit of that same Spirit and continuing the mission and mandate of Christ to declare, demonstrate and deliver the Kingdom of God.
I agree with you, belief has got very little to do with it.

But I still think that doesn't answer the question the OP appears to have asked - about distinguishing Christians from followers of other faiths (which I don't think it's that important to be able to do anyway).
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
Isn't a Christian one who follows Christ and seeks to be transformed by the Spirit of Christ, demonstrating the fruit of that same Spirit and continuing the mission and mandate of Christ to declare, demonstrate and deliver the Kingdom of God.
If pushed, I wouldn't think Pope Paul IV (Giovanni Carafa) did a good job of following Christ as I understand that or demonstrating the fruit of that Spirit. But if I can't call him a Christian what am I to call him?
To be honest, it's not up to me to judge. I'm in no position to decide who is or isn't following Christ or demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit. On the other hand, I may find it useful to talk about whether someone identifies themselves as part of the Christian tradition and community. (And I might also want to say that some such identifications stray far from that community as I understand it, such that I can't understand what such a person means by calling themselves Christian.)
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
I don't think it is good to try to be definitive. It causes us to look for the things that divide us rather than the things that unite us.
It may be useful for churches to do this in determining their membership, but not for membership of the church.
I think it was a good thing that scripture does not lay down a definition. Perhaps there is a message that we should not try to define this too closely.

And Felafool has reminded us that there are expectations of how to act as well beliefs and rituals.

In Italians Neighbours Tim Parks relates how Italians use the expression "He's a Christian" that implies the person is not an animal (and should be treated with human respect). I like this perspective.

Perhaps this should be another thread, but how about looking at how Christians are like Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Taoists, etc?
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
Your list excludes Quakers, Salvation Army, and Baptists - among others.


Personally, I'd just go with an ichthus:
Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour.
Believe those points, and I'll say you're a Christian. Anything else is open to interpretation.
 
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
I'm trying to arrive at a definition for what being 'a christian' means. I don't mean little nitpicky details (which I love) but just pretty basic, easily identifiable practices/beliefs that can be used as a guideline pretty much diferentiate between say, a jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc....

I vote for:

Believes that Jesus is God/Son of God

Believes that Virgin Mary was a virgin when she conceived JC(not necessarily stayed a virgin)

Believes that JC was crucified on a cross, died and was resurrected from the dead, BODY and SOUL and then returned back to heaven

Believes in some form of Baptism (sprinkle, immerse, whichever)

Some form of Communion/Eucharist/Lord's table/supper (consubstan-transsubstna-emblems-symbols,whatever) which must be consumed in communion with other believers

Believes in some sort of ordained ministry

Recognizes the Bible alone as Scripture. This doesn't mean that all religious practices have to be directly from the bible, but rather that there are no other books that determine belief.

Believes that the Holy Spirit is present today in the world as God.
Lists like this are wonderful for identifying heresy, but they are pointless for defining the religion itself. The very definition of "heretic" is someone of the same religion who holds false beliefs.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
By their fruits you shall know them, not by their theology you shall know them.

Maybe God doesn't care nearly as much what labels by which we self-describe, what religion's books and rituals we use, nearly so much as whether we pursue being loving to others and understand God as love. The rest is semantics.

"Fruits" may put some self-described non-Christians (and atheists?) in God's camp and leave some baptized/ordained/Bible reading/etc Baptists/Episcopalians/Catholics/Home churchers outside God's camp, yes?

Some will say "Lord Lord" and God will say "depart, I never knew you"; others will be welcomed who didn't know their reaching out to others in need was viewed by God as "in his name."

It's about who you are and who you seek to become, not a checklist of rituals and beliefs.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
The very earliest Christian creed was "Jesus is Lord."

This simple statement, if taken seriously, is a pretty definitive, and distinguishing, statement, I think.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
I'm trying to arrive at a definition for what being 'a christian' means. I don't mean little nitpicky details (which I love) but just pretty basic, easily identifiable practices/beliefs that can be used as a guideline pretty much diferentiate between say, a jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc....
... Remember, the question the OP asked was about how to distinguish Christians from Muslims and Jews. ...
Wrong.

Differentiate Christians from "jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc." is better read "from non-Christians".

So, your argument dies because you didn't read the OP which you quoted.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...
If Muslims do not agree with Christians on what it means to be a Christian, then they are not qualified to pronounce on whether anyone is a Christian or not. Likewise, if Christians do not agree with Muslims on what it means to be a Muslim, then Christians are not qualified to pronounce on whether anyone is a Muslim or not.
Exactly. I will not allow a Muslim to pronounce on whether I am a Christian or not, only that I am not a Muslim.
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
This means that Christians cannot assume that just because someone is a Christian, they are automatically not a Muslim - because it's possible for someone to be a Christian under Christian definition, yet also a Muslim under Islamic definition, at the same time.
...
This shows a total lack of understanding of Christianity and Islam. They are incompatible, so you cannot be both Christian and Muslim.

The key is, as I said before, "Jesus is God" is not a belief that a Muslim can hold, but it an essential belief of a Christian.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
I'm trying to arrive at a definition for what being 'a christian' means. I don't mean little nitpicky details (which I love) but just pretty basic, easily identifiable practices/beliefs that can be used as a guideline pretty much diferentiate between say, a jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc....
... Remember, the question the OP asked was about how to distinguish Christians from Muslims and Jews. ...
Wrong.

Differentiate Christians from "jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc." is better read "from non-Christians".

So, your argument dies because you didn't read the OP which you quoted.
Your interpretation of the OP flounders on the fact that the OP specifically named other religions rather than making an "us and them" division. There are many ways in which Christianity is similar to them.

NB. I did read it as
quote:
a guideline to pretty much diferentiate between say, a jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc....
as I assumed the missing 'to' was a typo.
I suppose you are reading it as 'differentiate from' rather than 'differentiate between'.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
The OP raises an odd (and rather pointless) question, because I've never noticed anyone having any difficulty differentiating between Christians and Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus and Taoists--you just ask them, they'll tell you what they are. I have never once heard anyone say "you claim to be a Christian but you're really a Muslim (or one of those others)." Nor have I ever heard anyone say "I believe there is no God but God and Mohammed is his prophet, and I'm a Christian."

The question of core Christian beliefs only comes into play when you're trying to exclude people who claim to be Christian, but who disagree with you about what that means.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
What has belief got to do with it? Isn't a Christian one who follows Christ and seeks to be transformed by the Spirit of Christ, demonstrating the fruit of that same Spirit and continuing the mission and mandate of Christ to declare, demonstrate and deliver the Kingdom of God. Do terms like 'follower of Jesus' or even better 'disciple of Jesus' sum it up better? The bottom line is it's not so much a matter of right belief, cos we'll all believe different things - hence the divisions in the Christian church. It's much more important who you're following. (IMHO) Brian McLaren puts it so much better than I ever could in his book "A generous orthodoxy"
I looked up the book, Felafool. In the blurb it says -


quote:
Brian McLaren takes us across the landscape of faith, envisioning an orthodoxy that aims for Jesus, is driven by love, and is defined by missional intent.
...<snip> ... "A Generous Orthodoxy" draws you toward a way of living that looks beyond the "us/them" paradigm to the blessed and ancient paradox of "we."
Which sounds great.

I don't like the exclusive tone of the OP.
 
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
This means that Christians cannot assume that just because someone is a Christian, they are automatically not a Muslim - because it's possible for someone to be a Christian under Christian definition, yet also a Muslim under Islamic definition, at the same time.
...
This shows a total lack of understanding of Christianity and Islam. They are incompatible, so you cannot be both Christian and Muslim.
This shows a total lack of understanding of the concept of incompatibility.

The incompatibility of Christianity and Islam is dependent upon two things: (1) how Christians define Christianity, and (2) how Muslims define Islam.

If any one of those two things change, then Christianity and Islam may cease to be incompatible.

Last time I checked the Nicene Creed, it started with the words "We believe in One God, the Father .." and ends with the words "... and the life of the world to come". No where does it contain the words "And we also believe that we are not Muslims."

Likewise, last time I checked the Shahada, it said words to the effect of "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet". The Shahada is not "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet, and neither I nor Muhammad are Christians."

The supposed incompatibility you say exists between Islam and Christianity has never been formally codified into the creeds of either religion.

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The key is, as I said before, "Jesus is God" is not a belief that a Muslim can hold
Why not? And who says? Is it the Christians who say that - or is it the Muslims who say that?

If it's the Christians who say that, then what gives Christians the right to say what beliefs Muslims can and can't hold?

But if it's the Muslims who say that, then how do you know that they're not going to change their mind on that issue one day? And what would you do if they did?

Religious traditions do change their minds about how they define themselves from time to time. After all, if they didn't, then what would be the point of us debating in this thread what it means to be a Christian? Is the issue about what it means to be a Christian cut and dry, or isn't it? The fact that we're even debating this issue suggests to me that it isn't. So if the question of what it means to be a Christian isn't cut and dry, it's not unreasonable to suppose that the question of what it means to be a Muslim isn't cut and dry either.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Your list excludes Quakers, Salvation Army, and Baptists - among others.


Personally, I'd just go with an ichthus:
Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour.
Believe those points, and I'll say you're a Christian. Anything else is open to interpretation.
I'm really tempted to go with this myself, St Deird. Can it work in reality, though?

And nice to see Brian McLaren's work get a mention. I'm making my way through 'A New Kind of Christianity' at the moment and finding it enthralling. I love the picture that McLaren paints of what the Christian faith could look like.
 
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :
 
I'm tempted to go with St. Deird's definition too.
There are Unitarians (albeit not very many) who consider themselves Christians. Ditto many Quakers. And if we're going to cast a really wide net, why not include the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons as well? I'll readily admit that their christology is heterodox by the Church's traditional standards, but if they claim to be followers of Jesus and believe him to be in some way the definitive revelation of God, who am I to say that they're outside the pale of salvation?
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
The incompatibility of Christianity and Islam is dependent upon two things: (1) how Christians define Christianity, and (2) how Muslims define Islam.

Last time I checked the Nicene Creed..., No where does it contain the words "And we also believe that we are not Muslims."

Likewise,... The Shahada is not "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet, and neither I nor Muhammad are Christians."

The supposed incompatibility you say exists between Islam and Christianity has never been formally codified into the creeds of either religion.
I wouldn't expect a creed to codify reference to an outside group. Boy scouts don't define themselves as "we aren't girl scouts, we aren't a church, we aren't a literary society, we aren't a political party, we aren't...."

Christianity is based on "Jesus is God, Jesus is Lord, Jesus is God's most complete revelation to us, Jesus is resurrected from the dead" (pick a wording). Islam specifically states that none of this is true, Jesus was just another prophet, and the Prophet Muhammad was a greater prophet than Jesus.

Direct conflict. One says Jesus is top, the other says no, Muhammad is superior to Jesus.

Logically impossible to believe both at once.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:

Good luck. The Church has been arguing over what the Core Beliefs of a Christian are for 2,000 years (cf. the book of Acts, pretty much every epistle).
And posters on the Ship have been arguing about it for as long as I've been a member, as well.

Have a look at Timothy's good post.

sabine
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...Last time I checked the Nicene Creed, it started with the words "We believe in One God, the Father .." and ends with the words "... and the life of the world to come". No where does it contain the words "And we also believe that we are not Muslims."
...
However, as Belle Ringer has already said, the Nicene Creed contains the part you left out; specifically
quote:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
No Muslim will consent to that.

As to Islam , no Christian will assent to the "and Mohammad is his prophet" part.

These things will not change.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
No Muslim will consent to that [that Christ is the Son of God].

As to Islam , no Christian will assent to the "and Mohammad is his prophet" part.
Certainly, your first point is on-target. But I wonder to what extent a Christian cannot see Mohammed as a prophet. Last Sunday, we had a missionary give a talk at our church. His particular calling was bringing the Gospel to Muslims. What he said was that there was a great interest in the country where he worked in hearing about Christ, because Islam recognizes Christ as a prophet and many Muslims want to know more about him. It strikes me that, in an interesting sense that is lost in the current political climate, Mohammed may well have been preparing the way of the Lord...

--Tom Clune

[ 07. April 2011, 16:08: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
As to Islam , no Christian will assent to the "and Mohammad is his prophet" part.
Really? I have been a Christian for 50 years and believe that Muhammad (pbuh) is a prophet.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
As to Islam , no Christian will assent to the "and Mohammad is his prophet" part.
Really? I have been a Christian for 50 years and believe that Muhammad (pbuh) is a prophet.
I'm not stalking ya, bruv, and I know we've had this discussion before, but I don't ever remember how it ended: in what way could Mohammad be said to be a "prophet" that would be consistent with Christianity's claim to the ulitmate revelation of God in Christ Jesus?
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
I'm tempted to go with St. Deird's definition too.
There are Unitarians (albeit not very many) who consider themselves Christians. Ditto many Quakers. And if we're going to cast a really wide net, why not include the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons as well? I'll readily admit that their christology is heterodox by the Church's traditional standards, but if they claim to be followers of Jesus and believe him to be in some way the definitive revelation of God, who am I to say that they're outside the pale of salvation?
I suspect plenty of people would agree with your final comment (that I've put in italics) but how about we go further? What about if 'mainstream' Christians sought to include folks like JWs and Mormons in city-wide missions, leaders' prayer meetings and the like? They may well turn down the invitation but I'm imagining what a positive message it could send out. I wonder if such an invitation could be extended while not losing sight of the major disagreements between all the different camps.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
This thread shows us the difficulties in trying to define "Christian" in terms of core beliefs. Are there other ways to define "Christian"? For instance, is it possible to define the term in terms of behavior? Is it possible to look at someone's behavior (in general, not just in a worshiping context) and say "This person is or ought to be considered a Christian"?
 
Posted by BalddudeCrompond (# 12152) on :
 
Wow!! didn't realize I'd generate so many responses.. Thanks to those who understood my OP.. I guess my list did exclude JW's and Mormons (my own personal belief, I s'pose) But I am willing to go with the Jesus is God as the definitive statement... But if I'm not mistaken That still excludes JW's and Mormons
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
Matthew 7:15-20

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."

Muhammed was a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief. Sounds like bad fruit to me.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
... For instance, is it possible to define the term in terms of behavior? ...
No.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
... But if I'm not mistaken That still excludes JW's and Mormons
So be it.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
As to Islam , no Christian will assent to the "and Mohammad is his prophet" part.
Really? I have been a Christian for 50 years and believe that Muhammad (pbuh) is a prophet.
I'm not stalking ya, bruv, and I know we've had this discussion before, but I don't ever remember how it ended: in what way could Mohammad be said to be a "prophet" that would be consistent with Christianity's claim to the ulitmate revelation of God in Christ Jesus?
I do not believe that Christianity has a unique claim on revelation.

Therefore I do not have to reconcile it with Muhammad pbuh
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Muhammed was a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief. Sounds like bad fruit to me.
You have been reading too many Islamophobic websites. To answer this slur of yours would be a tangent but suffice it to say that if Muhammad was a paedophile then so were many of the characters, including prophets, in the Old Testament and, arguably, God himself in the New Testament.

[ 08. April 2011, 11:12: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Muhammed was a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief. Sounds like bad fruit to me.
You have been reading too many Islamophobic websites. To answer this slur of yours would be a tangent but suffice it to say that if Muhammad was a paedophile then so were many of the characters, including prophets, in the Old Testament and, arguably, God himself in the New Testament.
If you want to consider the Hadith of Bukhari a slur, I guess that's up to you. It is there, from the USC website where I read

Narrated 'Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

I believe a guy in his late 40s marrying a 6 year old little girl and humping her at 9 is pedophile. Maybe your cool with it.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I do not believe that Christianity has a unique claim on revelation.

Therefore I do not have to reconcile it with Muhammad pbuh
But, leo, you're a Christian minister! Surely you do have to reconcile the flat-out contradictions of the core beliefs of Christianity (Incarnation, Trinity) contained in the "prophecies" of Muhammad with your own faith - upon pain of contradiction and worse.

By the way, what honorific do you accord the name of Jesus?
 
Posted by Katherine777 (# 15517) on :
 
Balddude,

I have wondered about the same thing, and the options seem to be to either hitch your wagon to a group that lays out the rules very clearly and then struggle with yourself over whether you really accept it all, or struggle with uncertainty about what other people think and what the right answer is anyway.

"On the other hand, I may find it useful to talk about whether someone identifies themselves as part of the Christian tradition and community. (And I might also want to say that some such identifications stray far from that community as I understand it, such that I can't understand what such a person means by calling themselves Christian.)"

What's a example?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
As to Islam , no Christian will assent to the "and Mohammad is his prophet" part.
Really? I have been a Christian for 50 years and believe that Muhammad (pbuh) is a prophet.
All sorts of people are prophets. I know peopel who think that RH Tawney or George Whitefield or Martin Luther King or John Paul II or Dorothy Day are prophets (maybe not the same people for all of them though!)

The question of Islam is whether you think Muhammad was the last and final prophet of God, superseding all others. I suspect you don't. Its har dto see how anyone could stand up in church and say the Creeds if they did, because Muhammad specifically and deliberately contradicted and denied them.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

Muhammed was a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief. Sounds like bad fruit to me.
So was King David. But God still loved him.

Well, three out of the four at least. And I bet some of all those women he had would have been below the legal age of consent in your state.
 
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
However, as Belle Ringer has already said, the Nicene Creed contains the part you left out; specifically
quote:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
No Muslim will consent to that.

As to Islam , no Christian will assent to the "and Mohammad is his prophet" part.

These things will not change.
Yes - but how do you know they will not change?

Does Christianity require you to have a crystal ball?

Does the Nicene Creed say "We also believe that Muslims do not believe these things." ?

And does the Nicene Creed say "We also believe that Muslims will never change their mind on this issue." ?

Imagine the following scenario. A person fully assents to all the content of the Nicene Creed. However, in addition to believing the things it says in the Nicene Creed, that person also believes there's a possibility that Muslims might change their mind about what they believe.

Would such a belief disqualify that person from being considered a Christian?

If the answer to that question is yes - then why is it not formally codified in the creeds?

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
This thread shows us the difficulties in trying to define "Christian" in terms of core beliefs. Are there other ways to define "Christian"? For instance, is it possible to define the term in terms of behavior? Is it possible to look at someone's behavior (in general, not just in a worshiping context) and say "This person is or ought to be considered a Christian"?
I think there are.

Personally, though, I think that a large part of the problem is by trying to distinguish Christianity from other traditions. To my way of thinking, that smacks of pointless tribalism. I for one feel alienated by it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I would be much happier to follow a tradition that defines itself in terms of aspiration to an exemplary ideal (such as Jesus), or in terms of a shared hope for the future (such as the New Jerusalem). If Christianity is able to do that - great - but if not, it's no big deal, I'll just call myself something else instead.

Perhaps part of the problem is that it's difficult for any religious tradition to define itself at all without at least some form of tribalism. Even with the creeds as they are, it can often be difficult to say exactly who's in and who's out. Hence this discussion.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
What about if 'mainstream' Christians sought to include folks like JWs and Mormons in city-wide missions, leaders' prayer meetings and the like? They may well turn down the invitation but I'm imagining what a positive message it could send out.
Not sure what positive message you mean to send out but does the invitation extend also to the Jonestown bunch, that Phelps bunch, "You are one with us and we with you"? How about inviting Jews (whose scriptures are our scriptures and who worship the God of Abraham but reject Jesus), Muslims (who honor Jesus as a prophet even if not as God, but apparently so do some church-goers)? Is the positive message "anything you believe is good so long as you plop the word "Christian" on it"?

A lot of people I know who believe Jesus is Lord and God don't call themselves "Christian" because the word "Christian" is claimed by such a wide variety of belief systems that the word no longer says anything about what *you* believe. I know agnostics who call themselves "Christian" because they celebrate Santa Claus and Easter Bunny instead of Jewish or other holidays.

At some point others do not share a religion and God with believers that Jesus is God and God is Love even if they usurp the word "Christian" and pretend the word means them (and not us) in spite of their redefining everything from "virgin birth" and "resurrection" to the character of God or the nature of God's eternal goals.

"Christian" is an almost meaningless word now. But then, IIRC the word was invented by non-followers of Jesus, so let them have the word. [Smile]

Let's find something to define that is capable of meaningful definition.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Muhammed was a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief. Sounds like bad fruit to me.
You have been reading too many Islamophobic websites. To answer this slur of yours would be a tangent but suffice it to say that if Muhammad was a paedophile then so were many of the characters, including prophets, in the Old Testament and, arguably, God himself in the New Testament.
If you want to consider the Hadith of Bukhari a slur, I guess that's up to you. It is there, from the USC website where I read

Narrated 'Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

I believe a guy in his late 40s marrying a 6 year old little girl and humping her at 9 is pedophile. Maybe your cool with it.
Don't judge 7th Century folk by 21st Century standards.

In 7th Century Arabia, 'betrothal could take place earlier than PUBERTY, perhaps as early as seven, but the marriage was not supposed to be consummated until the girl menstruated and was of age.' (Many girls start their periods at age 9.

In 1564, a three year old named John was married to a two year old named Jane in the Bishop's Court in Chester, England.

The seventeenth-century lawyer Henry Swinburne distinguished between the marriages of those under seven and those between seven and puberty. He wrote that those under seven who had said their vows had to ratify it afterwards by giving kisses and embraces, by lying together, by exchanging gifts or tokens, or by calling each other husband or wife. A contemporary, Philip Stubbes, wrote that in sixteenth-century East Anglia, infants still in swaddling clothes were married. The most influential legal text of the seventeenth century in England, that of Sir Edward Coke, made it clear that the marriage of girls under twelve was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was nine even though her husband be only four years old.

More here
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I do not believe that Christianity has a unique claim on revelation.

Therefore I do not have to reconcile it with Muhammad pbuh
But, leo, you're a Christian minister! Surely you do have to reconcile the flat-out contradictions of the core beliefs of Christianity (Incarnation, Trinity) contained in the "prophecies" of Muhammad with your own faith - upon pain of contradiction and worse.

By the way, what honorific do you accord the name of Jesus?
My 'own faith' is that God is 'bigger' than any one religious tradition and that seeming inconsistencies between faiths are ultimately reconcilable in God, who is beyond all our knowing, beyond all our understanding.

It is God who reconciles - and we are called to 'the ministry of reconciliation' (2 Corinthians 5)

I am used to using pbuh of Muhammad because it was part of the code of conduct for teaching RE, which I did for 30 years. A muslim would use the same honorific for all prophets and, thus, for Jesus (Isa).

The Agreed Syllabuses I have worked with have 'The Lord Jesus Christ' though I have to admit that this is cumbersome.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...Yes - but how do you know they will not change?
...

That's why you have creeds/statements of faith. So that people don't distort things.

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:

Does the Nicene Creed say "We also believe that Muslims do not believe these things." ?
Why would it? It is Islam which states that. There is no need for one religion to make statements about another.
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:

Imagine the following scenario. A person fully assents to all the content of the Nicene Creed. However, in addition to believing the things it says in the Nicene Creed, that person also believes there's a possibility that Muslims might change their mind about what they believe.

Would such a belief disqualify that person from being considered a Christian?

...
No. Why would it? I believe many things that aren't in the creed. For example, I believe King David was a real person, but that doesn't make me a non-Christian just beacuse there is no reference to him in the creeds.

In fact, Christians should hope that Muslims change their mind about what they believe, and become Christian.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

Narrated 'Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). .
there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage. According to

David, who was 70 years old, married Abishag who was no more than nine or ten years old (I Kings 1:1-4).
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
My 'own faith' is that God is 'bigger' than any one religious tradition and that seeming inconsistencies between faiths are ultimately reconcilable in God, who is beyond all our knowing, beyond all our understanding.
Fair enough, leo - and obviously your faith is really none of my business. But this thread is about "core beliefs" and if "Jesus is God" is not one of yours, I just don't see how you get along as a licensed preacher in the Church of England.

Assuming, however, that it is one of your core beliefs, "Jesus is very God of very God and is to be worshipped" and "Jesus is a mortal prophet whom it is the worst blasphemy to worship" are, as a matter of plain fact, contradictory. And a central tenet of Muhammad's prophecy was definitely that latter claim. To any believing Muslim your claiming that Jesus is God and yet that Mohammad is a prophet would be just bizarre - possibly offensive.

To a Christian, what could Mohammad have been prophetic about?

I admit - to me as a practising Christian I would be deeply uncomfortable with a licensed preacher who held to your opinion of Mohammad as a prophet. Were I your bishop, I would be having a serious chat with you about that.

The law of non-contradiction is not a piece of reactionary oppression of the laity - and it is not optional. At best, a claim from a Christian minister that Mohammad is a prophet is deeply confusing and savours strongly of syncretism/indifferentism - which can be a cause of scandal to the faithful.

Really, I think it is that serious.

[ 08. April 2011, 17:14: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The law of non-contradiction is not a piece of reactionary oppression of the laity - and it is not optional.
Who died and made Aristotle God?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Plato? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
My 'own faith' is that God is 'bigger' than any one religious tradition and that seeming inconsistencies between faiths are ultimately reconcilable in God, who is beyond all our knowing, beyond all our understanding.
Fair enough, leo - and obviously your faith is really none of my business. But this thread is about "core beliefs" and if "Jesus is God" is not one of yours, I just don't see how you get along as a licensed preacher in the Church of England.

Assuming, however, that it is one of your core beliefs, "Jesus is very God of very God and is to be worshipped" and "Jesus is a mortal prophet whom it is the worst blasphemy to worship" are, as a matter of plain fact, contradictory. And a central tenet of Muhammad's prophecy was definitely that latter claim. To any believing Muslim your claiming that Jesus is God and yet that Mohammad is a prophet would be just bizarre - possibly offensive.

To a Christian, what could Mohammad have been prophetic about?

I admit - to me as a practising Christian I would be deeply uncomfortable with a licensed preacher who held to your opinion of Mohammad as a prophet. Were I your bishop, I would be having a serious chat with you about that.

The law of non-contradiction is not a piece of reactionary oppression of the laity - and it is not optional. At best, a claim from a Christian minister that Mohammad is a prophet is deeply confusing and savours strongly of syncretism/indifferentism - which can be a cause of scandal to the faithful.

Really, I think it is that serious.
There are many licensed and ordained people who have worked in inter faith circles and thought through these issues. Many are appointed specifically by bishops to do inter faith work.

Syncretism is the very opposite of what we are about in the inter faith world - it is the enemy of dialogue since you cannot have dialogue unless there is difference.

No less a bishop that Kenneth Cragg has written copiously about the prophethood of Muhammad pbuh.

Nowhere have I said that I do not believe 'that Jesus is God'. You have obviously not encountered many muslims or read much about inter faith work so you are overreacting and putting words in my mouth.

The sort of people I usually encounter I chaplaincy and church are very interested in inter faith issues - it, the older ones, feel guilty that they haven't much knowledge of it. They have little time for old-style, exclusive Christianity. There are plenty of churches that still preach that sort of thing.

BTW can you stop using the colonial spelling 'MOhammad'?

Now this is a tangent to this thread, which is supposed to be about CORE beliefs. The only core beliefs which can be required of Christians are those 'set out in the catholic creeds'. As for holding a bishop's license, I suppose I have to add assent to the 39 Articles - now THERE'S something about which to start a heresy hunt. I wonder how many would be left.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Chesterbelloc: [Overused]

This reminds me of a chat between Emperor Augustus and young Herod in I Claudius. Augustus says to Herod that he could never understand how the Jews could manage with just one God-- "it's very inadequate"-- and offered to loan them some of Rome's. Herod cheerfully declines, saying that they find the one they have hard enough to live with.

One has to suspect that anyone so eager to praise two religions as to gloss over basic incompatibilities between them is primarily in love with religion itself. I'm afraid I don't have that much love to spare, or time, for such a mistress.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
Wow!! didn't realize I'd generate so many responses.. Thanks to those who understood my OP.. I guess my list did exclude JW's and Mormons (my own personal belief, I s'pose) But I am willing to go with the Jesus is God as the definitive statement... But if I'm not mistaken That still excludes JW's and Mormons
Well, semantics and what is meant by words come into play. Mormons would certainly affirm that Jesus is part of the Godhead, but what Mormons mean by Godhead and what Trinitarians mean by Godhead is quite different.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
To a Christian, what could Mohammad have been prophetic about?
The Roman catholic church acknowledges that God spoke to Muslims: The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men Cf St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania (Pl. 148, col. 450f.)

In Muhammad Prophet and Statesman, Montgomery Watt outlines the following:

He was a man of prayer and frequently sought solitude and dreamt dreams. Prophets typically receive visions.

Unlike those who were frightened of an arbitrarily angry God, Muhammad emphasised God’s transcendence from human moods and his compassion and mercy.

He discerned that Allah was already present in the religion of his day but refined it from polytheism to monotheism in a climate of thought and belief where such an idea was almost unheard of

He preached resurrection and judgement but the judgement he preached about was based on love, not fear. Humanity’s response to God is thankfulness, not cringing.

He taught that our response to God’s goodness must issue in practical, social concern for e.g. the orphan and the widow.

His preaching was risky – just as Paul threatened the money made by the Diana cult in Ephesus, so his preaching of monotheism threatened the trade at Makkah which revolved around the idols in the ka’aba which he smashed (his cleaning of the ka’aba echoes Christ’s cleansing of the temple)

Where tribalism involved war and competition for wealth, he stressed brotherhood/sisterhood and mutual co-operation and succeeded in uniting the fractured Arab world.

He provided a corrective to the idea of the autonomy and omnipotence of the wealthy man

He taught the resurrection of the body to a culture that thought it absurd

Like most prophets, he was rejected by most of his own family and his followers were persecuted and had to flee in the Hijrah.

Watt concludes: Prophets and prophetic religious leaders share in this creative imagination. They proclaim ideas connected with what is deepest and most central in human experience, with special reference to the particular needs of their day and generation. The mark of the great prophet is the profound attraction of his ideas for those to whom they are addressed. Where do such ideas come from? ‘The unconscious?’ Religious people say ’from God’, at least with regard to the prophets of their own tradition For Baron Friedrich von Hugel, ‘ everywhere there is some truth; that this truth comes originally from God’.

These ideas of the creative imagination come from that life in a person which is greater than her/himself and is largely below the threshold of consciousness. For the Christian this still implies some connection with God, for, according to Saint John, in the Word was life, and Jesus said I am the Life ‘.
 
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:

Imagine the following scenario. A person fully assents to all the content of the Nicene Creed. However, in addition to believing the things it says in the Nicene Creed, that person also believes there's a possibility that Muslims might change their mind about what they believe.

Would such a belief disqualify that person from being considered a Christian?

...
No. Why would it? I believe many things that aren't in the creed. For example, I believe King David was a real person, but that doesn't make me a non-Christian just beacuse there is no reference to him in the creeds.

In fact, Christians should hope that Muslims change their mind about what they believe, and become Christian.
You have illustrated my point quite nicely, thanks.

Just because someone believes that King David was a real person, it doesn't mean that they are not a Christian. How do we know that? Because the Creed does not specify whether or not you are required to believe whether King David was a real person.

And in the same way, just because someone believes that Christianity and Islam might be considered to be one and the same thing one day, it doesn't mean that they are not a Christian. How do we know that? Because the Creed does not specify whether or not you are required to believe that Christianity and Islam will ever be considered to be one and the same thing.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Now this is a tangent to this thread, which is supposed to be about CORE beliefs. The only core beliefs which can be required of Christians are those 'set out in the catholic creeds'.
Agreed.

I think part of the problem is that people assume that the creeds have certain implications - and that those implications are therefore also core beliefs. Snag is, different people in different cultural contexts are likely to have different ideas about what those implications are.

For example, the belief that Christianity and Islam are fundamentally incompatible presupposes certain beliefs about Islam which, in my opinion, are culturally bound, and which, more to the point, are not codified in the Christian Creed. Okay, admittedly, I also think it presupposes certain culturally bound beliefs about the nature of Christianity too - but that's beside the point. Point is, the belief in their incompatibility cannot itself be considered a core belief of Christianity.

I use Islam here merely as an example; you could equally substitute any other self-defining tradition.

I realise that historical evidence suggests that the whole point of writing up creeds in the first place, was so as to exclude heresy. But it's significant that the creeds never actually name the heresies that they seek to exclude.

Christian self-definition - in fact, pretty much all religious self-definition - is often tribalistic. In spite of efforts to draw up creeds to make it look as though it's not tribalistic. I don't think it really fools anyone, though - so why not admit to the tribalism?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There are many licensed and ordained people who have worked in inter faith circles and thought through these issues. Many are appointed specifically by bishops to do inter faith work.
Who's talking about inter-faith work? I'm talking about the compatibility of a belief that Jesus is God and that Muhammad was a recipient of divine revelation. As ken said a bit back:
quote:
The question of Islam is whether you think Muhammad was the last and final prophet of God, superseding all others. I suspect you don't. It's hard to see how anyone could stand up in church and say the Creeds if they did, because Muhammad specifically and deliberately contradicted and denied them.
Since that's out there, do you believe that Muhammad was on a par with or exceeded Jesus as a prophet? My take: over some things (mutually exclusive belief-sets, for example), you just have to "pick sides", and a refusal to do so isn't "mould-breaking" and "prophetic" - it's disrespectful to both.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Syncretism is the very opposite of what we are about in the inter faith world - it is the enemy of dialogue since you cannot have dialogue unless there is difference.
And yet you want to believe that a man who flat-out denied the most important and definitive teachings of Jesus - who denied who He was - is a prophet. Just... how?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Nowhere have I said that I do not believe 'that Jesus is God'. You have obviously not encountered many muslims or read much about inter faith work so you are overreacting and putting words in my mouth.
And you're making predictions about what I do and don't know. But, actually, I didn't say you didn't believe in the Incarnation - I specifically assumed you did, which is why I asked you about the compatibility of that belief with holding Muhammad to be a prophet.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The sort of people I usually encounter I chaplaincy and church are very interested in inter faith issues - it, the older ones, feel guilty that they haven't much knowledge of it. They have little time for old-style, exclusive Christianity. There are plenty of churches that still preach that sort of thing.
See, this is at the nub of it: it is not "old-style exclusive" Christianity to deny that was Muhammad was a conduit of divine revelation because Jesus is God's ultimate revelation of Himself. That's got a much snappier name: "Christianity".
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
BTW can you stop using the colonial spelling 'MOhammad'?
Now you're just being ridiculous. I've used both, but that one only once. If you think it is "colonialist" you can take that up with the soul of Mohammad Sidique Khan or thousands of other Muslims who spell their names that way.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Now this is a tangent to this thread, which is supposed to be about CORE beliefs. The only core beliefs which can be required of Christians are those 'set out in the catholic creeds'.
But one role of core beliefs is in setting out what is and isn't a "core" part of Christian identity. I'd jut hazard a guess that many millions of Christians would consider their "cores" as being exclusive of a claim that Muhammad was a conduit of divine revelation.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As for holding a bishop's license, I suppose I have to add assent to the 39 Articles - now THERE'S something about which to start a heresy hunt. I wonder how many would be left.
Heresy hunt? Heck, leo, you can believe what you like as far as I'm concerned. I'm just interested in how it all squares up with preaching the Gospel. Really, it's none of my business. But since I'd be posing the same questions to Kenneth Cragg and William Montgomery Watt, it doesn't really help to cite them whilst not showing how they'd answer my compatibilty questions.

What is my business, as a Catholic, is what the Roman Catholic faith is. And I can 100% assure you that she doesn't teach that Muhammad was a prophet of God. She does teach revelation ceased with Jesus Christ - the rest is just working out the deposit of faith. You don't have to agree with that, but since she does so teach, I'd be grateful if you wouldn't mislead others into thinking she leaves it open whether Muhammad or anyone else added to that deposit. Thanks.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
... Because the Creed does not specify whether or not you are required to believe that Christianity and Islam will ever be considered to be one and the same thing.
...
But then, that has been my point all along - no religion defines any other religion, only itself.

Looking at how Christianity defines itself, and how Islam defines itself, no intelligent person could conclude they are compatible.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Correction:
quote:
She does teach revelation ceased with Jesus Christ
should read:
quote:
She does teach that revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle of Jesus Christ.

 
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :
 
Christians teach that Jesus is the Son of God --- that not only his teachings, but he himself, is the definitive revelation of God. Muslims honor Jesus as the greatest of all the prophets next to Muhammad, whom they, of course uphold as THE Prophet. So there is common ground between the two groups, a reverence for Jesus --- hence, room for dialogue. I've personally never had any significant contact with Muslims, but it seems to me that if we and they can truly learn to listen to each other, and if we can look to the Spirit for guidance, some fruitful evangelism could take place. I think the clincher, with Christianity, is always the Resurrection.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
Christians teach that Jesus is the Son of God --- that not only his teachings, but he himself, is the definitive revelation of God. ...
Not quite. Jesus IS God, not just a revelation of God. Not a picture, not a reflection, not an image of God. Jesus IS God.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
Christians teach that Jesus is the Son of God --- that not only his teachings, but he himself, is the definitive revelation of God. Muslims honor Jesus as the greatest of all the prophets next to Muhammad, whom they, of course uphold as THE Prophet. So there is common ground between the two groups, a reverence for Jesus --- hence, room for dialogue. I've personally never had any significant contact with Muslims, but it seems to me that if we and they can truly learn to listen to each other, and if we can look to the Spirit for guidance, some fruitful evangelism could take place. I think the clincher, with Christianity, is always the Resurrection.
Muslims believe that Jesus who orthodox Christianity proclaims as God incarnate is the second greatest prophet. I wouldn't say the two religions have similar Christologies at all. The resurrection is a small matter next to the person of Christ.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Who's talking about inter-faith work? I'm talking about the compatibility of a belief that Jesus is God and that Muhammad was a recipient of divine revelation. .... I'd jut hazard a guess that many millions of Christians would consider their "cores" as being exclusive of a claim that Muhammad was a conduit of divine revelation.
.....I'd be posing the same questions to Kenneth Cragg and William Montgomery Watt, it doesn't really help to cite them whilst not showing how they'd answer my compatibilty questions.

What is my business, as a Catholic, is what the Roman Catholic faith is. And I can 100% assure you that she doesn't teach that Muhammad was a prophet of God.
The point about inter faith work is that those who engage with it gain experiences and face questions that others have not considered. The old structures somehow no longer seem adequate.

The 'many Christians' you speak of have never really been confronted by these issues.

I knew Bp. Cragg briefly when he retired to the village of Helme, in the catchment area of the school where I used to teach. He struck me as an 'open evangelical'. He is quored as saying, 'The ecumenical movement has adopted the position that "whatever is Christian I will try to belong with, in some sense." Can we go on to say, "I will try to belong with anything that is religious"?' in Cross Meets Crescent: An Interview with Kenneth Cragg.

In his 'A Certain Sympathy of Scriptures
Biblical and Quranic' a review suggests: “By endeavouring to trace some form of sympathy – rather than pursue an analytical comparison as such – between the Bible and the Qur’an, Cragg offers both a model as well as a resource for the further pursuit of a Christian–Muslim theological dialogue that centres on that point of contact with the divine which both unites and divides Christians and Muslims: revelation, mediated through scriptural text. Such engagement is of vital importance today, and not just in terms of academic interaction.”

So he, like the RCC's Nostra Aetate which I quoted before, accepts that God is at work in Islam.

In the C of E's Generous Love (2008, about inter faith work): Kenneth Cragg would remind us, our silence on a definitive assessment of Islam is properly demanded by the Gospel.

In a postmodern framework, we no longer work inside meta-narratives so comparing one set of propositions with another isn't deemed necessary. So you are asking modernist questions that aren't interesting.

Watt was an Anglican priest but his prime allegience was to scholarship in a secular university so he would have said that comparing truth claims was out of court. Charlotte Alfred, said: His views on Islam and Christianity have at times been controversial. He rejects the infallibility of both the Bible and the Qur’ān, but regards each as divinely inspired. He has argued that the Muslim and Judaeo-Christian traditions have much to teach each other, personally commenting that his study of Islam deepened his understanding of the oneness of God.

Bashir Maan & Alastair McIntosh quote him as saying: I would be inclined to say that the Qur’an is the word of God for a particular time and place and will not therefore necessarily suit other times and places.

I wonder if we couild say the same of the Bible.

Watt goes on: I therefore do not believe that either the Bible or the Qur’an is infallibly true in the sense that all their commands are valid for all time. The commands given in both books were true and valid for the societies to which the revelations were primarily addressed; but when the form of society changes in important respects some commands cease to be appropriate, though many others continue to be valid. I do, however, believe that Muhammad, like the earlier prophets, had genuine religious experiences. I believe that he really did receive something directly from God. As such, I believe that the Qur’an came from God, that it is Divinely inspired. Muhammad could not have caused the great upsurge in religion that he did without God’s blessing.

His prayer was: O Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one God, grant that the whole house of Islam, and we Christians with them, may come to know you more clearly, serve you more nearly, and love you more dearly. Amen.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Leo:
In a postmodern framework, we no longer work inside meta-narratives so comparing one set of propositions with another isn't deemed necessary. So you are asking modernist questions that aren't interesting.
You don't get postmodernism. Christianity and Islam are competing language games. There is no meta-narrative through which we can judge which is true or which is false. However, logic can tell us they can't both be true. Jesus Christ was either God or He wasn't. He can't be both God and not God. Again, no overarching narrative can tell us what to believe. Individuals will decide which claim to believe based on what strikes them as good reasons. What the individual considers good reasons will depend on a number of facts unique to the individual.

I'm sure you and your interfaith buddies like and respect each other. However, the fact none of you are actually willing to say to one another, "I think your wrong," doesn't mean the law of non-contradiction flies out the window. IMO, dialogue based on intellectual dishonesty cannot truly be productive.
 
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :
 
In saying that there is common ground between Muslims and Christians because they both honor Jesus, I was not suggesting that their christologies are similar or honoring Jesus means the same thing for both. Moreover, as I said earlier, there is the pressing matter of who provides the definitive revelation. Beeswax Altar is correct: you can't have two completely different truth claims and have them both be right. I still contend that the Resurrection makes or breaks Christianity. I think that without it, it would be difficult to make any substantive claim for the truth of the Christian faith. It's the assertion that Jesus lives that makes Christianity unique.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You don't get postmodernism. Christianity and Islam are competing language games. There is no meta-narrative through which we can judge which is true or which is false. However, logic can tell us they can't both be true.
No - YOU don't understand post-modernism.

There is no necessary competition about truth claims.

No more than, for example, the rule that you cannot pick up the ball and run with it when playing soccer - but you CAN when playing rugby.

They are different games.

Islam and Christianity are different religions.

As for 'logic' - that's a hum an construction. God isn't as neat and tidy as we want to make him by our logic game.

Whether or not Jesus is the Son of God depends on the religion. In Christianity he is, in Islam he isn't.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
the Resurrection makes or breaks Christianity.[/i] I think that without it, it would be difficult to make any substantive claim for the truth of the Christian faith. It's the assertion that Jesus lives that makes Christianity unique.
Not necessarily.

Many Muslims do not believe that Jesus died, therefore the resurrection makes no sense.

However, many/most Muslims believe in the Ascension as part of the 'exaltation' - many Christians also subsume resurrection under exaltation.

In that, these Muslims and Christians share the same understanding.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm sure you and your interfaith buddies like and respect each other. However, the fact none of you are actually willing to say to one another, "I think your wrong," doesn't mean the law of non-contradiction flies out the window. IMO, dialogue based on intellectual dishonesty cannot truly be productive.
The term 'buddies' seems somewhat patronising, as if inter faith is some sort of hobby shared by a few - whereas, in fact, it is commanded by the Church (or at least the RCC and the Anglican Communion.)

The idea that we skate over differences for fear of disagreement and confrontation is completely against the guidelines for the conduct of dialogue as laid down in, for example, our churches and in the National Inter faith Network. It isn't about being nice to one another, it is about debate disagreement as well as concensus.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Leo, in no particular order:

1. You don't understand Nostra Aetate. Or Catholic teaching on other religiouns. At all.

2. It is almost impossible to have a conversation with you because you put big chunks of other people's words in your posts without proper punctuation. Since I know you can punctuate them properly, that leaves me wondering whether it's deliberate obfuscation or can't-be-botheredness. You do this a lot.

3. This whole "it's true for me, but not true for you" schtick doesn't wash unless you are a complete relativist with regard to truth. If you are, how can you stand in a pulpit and proclaim the Gospel of Him who said "I am the Truth"? Believe me - Dave Marshall and Radical Whig do this stuff better. Much, much better.

4. If you really believed all you say - and, with respect, I'm not sure you really even understand all you say here - then you'd pretty much be an apostate (as knuckle-dragging non-relativists like me would put it). If you can't say "Jesus is Lord and God" without mentally adding "for me, but not for everybody" you have no right getting into a pulpit. If "Jesus is God" isn't true universally, absolutely, transcendently and without condition Christianity is a blasphemous lie - as the vast majority of Muslims believe it to be. I have much more respect for them and their beliefs than for your relativism-lite.

5. You've got some nerve calling anyone else "patronising" when you come out with this kind of stuff:
quote:
The point about inter faith work is that those who engage with it gain experiences and face questions that others have not considered. The old structures somehow no longer seem adequate. The 'many Christians' you speak of have never really been confronted by these issues.
As if your inter-faith work turned had you into Meister Eckhart's more right-on brother.

I think I'd better leave it there.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

Muhammed was a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief. Sounds like bad fruit to me.
So was King David. But God still loved him.

Well, three out of the four at least. And I bet some of all those women he had would have been below the legal age of consent in your state.
Show me someone God doesn't love, but that doesn't mean everything they do is approved by God. Muslims say Muhammed is the greatest example to ever live, don't they? If so, I disagree.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

Muhammed was a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief. Sounds like bad fruit to me.
So was King David. But God still loved him.

Well, three out of the four at least. And I bet some of all those women he had would have been below the legal age of consent in your state.
Show me someone God doesn't love, but that doesn't mean everything they do is approved by God. Muslims say Muhammed is the greatest example to ever live, don't they? If so, I disagree.
The comparison between Muhammed and King David is inappropriate. Islam compares Muhammed to Jesus. Even IF Jesus had just been a human, there would have been no comparison, but, being God, well, there is just no point even trying.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by leo:
No - YOU don't understand post-modernism.

There is no necessary competition about truth claims.

No, the language games are competing. I've read Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition several times. Competing language games take the place of universal metanarratives. Islam and Christianity are two such competing language games that make contradictory truth claims.

quote:
originally posted by leo:
No more than, for example, the rule that you cannot pick up the ball and run with it when playing soccer - but you CAN when playing rugby.

They are different games.

Islam and Christianity are different religions.

Pretty good explanation of how Wittgenstein used the term some 25 or so years before Lyotard started talking about postmodern philosophy. Wittgenstein wasn't interested in describing the postmodern milieu. For Wittgenstein, the question would be if both Christians and Muslims are using the terms Jesus and God the same way. When we say Jesus, both Muslims and Christians mean the same person. When we say God, we are thinking of the same God. So, the sentence "Jesus is God" has the same meaning to both Christians and Muslims. To orthodox Christians, it is central to our faith. To Muslims, it contradicts the basic tenet of their faith.

quote:
originally posted by leo:
As for 'logic' - that's a hum an construction. God isn't as neat and tidy as we want to make him by our logic game.

Whether or not Jesus is the Son of God depends on the religion. In Christianity he is, in Islam he isn't.
Logic arises out of our use of language. You can disregard logic when you decide to stop communicating. Interfaith dialogue would be impossible without communication. Most philosophers have long held that omnipotence does not mean God can do or be that which is logically meaningless.

[ 09. April 2011, 23:43: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

There is no necessary competition about truth claims.
Boy, have I got some bridges to sell you!
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Sharkshooter posted

"Not quite. Jesus IS God, not just a revelation of God. Not a picture, not a reflection, not an image of God. Jesus IS God."

Not so. God is Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent. Jesus was none of these.

The best we can say is the he is as much of God as can be contained within the limits of a genuinely human existence.

As Paul said, "God was in Christ"
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:


The best we can say is the he is as much of God as can be contained within the limits of a genuinely human existence.

As Paul said, "God was in Christ"
[Overused]
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Unfortunately although Lyotard coined the term Saussure , later work called Post-structuralism is often seen as much the origin of Postmodernism as Lyotard's.

This is the core problem with postmodernism read Saussure and you will get one impression, read Lyotard and you will get another, read Barthes and another, Foucault for another and so on.

A perfect example of competing philosophical understandings within what appears to be a single school of thought. In such circumstances according to where you view it, late Wittgenstein or Austin may or may not be contributors to the school.

Jengie
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You don't understand Nostra Aetate. Or Catholic teaching on other religiouns. At all.

relativism-lite.

As if your inter-faith work turned had you into Meister Eckhart's more right-on brother.
Rather, my understanding of Nostra Aetate differs from yours. To be fair, however, Lumen Gentium backtracks somewhat.

I am not a relativist but a pluralist. Epistemological relativism sums it up - there IS objective truth out there but none of us humans can fully comprehend it.

If I was one tenth as holy and wise as Eckhart, that would be great.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
...
Not so. God is Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent. Jesus was none of these.

The best we can say is the he is as much of God as can be contained within the limits of a genuinely human existence.

...
No strand of Christianity believes that. Any religious group who does, is not Christian. I'm not trying to tell you that you can't believe that. I'm just saying that if you do, it is a non-Christian understanding of Jesus, which would suggest that you are not a Christian if you hold to it.

This is why, as I have said, we have the creeds/statements of belief - so that we know points of view like shamwari's are not Christian.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
The Methodist Church apparently thinks I am a Christian.

They ordained me and have not retracted.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Rather, my understanding of Nostra Aetate differs from yours. To be fair, however, Lumen Gentium backtracks somewhat.
NA does not say what you want it to say. Catholic teaching is 100% clear that revelation ceased at the death of the last apostle and therefore that Muhammad is not a prophet. There's really no wriggle-room there.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am not a relativist but a pluralist. Epistemological relativism sums it up - there IS objective truth out there but none of us humans can fully comprehend it.
You've lost me. The view you cite as "epistemological relativism" isn't, and it isn't pluralism either. It's more like scepticism. It is also not compatible with the view that contradictory belief-satements can both be "true". This is not inspiring me with confidence that you understand your own position well enough to articulate it.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If I was one tenth as holy and wise as Eckhart, that would be great.
Fudging your own tradition's core beliefs to try to please those of other, more stringent religious worldviews is not a step in that direction.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Here some of the clear Catholic teaching on other religions I am talking about, from Dominus Iesus (2000):

quote:
the Church's proclamation of Jesus Christ, “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), today also makes use of the practice of inter-religious dialogue. Such dialogue certainly does not replace, but rather accompanies the missio ad gentes, directed toward that “mystery of unity”, from which “it follows that all men and women who are saved share, though differently, in the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ through his Spirit”. Inter-religious dialogue, which is part of the Church's evangelizing mission, requires an attitude of understanding and a relationship of mutual knowledge and reciprocal enrichment, in obedience to the truth and with respect for freedom.

[...]

The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle). As a consequence, it is held that certain truths have been superseded; for example, the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth [etc.]

 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
"epistemological relativism"
Schaeffer: while in our fallen and finite condition we can never have exhaustive truth
 
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
What a remarkable drift in a single thread.

To start at the beginning I suppose my core beliefs would be based around

scripture,
sacraments,
and apostolic tradition.

Of course these leaves things very open to interpretation.

My understanding of them would then lead me to a far more exclusive position of 'Sacramental Christianity' as being my personal core beliefs. So for me belief in the Real Presence is a core belief of Christianity but I have to somehow recognise that for others it isn't.

I would also suggest that Islam is the Antithesis of Sacramental Christianity.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
"epistemological relativism"
Schaeffer: while in our fallen and finite condition we can never have exhaustive truth
I'm sorry - I don't understand. Are you trying to say that this is Schaeffer's definition of epistemological relativism? It's not - and even if it were it would be completely wrong.

Let me quote you the whole paragraph from which you snipped that sentence (from here):
quote:
But that is not at all to say that we are just left with doubt, uncertainty, a lack of clarity, and epistemological relativism. As Schaeffer always used to insist, while in our fallen and finite condition we can never have exhaustive truth, we can nonetheless have substantial, true truth.
This is the precise opposite of what your post implies.

[ 11. April 2011, 12:28: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
Christians teach that Jesus is the Son of God --- that not only his teachings, but he himself, is the definitive revelation of God. ...
Not quite. Jesus IS God, not just a revelation of God. Not a picture, not a reflection, not an image of God. Jesus IS God.
"Jesus is God" only makes good sense if you have a doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is not 'our Father who art in heaven'. Jesus and God are not interchangeable words. And "Jesus is the Son of God" is not now false, nor is it a weak statement that has been superceded by "Jesus is God".

From a simple monotheist viewpoint, Jesus is God is alarming and probably incomprehensible.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You don't understand Nostra Aetate. Or Catholic teaching on other religiouns. At all.

relativism-lite.

As if your inter-faith work turned had you into Meister Eckhart's more right-on brother.
Rather, my understanding of Nostra Aetate differs from yours. To be fair, however, Lumen Gentium backtracks somewhat.

I am not a relativist but a pluralist. Epistemological relativism sums it up - there IS objective truth out there but none of us humans can fully comprehend it.

If I was one tenth as holy and wise as Eckhart, that would be great.
And if there is objective truth, then Jesus is either God or not God. We may not be able to know for certain which Jesus was. However, Jesus can't be ontologically both God and not God.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Good to see you all wasting lots of valuable Christian time and energy with useless infighting as usual.*

No one seems to have mentioned the Kingdom of God.

I guess, being biblical, that's a bit passe really.


quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
...
Not so. God is Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent. Jesus was none of these.

The best we can say is the he is as much of God as can be contained within the limits of a genuinely human existence.

...
No strand of Christianity believes that. Any religious group who does, is not Christian. I'm not trying to tell you that you can't believe that. I'm just saying that if you do, it is a non-Christian understanding of Jesus, which would suggest that you are not a Christian if you hold to it.

This is why, as I have said, we have the creeds/statements of belief - so that we know points of view like shamwari's are not Christian.
*Good thing you're the new Pope and we're all Catholicks so you can set us straight.

Thank you Merciful Mother in Heaven. [Overused]

We are not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and we shall be healed.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Good to see you all wasting lots of valuable Christian time and energy with useless infighting as usual.
Um, this is a discussion board - for, you know, like, debate and stuff? Were you expecting a soup kitchen?
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
No one seems to have mentioned the Kingdom of God.
What, the one of which Christ is King? Christ - whose identity (and the revelance of which) we're addressing as a core belief?

Feel free to make a meaningful contribution yourself, Evensong. Or choose not to read or comment, if you prefer. That's allowed too.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Let me quote you the whole paragraph from which you snipped that sentence (from here):
quote:
But that is not at all to say that we are just left with doubt, uncertainty, a lack of clarity, and epistemological relativism. As Schaeffer always used to insist, while in our fallen and finite condition we can never have exhaustive truth, we can nonetheless have substantial, true truth.
This is the precise opposite of what your post implies.
Not 'opposite' because 'substantial' truth is still not the whole truth.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
if there is objective truth, then Jesus is either God or not God.
There may be objective truth but we humans cannot apprehend it in any way but subjectively.
 
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
Christians teach that Jesus is the Son of God --- that not only his teachings, but he himself, is the definitive revelation of God. ...
Not quite. Jesus IS God, not just a revelation of God. Not a picture, not a reflection, not an image of God. Jesus IS God.
"Jesus is God" only makes good sense if you have a doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is not 'our Father who art in heaven'. Jesus and God are not interchangeable words. And "Jesus is the Son of God" is not now false, nor is it a weak statement that has been superceded by "Jesus is God".

From a simple monotheist viewpoint, Jesus is God is alarming and probably incomprehensible.
[Overused] Thank you. The Logos became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth in the fullest extent to which God can become incarnate in a human being. And thank you, shamwari, [Overused] for pointing out that Jesus was not omnipresent, omniscient, or omnipotent. Nowhere in Scripture does it baldly say "Jesus is God." Son of God, yes. God, no.

If this makes me an Adoptionist heretic, then I guess I'm an Adoptionist heretic.

I still love Jesus.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
..."Jesus is God" only makes good sense if you have a doctrine of the Trinity. ...
And the doctrine of the Trinity is a "Core Christian Belief".
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
if there is objective truth, then Jesus is either God or not God.
There may be objective truth but we humans cannot apprehend it in any way but subjectively.
I'm curious - what do you preach to your congregation in your Christian church? "Jesus might be God or might not be, we really can't know; Jesus might have been resurrected, or might still be in the grave, or might not have died at all, we really can't know"?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Let me quote you the whole paragraph from which you snipped that sentence (from here):
quote:
But that is not at all to say that we are just left with doubt, uncertainty, a lack of clarity, and epistemological relativism. As Schaeffer always used to insist, while in our fallen and finite condition we can never have exhaustive truth, we can nonetheless have substantial, true truth.
This is the precise opposite of what your post implies.
Not 'opposite' because 'substantial' truth is still not the whole truth.
No, leo. What your post offered as Shaeffer's definition of "epistemological relativism" was "while in our fallen and finite condition we can never have exhaustive truth". It isn't (that's more like a limited scepticism), and in fact the author of the piece you snipped from (but which you didn't cite or link to) contrasts Shaeffer's notion with epistemological relativism.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
if there is objective truth, then Jesus is either God or not God.
There may be objective truth but we humans cannot apprehend it in any way but subjectively.
Maybe or maybe not. Either the core beliefs of Muslims or Christians are wrong. There is no way around that. If I've accepted that Jesus is God, it logically follows that Muhammad must be a false prophet and the Koran an idol.

The whole elephant analogy breaks down somewhat when you claim Jesus is God. Being a pluralist means denying that Jesus is God. Most pluralists have figured that out. I say most because you are a pluralist but haven't. You can be an inclusivist and still orthodox. You can be an exclusivist and a universalist. What defies reason is claiming to be both a pluralist and orthodox.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
it logically follows that Muhammad must be a false prophet and the Koran an idol.
How can the Qur'an possibly be an idol?

Islam is the most anti-idolatry religion going and the Qur'an is not an object of worship?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm curious - what do you preach to your congregation in your Christian church? "Jesus might be God or might not be, we really can't know; Jesus might have been resurrected, or might still be in the grave, or might not have died at all, we really can't know"?
I don't preach doctrine. I understand homiletics to be about teasing out lectionary passages for their relevance to people's lives.

Doctrine is more suited to teaching than preaching.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Said Leo

I don't preach doctrine. I understand homiletics to be about teasing out lectionary passages for their relevance to people's lives.

Heck!
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
it logically follows that Muhammad must be a false prophet and the Koran an idol.
How can the Qur'an possibly be an idol?

Islam is the most anti-idolatry religion going and the Qur'an is not an object of worship?
Calling it an idol was a bit strong. I intended to change that but the edit time elapsed. The Koran plays a role in Islam similar to the one Jesus plays in Christianity. Jesus is divine in Christianity. Plus, the reverence shown the Koran borders on the idolatry.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...
Doctrine is more suited to teaching than preaching.
Not necessarily. In fact, I prefer a doctrine-based sermon to any other.

Of course, I understand why you would prefer not to teach it - it might show up your disbelief in a basic Christian belief.

The same goes for shamwari. How can one preach doctrine if one does not believe it?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
the reverence shown the Koran borders on the idolatry.
No more so that the way we treat the Book of the Gospels at mass.
In fact, the two are very similar - kissing, special place, carried high.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
I have no problem with the concept that all religions contain some truth - most of what we call "major religions" have similar basic ethics of the "don't murder don't steal" variety. I have atheist friends who are highly moral people too.

I have no problem with the concept that all religions, including Christianity in any and all of it's flavors, each contain some error. No human other than Jesus is (as far we we know) perfect.

I have no problem with the concept that God is bigger and more all-loving than we can imagine.

I have no problem with different religions working together on community welfare projects, or discussing with each other to better understand their similarities and differences and sincerities.

But it is a huge and entirely different kind of leap to go from any or all of those concepts to a theory that Christianity and Islam are in fundamental agreement about whether Jesus is a member of a triune Godhead and whether Jesus is God's best revelation to humakind of truth for all time.

Absolute disagreement on who Jesus was/is today is not an insignificant detail in a discussion of faith! Or should Paul have stayed home?
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
..."Jesus is God" only makes good sense if you have a doctrine of the Trinity. ...
And the doctrine of the Trinity is a "Core Christian Belief".
Is it? None of the apostles could have believed in the Trinity in any formal sense, because it hadn't been expressed.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
None of the apostles could have believed in the Trinity in any formal sense, because it hadn't been expressed.
That doesn't follow, of course. The Church councils who hammered it all out certainly believed they derived it entirely from the apostolic deposit.

Given the doctrine's prominence and universality through the Church's history, including today, it's a bit difficult to take seriously a claim that it's not a core doctrine. If it doesn't count, whatever else possible could?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
... the Incarnation aside, that is. And that's a big chunk of what the doctrine of the Trinity's all about.

Father, Son and Holy Ghost - all divine, all distinguishable. After Jesus's teaching (about Himself and the Father), death and resurrection, more teaching, ascension and then Penetcost - do you really not think the Apostles believed this?
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
None of the apostles could have believed in the Trinity in any formal sense, because it hadn't been expressed.
That doesn't follow, of course. The Church councils who hammered it all out certainly believed they derived it entirely from the apostolic deposit.
Derived it != the apostles expressed it. Perhaps they were trinitarian...given how long other beliefs have flourished, sounds unlikely.

quote:
Given the doctrine's prominence and universality through the Church's history, including today, it's a bit difficult to take seriously a claim that it's not a core doctrine. If it doesn't count, whatever else possible could?
Prominence, yes. Universality, no. It's not universal just because you don't think the non-trinitarians aren't Christian. That of course is why this thread is pointless - the "core" beliefs simply reflect what a person holds in common with others that *they* consider to be Christian. Given what no Christian knows how wide that circle is*, it's a (yet again) pointless exercise.


*w/ the assumption that Christianity is true, of course....
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
And the Councils that 'hammered it out' had to hammer it out because they didn't all agree. As is always the case, each side in the argument claimed to be the more faithful and authentic.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
We've all had this "is the Trinity a biblically/apostolically founded doctrine" conversation too many times already, folks - and it's a rabbit-hole I'm not prepared to sink another dozen hours of my life into.

But the fact remains that for the overwhelmingly vast majority of Christains, now and historically, the divinity of the three Persons of the Godhead just hasn't been seriously doubted. It's a principal badge of identity for almost all churches/denominations to this day. It.just.is.

If that doesn't make it a core doctrine, nothing does. Deal.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
...If that doesn't make it a core doctrine, nothing does. Deal.
Well said. I doubt there is any reason for me to continue posting on this one.
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
This was an obvious point this thread would cross from the beginning. That said, I'm surprised that it sounds like you find an argument by numbers to be sufficient. So, what's the magic number when something becomes a core doctrine?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
This was an obvious point this thread would cross from the beginning. That said, I'm surprised that it sounds like you find an argument by numbers to be sufficient. So, what's the magic number when something becomes a core doctrine?
Numbers?

Try: numbers x years x centrality x across other jurisdictional/denominational differences x definedness/settledness x explanatory success x some other stuff = core. If it ain't core NOTHING is. Hard-core, in fact.

What other meaningful criteria for core do you suggest? What other doctrine (the Incarnation aside, and that's deeply involved in it) is at once so definitive of Christianity's distictiveness and identity as the very doctrine of the nature of the God we worship?

You don't have to like it, but "truth is what is". Give it up, boys.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Sharkshooter plans to opt out of this discussion because he has found one person (Chesterbelloc) to agree with him.

Pity. Many others dont.

As for preaching doctrine I preach it every Sunday and believe wholeheartedly in the doctrine I preach.
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Numbers?

Try: numbers x years x centrality x across other jurisdictional/denominational differences x definedness/settledness x explanatory success x some other stuff = core. If it ain't core NOTHING is. Hard-core, in fact.

What other meaningful criteria for core do you suggest? What other doctrine (the Incarnation aside, and that's deeply involved in it) is at once so definitive of Christianity's distictiveness and identity as the very doctrine of the nature of the God we worship?

You don't have to like it, but "truth is what is". Give it up, boys.
Hmm...throw out the subjective little "explanatory power" bit (obviously it's not strong enough to convince all), and it still sounds like a majority thing.

I'd try to make up a venn diagram or spreadsheet of tenets of belief of every avowedly Christian group that we have knowledge of, and see what's in common. Not much is left....pretty much just 11 letters, JESUS CHRIST, and even some of those might need to go away.

Not very helpful, I know. It's also why the thread should have died after the first reply:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Good luck. The Church has been arguing over what the Core Beliefs of a Christian are for 2,000 years (cf. the book of Acts, pretty much every epistle).

 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Make it two.

I agree with the both of them.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
[x-p'd with BA]

And your local Methodists know what they're getting is Arianism/adoptionism and are happy with that, yeah? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Methodists hold to the teachings of the first 5 ecumenical Councils, yes? They know what you're preaching is in contravention of agreed Methodist tenets?

If so, that's fair enough - none of my business. But I (and John Wesley and many Methodist, I should think) would be surprised.

[ 11. April 2011, 18:58: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
As would I. And, it wouldn't be any of my business either.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
pjkirk, supposing my argument were essentially a numbers one (which it's not). Sometimes, despite what your significant other may have told you, size does count.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Methodists take very serious account of the Church Councils mentioned and the doctrines enunciated.

But we are not fundamentalists or literalists - either in respect of the Bible or the Councils.

We happen to believe in the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead us into an on-going understanding and apprehension of Truth. Revelation did not stop at the end of the Book of revelation, neither did it come to a full stop with Chalcedon.

And FWIW my Christological understanding is neither Adoptionist or Arian. Neither is it locked into the philosophical assumptions of Aristotle which informed the language of the said Councils.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Uhuh. Thought so. Still, not my business.
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
pjkirk, supposing my argument were essentially a numbers one (which it's not). Sometimes, despite what your significant other may have told you, size does count.
quote:
numbers x years x centrality x across other jurisdictional/denominational differences x definedness/settledness x explanatory success x some other stuff = core.
Hmm...

*Numbers - very unequal
*Years - about equal
*Centrality - about equal
*Across jurisdictiona/denomination differences - about equal. Both are well represented anyways.
*Settledness/definedness - both sides seem to feel theirs is very settled and well-defined
*Explanatory success - subjective, can be ignored. both sides claim the same level of success anyways.
*Other stuff - undefined. Ignored until further defined.

Sure seems to boil back down to the numbers.

And if size does count, as you so so wittily put it, where does it stop counting? Does the full set of doctrine of the largest church suddenly all become "core"? Can that change if the relative size changes? Besides that, it sounds like a very shaky thing for theology, etc, to rest upon (even if only partially). That might be my protestant roots and queasiness about Tradition arguments showing though.

I don't understand how a belief that isn't common to all of Christianity can be considered core.

I would certainly call trinitarianism to be a very MAJOR belief, with an understanding that major != universal. Certainly a driver of many events within Christian history. A driver of doctrine for many. A major branch on the evolutionary tree of Christianity. Not the trunk though. Not core.

The only way I see that this can be core is if you decide that only trinitarians are Christians (which you haven't stated, though it's pretty explicit in the RCC). Pardon me if I think of that as the jackass path to go walking down.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
The Trinity may be what most Christians believe. It may be implicit in scripture. It may be the only satisfactory resolution of the experience and understanding of the apostles. I for one am not dissenting from any of that. However, it was not formulated for a quarter of a millennium.

The Christians who lived in those centuries may have been delighted with the doctrine of the Trinity had they come across it, but they couldn't have come across it. They were Christians, without the benefit of the doctrine. So how can this be a core belief, defining or required or however you want to phrase it? It may be descriptive of most Christians through most of history, but it cannot be essential, or Martha, Paul, Mary, Peter, Priscilla, James and the rest are disqualified.

And I think this point shows that to define Christianity in terms of belief is wrong. That which we all have in common is our personal response to the good news of Jesus Christ. It's about faith, as in allegiance and participation. I don't really see what's wrong with 'Jesus is Lord' if you want some words of allegiance that we can say together. Why would anyone want to make it more complicated or narrower?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
I don't understand how a belief that isn't common to all of Christianity can be considered core.
Name one that fits your criterion of core then. And show how it qualifies better than Incarnation/Trinity.

And forgive me if I am suspicious of any attempts so to pare down what Christianity is that nothing more (and, actually, considerably less) is left of it than a bare ethical code.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The Trinity may be what most Christians believe. It may be implicit in scripture. It may be the only satisfactory resolution of the experience and understanding of the apostles. I for one am not dissenting from any of that. However, it was not formulated for a quarter of a millennium.
So it appeared fully formed at the Council table then, did it? You know it was much more emergent than that. And that the Apostles knew the Father, knew Jesus to be God and knew the Holy Spirit at Penetecost. Unless the Gospels are made up, in which case the whole game's a bogey anyway and we may as well be talking about the golf.

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I don't really see what's wrong with 'Jesus is Lord' if you want some words of allegiance that we can say together. Why would anyone want to make it more complicated or narrower?
If all I wanted was a shared code of ethical values, maybe I wouldn't - although I'd still want to know what it actually meant and how it could perform any such function better than, say, "Live, love and keep off the grass".

But what if I want an assurance that God so loved the world he created that He sent his only Son to die for it, to cut through the gnarl of human sin, to give us all an eternal life of the ultimate fulfillment with Him forever? I appreciate that that may be completely off your radar. But some of us are really interested in that bit. We really are.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
I think the Beatitudes or the Sermon on the Mount are core beliefs.

Whosoever does not believeth in them shall not be a Christian and they shall be thrown into the hell of discussing doctrine with other losers where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Thus sayeth the Lord, the God of Israel.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
The whole sermon, or just the bare beatitudes?
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
You don't think they go together?
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc

"But what if I want an assurance that God so loved the world he created that He sent his only Son to die for it, to cut through the gnarl of human sin, to give us all an eternal life of the ultimate fulfillment with Him forever? I appreciate that that may be completely off your radar. But some of us are really interested in that bit. We really are."

You are not the only one.

But why believing that should be contingent on accepting a 5th cent formula on Christology defeats me.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You don't think they go together?
I certainly do - I just wondered about the scope youi had in mind. The whole sermon is very big, and has plenty "hard sayings".

Are you really happy defining all those issues as core? I am, but I confess I'd be surprised if you were.

But really, I don't think one can divorce what Jesus is saying from who He Is and still get the same message - or even make full sense of the message.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
But why believing that should be contingent on accepting a 5th cent formula on Christology defeats me.
That's a somewhat loded way of putting it, but my answer is: because we need to know Who Jesus Is to make sense of it all.

Help me out a bit here though, shamwari: what about the formulation of the council[s] don't you accept as core? Is the very definition of the three Persons as divine beyond your pale, or is it a technical language issue, or what?
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

But really, I don't think one can divorce what Jesus is saying from who He Is and still get the same message - or even make full sense of the message.
Viola. The connection between Orthodoxy (correct thought) and Orthopraxis (correct action).

Too much of this thread was concerned about Orthodoxy. I saw bugger all of Orthopraxy.

Faith without works is dead.

So how does Orthodoxy affect Orthopraxy?

If I don't believe in a literal Virgin Birth, can I discount the Sermon on the Mount?

I don't think so.

If I discount Ordained ministry, can I discount the Sermon on the Mount?

I don't think so.

If I discount the understanding of God formulated by church councils, can I discount the Sermon on the Mount?

I don't think so.

Your particular understanding of who Jesus is is different from shamwari's.

Do you both discount the Sermon on the Mount?

I doubt it.


It is core.

[Razz]
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...
Faith without works is dead.

...
But the thread is about "core beliefs" not "core behaviors".

The beatitudes are behaviors, not beliefs.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
To try and help out.

I suppose my basic problem is with the technical language.

Chalcedon (which is the standard, orthodox formula) was framed using Greek philosophical concepts such as "ousia", "hypostasis", "phusis".

But these are static concepts. As is the ferquently quoted belief that God is immutable and/or impassible.

But the question is how can these words be understood today? Ousia and Phusis indicate a fixed stock of characteristics and I ask if anything is so fixed that it is unalterable.

Is not our being and our nature determined by our relationships? Are ousia and phusis something that we ARE rather than something we have?

The Chalcedon conclusion that we believe in "one person having two natures" begs the question of how these two natures operate in practice. Are the miracles of Christ evidence of the Divine nature operating? I would say NO. In face the reverse. But, to hear many Christians talk, it is as though the Divine nature works very much as the Reserve Fuel Tank in an aeroplane! Thats a bit of a caricature but not too far wide of the mark.

But its basically a question of the philosophical categories within which we try to express what it means to be Truly Divine and Truly Human. And we have moved on from the static Greek categories. For instance, to frame that conviction within more modern Process categories offers a more dynamic understanding.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...
Faith without works is dead.

...
But the thread is about "core beliefs" not "core behaviors".

The beatitudes are behaviors, not beliefs.
And the beatitudes come out of the blue.

Nothing to do with Jesus' understanding of the Kingdom of God; and therein, God itself.


[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
We obviously don't both speak the same language. That is why I bow out of a lot of threads here.

I'll leave you to your meanderings.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
We obviously don't both speak the same language. That is why I bow out of a lot of threads here.

I'll leave you to your meanderings.
But, but, but, but, we're called to be all things to all people sharkshooter.

Really mate, you should read your bible instead of meandering in too much doctrine.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...
Doctrine is more suited to teaching than preaching.
Not necessarily. In fact, I prefer a doctrine-based sermon to any other.

Of course, I understand why you would prefer not to teach it - it might show up your disbelief in a basic Christian belief.

The same goes for shamwari. How can one preach doctrine if one does not believe it?
Nowhere did I state 'disbelief'.

People seem to assume one believes either/or - I prefer 'both/and'.

BTW I HAVE preached on doctrine twice this past year: once on the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, once on her Assumption - then again, I focussed primarily upon the readings for those feats.

I am glad that this thread has moved away from islam-bashing.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

I am glad that this thread has moved away from islam-bashing.
sssshhhhhhhhh.

It's a bit touch and go with this lot. Need to keep on the milk, not quite ready for solid food. [Biased]
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...

BTW I HAVE preached on doctrine twice this past year: once on the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, once on her Assumption - then again, I focussed primarily upon the readings for those feats.

...
Interesting that both of those doctrines are not core Christian beliefs, as most protestant denominations do not subscribe to them.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
We obviously don't both speak the same language. That is why I bow out of a lot of threads here.

I'll leave you to your meanderings.
But, but, but, but, we're called to be all things to all people sharkshooter.

Really mate, you should read your bible instead of meandering in too much doctrine.
[Killing me]

Then, sharkshooter, ignore large portions of it and invent wild and radical interpretations for other parts of it.

[Killing me]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Thanks, shamwari - that does help.

But I think you're getting too hung up on the language terms here. It is actually quite clear what the Councils teach, even although they use terms we wouldn't necessarily have come up with ourselves. The two natures thing is really not difficult, I think.

Basically "God-nature and human-nature are clear different things" (to paraphrase the Royal Martyr [Biased] ). And God the Son assumed human nature (i.e., really became a human being) on top of His divine nature (i.e., whilst really remaining God). That's the nub of it, and I don't see how process terms or any other terms could put it better without changing the meaning too much.

The "Athanasian Creed" will get you there too. I don't think the definitions we have from the historic councils could be any simpler or clearer without failing to do justice to (i.e., continuing to make full sense of) the truth about God as we have it from revelation. After all, we're dealing with the mightiest of big mysteries - the nature of God. We should tread carefully on that holy ground.

[ 12. April 2011, 13:26: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...

BTW I HAVE preached on doctrine twice this past year: once on the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, once on her Assumption - then again, I focussed primarily upon the readings for those feats.

...
Interesting that both of those doctrines are not core Christian beliefs, as most protestant denominations do not subscribe to them.
Good point sharkshooter, good point.

The majority is always right.

Jesus tells us that. [Angel]

Especially on the cross.

[Axe murder]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Actually, I believe the majority technically accept those doctrines.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
People seem to assume one believes either/or - I prefer 'both/and'.
Once more for luck: believing Jesus is God & to be worshipped and believing he was only a second-ranking wholly human prophet is an either/or thing. You can't both have your cake and eat it at the same time.

Here's what I'd like to know, though: do you know of any Muslims who are as eager to proclaim Jesus as God as you are to proclaim Muhammad as a prophet? If not, what does that tell you?

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
BTW I HAVE preached on doctrine twice this past year: once on the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, once on her Assumption - then again, I focussed primarily upon the readings for those feats.
And mighty "feats" they were. That aside, your priorities baffle me.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am glad that this thread has moved away from islam-bashing.
What an, um, interesting way of putting it. I've actually expressed respect for the integrity of the Muslim stance here. What's actually happened is that you've almost completely dodged responding to critiques of your baffling position and I can't be bothered pressing you for an answer.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...

BTW I HAVE preached on doctrine twice this past year: once on the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, once on her Assumption - then again, I focussed primarily upon the readings for those feats.

...
Interesting that both of those doctrines are not core Christian beliefs, as most protestant denominations do not subscribe to them.
I am not a protestant!

I just happened to be rota'd for the Feast of the Assumption and I was invited to preach to a Church Union diocesan branch for the Immaculate Conception.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Some way back I posted that God is, by definition, Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent. And added that Jesus was none of these.

All this in response to Sharkshooter saying Jesus is God.

he retorted by accusing me of being unchristian.

So I ask him three questions:

1, Is God Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent?

2. Was Jesus any of these?

3. So in what sense is Jesus God?
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
No, no, and as the central character in the Church's story. Just to add another variant to the mix.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
1. Is God Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent?
Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
2. Was Jesus any of these?
In His divine nature, yes. In His human nature, no. He was always both (which should please leo [Biased] ) from His Incarnation onwards.

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
3. So in what sense is Jesus God?
In the only sense there is: that He exists eternally, consubstantially as God with the Father and the Holy Ghost. He did not stop being God when He took assumed a human nature in His mother's womb and lived and died as a man (with a human intellect, soul and body).

Quick answers to a big mystery. More on Jesus's omniscience here.
 
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :
 
With all due respect, I would say this is a very good indicator as to why we don't recite the Athanasian Creed in worship.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
[Killing me]

Sorry shamwari, Dave Marshall has you from the left and Chesterbelloc from the right.

That dog officially won't hunt.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
With all due respect, I would say this is a very good indicator as to why we don't recite the Athanasian Creed in worship.
I always assumed we didn't recite it in worship because its long, repetitive, and talks too much about damnation. I described it to my catechumenates as the Nicene Creed for Dummies.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...I am not a protestant!
...
But you claim to be a Christian.

If Jesus is God is not a core belief of Christianity, then there is no such definable thing as Christianity. For there is no other belief which differentiates it from all other religions (or lack of religions).
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If Jesus is God is not a core belief of Christianity, then there is no such definable thing as Christianity.
Yep, sounds exactly right. Christianity is a strand of history with fluid boundaries that tend to move according the angle we're looking at it from.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
Paul said:

I Corinthians 15:14

quote:
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

 
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
quote:
I am not a protestant!
Leo, not to be pedantic but you are an Anglican and thus de facto a protestant!
Unless, of course, someone's been rewriting history, the 39 Articles and the offical list of who's in communion with Rome!
Not that this has anything to do with the "who is a prophet? and who is God?" controversy
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...I am not a protestant!
...
But you claim to be a Christian.

If Jesus is God is not a core belief of Christianity, then there is no such definable thing as Christianity. For there is no other belief which differentiates it from all other religions (or lack of religions).
Two problems with this idea.

1) Christianity has to be unique in order to be true.
Such an idea is very un incarnational. To say God is not at work in that which is in common says we must reject that which is common.

2) Caesar was God.
Nothing new in a savior being God.

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Paul said:

I Corinthians 15:14

quote:
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
Plenty of other Gods were raised from the dead and ascended into heaven and were seated at the right hand of God.

Next.

Nothing to see here.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
2) Caesar was God.
Nothing new in a savior being God.
Nope. Caesar was A god. He wasn't the sole, unique, creator of all that is, seen and unseen. It's unfortunate these two concepts go under the same word in English (and, sadly, most other languages). They are very, very different.

quote:
Plenty of other Gods were raised from the dead and ascended into heaven and were seated at the right hand of God.
Such as?

[ 13. April 2011, 13:16: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Also Caesar was most certainly not treated as a god by most Jews, the very people who started Christianity.

And least of all by the Pharasiac party that became the origin of both post-temple rabbinical Judaism (i.e what we might now call mainstream orthodox Judaism which was pretty much the only sort going between the 2nd & 17th centuries AD) and also of Christianity. The two are sister sects, and they come from the people who resisted hellenising, not the ones who encouraged it.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
...If Jesus is God is not a core belief of Christianity, then there is no such definable thing as Christianity. For there is no other belief which differentiates it from all other religions (or lack of religions).
2) Caesar was God.
...
You see, you've just proved my point. Anyone who believes Caesar was God is not a Christian.

Next.
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
Gonna jump in here with a different scenario and see what folks think...

I have a friend who is Muslim, born Muslim, raised Muslim, and still identifies himself as a Muslim. The idea of identifying himself as a Christian is mildly offensive to him.

But he's a follower of Christ. He studies and obeys the Bible, he rejects the Koran (his thoughts on Mohammad are that he may have had genuine revelation at one point, but that the Koran itself is not the Word of God). This guy goes to the Mosque on Fridays to pray, he prays five times a day using the same for as a Muslim would for prayer.

So what is he? He's not a Christian according to him, but not a Muslim according to some of the above posts.

(By the way, not only is this a real guy, but there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands more like him)
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
quote:
I am not a protestant!
Leo, not to be pedantic but you are an Anglican and thus de facto a protestant!the "who is a prophet? and who is God?" controversy
Oh dear, not this one again.

The Anglican Church does not generally understand itself to be 'Protestant' as it believes itself to be a continuation of the English Church before this period. Anglicans often describe themselves as Catholic (but not Roman Catholic) and Reformed (but not Protestant). http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_Protestant_and_Anglican

The Church of England considers itself to be both a Reformed (but not Protestant) and Catholic (but not Roman Catholic) church tradition: Reformed insofar as it has been influenced by many of the principles of the reformation and does not accept Papal authority; Catholic in that it views itself the unbroken continuation of the early apostolic and later mediæval Church rather than a new formation. In its practices, furthermore, the Church of England remains closer to Roman Catholicism than the Protestant Churches. Its theological beliefs are relatively conservative, its form of worship can be quite traditional and ceremonial, and its organisation retains the historical episcopal hierarchy of bishops and dioceses. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Church_of_England

Despite its link with the Protestant break, the Church of England is not considered a Protestant church. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-church-of-england.htm

As the Church of England bases its teachings on the Holy Scriptures, the ancient Catholic teachings of the Church Fathers and some of the doctrinal principles of the Protestant Reformation (as expressed in the 39 Articles and other documents such as the Book of Homilies), Anglicanism can therefore be described as 'Reformed Catholic' in character rather than Protestant
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...

BTW I HAVE preached on doctrine twice this past year: once on the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, once on her Assumption - then again, I focussed primarily upon the readings for those feats.

...
Interesting that both of those doctrines are not core Christian beliefs, as most protestant denominations do not subscribe to them.
Most protestants implicitly believe in the assumption - on the basis that it is what happens to all Christians, presuming that Mary was a Christian.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Gonna jump in here with a different scenario and see what folks think...

I have a friend who is Muslim, born Muslim, raised Muslim, and still identifies himself as a Muslim. The idea of identifying himself as a Christian is mildly offensive to him.

But he's a follower of Christ.
A "completed Muslim"? [Smile]

Am I right in guessing that he is offended by the label "Christian" because of the evil historically done under the label "Christian?" against his people? Some Jews have this problem, to call oneself by the label used to unjustly persecute ones ancestors feels like endorsing the persecution.
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Am I right in guessing that he is offended by the label "Christian" because of the evil historically done under the label "Christian?" against his people? Some Jews have this problem, to call oneself by the label used to unjustly persecute ones ancestors feels like endorsing the persecution.
No, not exactly. Over here your religion and your national identity are one and the same (for about 95% of the people I know at least). To say you're no longer Muslim is to say you're no longer a Turk... both of which will get you ousted from the family and cost you friends. And he doesn't want to be anything other than what he is.. and culturally he is Muslim.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Gonna jump in here with a different scenario and see what folks think...

I have a friend who is Muslim, born Muslim, raised Muslim, and still identifies himself as a Muslim. The idea of identifying himself as a Christian is mildly offensive to him.

[description of person]

(By the way, not only is this a real guy, but there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands more like him)
(a personal view with no authority and little knowledge)

Not sure, I wouldn't blame the mosque for not wanting him to teach sunday school, and treating him as I'd hope to be treated in a mosque. As I understand it he's pretty much deviated from understood Islamic islam (but I may be wrong, it's up to them, and I don't really mind how they see me intellectually)

From your description, If he'd have liked it I'd be happy to number him along Christians. And even without his permission, I think in my head there'd be some internal dissonance.
(again I might be wrong, although this time it concerns me, and will want some evidence)

But if his cousin also did his praying in the church and on Sunday's then I think he (his cousin) is going to have to bite the bullet** and (internally at least) that he is now a follower of Christ, still in islam to God*, but not a member of Islam.

*Conversely a convert the other way could argue that they are following Jesus better than us weirdos who upset him with claims of divinity.

[**That was an ill chosen metaphor, ignore it's historical context in the Indian Mutiny, sorry]

[ 13. April 2011, 17:01: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Most protestants implicitly believe in the assumption - on the basis that it is what happens to all Christians, presuming that Mary was a Christian.
Say what?! Oh boy...

The Catholic dogma of the Assumption is that Our Lady was assumed body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthly life. As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, only two people have even been assumed body-and-soul straight into heaven - Elijah and the BVM. [Our Lord was already resurrected when he ascended.]

As for being a Catholic, not a Protestant: is isn't either to accept Muhammad as a prophet.

Your grasp of your own belief system, whatever it is, seems really shaky if your perfomance on this thread is anything to go by.
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
The Catholic Church doesn't hold to the assumption of Enoch?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The Catholic Church doesn't hold to the assumption of Enoch?
Good question.

You know, to be honest, I'm not sure what the RCC teaches about Enoch's being "taken" by God. I guess that might count as being assumed bodily into heaven.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Most protestants implicitly believe in the assumption - on the basis that it is what happens to all Christians, presuming that Mary was a Christian.
Say what?! Oh boy...

The Catholic dogma of the Assumption is that Our Lady was assumed body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthly life. As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, only two people have even been assumed body-and-soul straight into heaven - Elijah and the BVM. [Our Lord was already resurrected when he ascended.]
...
Protestants do not believe in the assumption of Mary. RD, Orthodox, and some Church of England do, but that's it.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
...So what is he? ...
Confused, I guess. I don't know how a "follower of Jesus" could pray to a false prophet like Muhommad. You cannot serve two masters.

The right to say who is a Christian rests with Jesus. The purpose of this thread is not to say "You're in; but, you're out." but to ascertain what beliefs are core to Christianity.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
[x-p/d with sharkshooter's latest]

Well, quite.

If assumption were "what happens to all Christians" there'd be a lot more ground for growing potatoes in. It's either a deeply confused understanding of what is meant by the Assumption, or a deeply bizarre claim.

[ 13. April 2011, 17:37: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
...So what is he? ...
Confused, I guess. I don't know how a "follower of Jesus" could pray to a false prophet like Muhommad. You cannot serve two masters.

The right to say who is a Christian rests with Jesus. The purpose of this thread is not to say "You're in; but, you're out." but to ascertain what beliefs are core to Christianity.
Well, no Muslim I know prays to Mohammad... they pray to Allah, which is simply the Arabic word for God. Even Arab Christians pray to Allah. When I pray in Turkish, I also pray to Allah if I'm directing my prayers to the entire Trinity... simply because there isn't a better word to use.

When he's in the mosque he prays to God as he understands God... he also prays specifically to the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit at different points of time in the ritual.

I guess the point I was getting at is, do you have to actually call it "Christianity" to be within the core of our generally held beliefs?
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
...I have a friend who is Muslim, born Muslim, raised Muslim, and still identifies himself as a Muslim. The idea of identifying himself as a Christian is mildly offensive to him.

But he's a follower of Christ. He studies and obeys the Bible, he rejects the Koran (his thoughts on Mohammad are that he may have had genuine revelation at one point, but that the Koran itself is not the Word of God). This guy goes to the Mosque on Fridays to pray, he prays five times a day using the same for as a Muslim would for prayer.

So what is he? He's not a Christian according to him, but not a Muslim according to some of the above posts.

...
I stand corrected on my error about Muslims praying to Mohammed. Sorry.

Your friend identifies himself as a Muslim, lives like a Muslim, prays like a Muslim, and refuses to call himself a Christian. Sort of answers it, doesn't it?

My brother has lived in Muslim-dominated countries for over 25 years. In his experience, Arab Christians identify themselves as Christians, do not go to the mosque, or follow other Muslim traditions, such as the prayer routine.

[By the way, in a previous post, I made a typo. I typed RD, when I meant RC - Roman Catholic. Sorry for any confusion.]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
...I have a friend who is Muslim, born Muslim, raised Muslim, and still identifies himself as a Muslim. The idea of identifying himself as a Christian is mildly offensive to him.

But he's a follower of Christ. He studies and obeys the Bible, he rejects the Koran (his thoughts on Mohammad are that he may have had genuine revelation at one point, but that the Koran itself is not the Word of God). This guy goes to the Mosque on Fridays to pray, he prays five times a day using the same for as a Muslim would for prayer.

So what is he? He's not a Christian according to him, but not a Muslim according to some of the above posts.

...
I stand corrected on my error about Muslims praying to Mohammed. Sorry.

Your friend identifies himself as a Muslim, lives like a Muslim, prays like a Muslim, and refuses to call himself a Christian. Sort of answers it, doesn't it?

My brother has lived in Muslim-dominated countries for over 25 years. In his experience, Arab Christians identify themselves as Christians, do not go to the mosque, or follow other Muslim traditions, such as the prayer routine.

[By the way, in a previous post, I made a typo. I typed RD, when I meant RC - Roman Catholic. Sorry for any confusion.]
This sounds very similar to Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus - indeed for the early Christians who worshipped in the temple and weren't named 'Christians'.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Your grasp of your own belief system, whatever it is, seems really shaky if your perfomance on this thread is anything to go by.
No - I think it is YOUR grasp of MY beliefs that is shaky. Your god seems extremely narrow.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[x-p/d with sharkshooter's latest]

Well, quite.

If assumption were "what happens to all Christians" there'd be a lot more ground for growing potatoes in. It's either a deeply confused understanding of what is meant by the Assumption, or a deeply bizarre claim.
So the Anglican RC Commision is also bizarre when it states: Viewed eschatologically, Mary thus embodies the ‘elect Israel’ of whom Paul speaks - glorified, justified, called, predestined. This is the pattern of grace and hope which we see at work in the life of Mary, who holds a distinctive place in the common destiny of the Church ???

Or: The pattern of hope and grace already foreshadowed in Mary will be fulfilled in the new creation in Christ when all the redeemed will participate in the full glory of the Lord (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:18).

If you think ARCIC isn't kosher, then an RC source: The pattern of hope and grace already foreshadowed in Mary will be fulfilled in the new creation in Christ when all the redeemed will participate in the full glory of the Lord (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:18). here.

Or: As we celebrate her Assumption – which prefigures our own reception into heaven at the general resurrection on the Last Day (Fr. Allan McDonald)

Or a sermon in the Archdiocese of Washington:The assumption of our bodies, prefigured by Christ in his own power and also in Mary by the gift of God, will one day be our gift too.

Or holy scripture: For we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”…….Thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 15:51-57)

He will take these lowly bodies of ours and transform them to be like his own glorified body. (Phil 3:21)
But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body…..So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; …..And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. (1 Cor 15:35-49) Archdiocese of Washington
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:


So the Anglican RC Commision is also bizarre when it states: Viewed eschatologically, Mary thus embodies the ‘elect Israel’ of whom Paul speaks - glorified, justified, called, predestined. This is the pattern of grace and hope which we see at work in the life of Mary, who holds a distinctive place in the common destiny of the Church ???

Or: The pattern of hope and grace already foreshadowed in Mary will be fulfilled in the new creation in Christ when all the redeemed will participate in the full glory of the Lord (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:18).

If you think ARCIC isn't kosher, then an RC source: The pattern of hope and grace already foreshadowed in Mary will be fulfilled in the new creation in Christ when all the redeemed will participate in the full glory of the Lord (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:18). here.

Or: As we celebrate her Assumption – which prefigures our own reception into heaven at the general resurrection on the Last Day (Fr. Allan McDonald)

Or a sermon in the Archdiocese of Washington:The assumption of our bodies, prefigured by Christ in his own power and also in Mary by the gift of God, will one day be our gift too.
...
I may be reading in my understanding of the Catholic/Orthodox doctrine.
However all your quotes seem to contrast
Jesus (done by self)
Mary (done by Jesus)
Us and the Church (awaited by Jesus)

Personally, I'm of the view that where Mary leads, St Peter...(dead friends) aren't far behind, although as going against the majority of the Christian population, I wouldn't bet much (being Protestant, I've already gone against once anyway).
Quite how that fits in with Heaven and the general Resurrection, etc, I'm not sure.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
leo, it's late and I've just seen your posts. Once again, your sources (none of which i disagree with) don't say what you seem to think.

I'll keep this short - I'm not promising sweet.

Everyone but Mary (and Elijah and maybe Enoch), including all the other saints: dies and their bodies lie "in the cold, cold ground", rotting away until the general resurrection.

Mary: dies (or maybe doesn't even die) and is immediately taken "up" body and soul into heaven to be with her Son - gloriously embodied right from the end of her earthly life (as the just shall be only after the general resurrection). There are no bodliy remains of our Lady because her body - like her Son's - is now in heaven.

This is what the doctrine of the Assumption is all about - that astounding privilege granted to our Lady by her Son. Our fate is very different and we only reach her destination, if at all, after our bodies are separated from our souls and raised from the corruption of the grave - a fate which she suffered in the first place.

Protestants, including most of your own co-religionists, do not hold this to be true. The name of the doctrine you're looking for to describe every one being "assumed" is actually the general resurrection - in which many (most?) of our protestant breth-&-sist-ren do believe.

I'm astonished anyone who purports to celebrate this feast could need this pointed out to them.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
...The name of the doctrine you're looking for to describe every one being "assumed" is actually the general resurrection - in which many (most?) of our protestant breth-&-sist-ren do believe.

I'm astonished anyone who purports to celebrate this feast could need this pointed out to them.
I was wondering if leo was telling us he was a pre-tribulation rapturist.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
2) Caesar was God.
Nothing new in a savior being God.
Nope. Caesar was A god. He wasn't the sole, unique, creator of all that is, seen and unseen. It's unfortunate these two concepts go under the same word in English (and, sadly, most other languages). They are very, very different.
To a monotheist, certainly.

As trinitarians, we kind of sit between strict monotheism and polytheism.

Jesus is God, but he is also not God, he's a human being. But the same could be said of Caesar.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Plenty of other Gods were raised from the dead and ascended into heaven and were seated at the right hand of God.
Such as?
Mithra, Attis... We had a long thread on this a while back. Lots of people with more ancient history knowledge than me brought up a myriad connections between other religions and christianity.

Virgin births are absolutely nothing special for example.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
...If Jesus is God is not a core belief of Christianity, then there is no such definable thing as Christianity. For there is no other belief which differentiates it from all other religions (or lack of religions).
2) Caesar was God.
...
You see, you've just proved my point. Anyone who believes Caesar was God is not a Christian.

[Killing me]


That wasn't your point.

Your point was that our saviour being God is the only thing that distinguishes us from other religions and that somehow makes us True.

I was trying to point out it's not that distinctive but that to say something is distinctive does not necessarily make it true anyways.

Or if I'm wrong, and your point was as long as you think Jesus is God and not someone else, then for those Christians that don't believe Jesus is God, but don't call anyone else god, do they end up religion-less?
[Razz]

[ 14. April 2011, 05:49: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
quote:
Plenty of other Gods were raised from the dead and ascended into heaven and were seated at the right hand of God.
Such as?
Mithra, Attis... We had a long thread on this a while back. Lots of people with more ancient history knowledge than me brought up a myriad connections between other religions and christianity.
Most of which, as I recall, were disproven. I don't watch videos; and besides anybody can say anything they want on a video. You got something with real words, that actually tells me where I can look this stuff up? Certainly the Wiki page on Mithra says nothing at all about ascending into heaven and sitting down at the right hand of God. Says he became the sun-god; is that what you mean? That's really lame.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
quote:
Plenty of other Gods were raised from the dead and ascended into heaven and were seated at the right hand of God.
Such as?
Mithra, Attis... We had a long thread on this a while back. Lots of people with more ancient history knowledge than me brought up a myriad connections between other religions and christianity.
Most of which, as I recall, were disproven.
Really? I remember it differently.

Could start with this list of resurrected gods:


* Australian Aboriginal mythology
o Julunggul
o Wawalag
* Akkadian mythology
o Tammuz
o Ishtar
* Arabian mythology
o Phoenix
* Aztec mythology
o Quetzalcoatl
o Xipe Totec
* Canaanite mythology
o Melqart
* Middle eastern mythology
o Jesus

* Dacian mythology
o Zalmoxis
* Egyptian mythology
o Osiris
o Amun
o Amun-Min (Amen-Min)
* Etruscan mythology
o Atunis -Also known as "Adonis" (Greek)
* Greek mythology
o Adonis
o Cronus
o Dionysus
o Orpheus
o Persephone




Indian Mythology

*
o Kali
o Shiva
o Chinnamasta


Or the Resurrection entry.

Comparing Christianity with Ancient Greek religion:

quote:
The parallel between these traditional beliefs and the later resurrection of Jesus was not lost on the early Christians, as Justin Martyr argued: “when we say … Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus.” (1 Apol. 21).

 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I was wondering if leo was telling us he was a pre-tribulation rapturist.
Yeah, me too - which was what my potato-field quip was hinting at. Ah well.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Sorry - just spotted a typo form last night. I mean to say:
quote:
we only reach [Mary's] destination, if at all, after our bodies are separated from our souls and raised from the corruption of the grave - a fate which she never suffered in the first place.

 
Posted by jpastor (# 15005) on :
 
Well, won't all the doctrines in the world be inaccurate if this one question cannot be accurately answered first? :

WHAT IS GOD?

Look forward to t definition to this...
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...Or if I'm wrong, and your point was as long as you think Jesus is God and not someone else, then for those Christians that don't believe Jesus is God, but don't call anyone else god, do they end up religion-less?
[Razz]
Now you've got it.

There is no such thing as a Christian who does not believe Jesus is God.

That's why I said it is a (the?) core belief.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Now see what you've all done. I've been carefully avoiding this thread, and then in an idle lunchtime looked at this last page.

Problem is, you've got to be awfully clever to believe stuff, because people keep coming and asking what you believe and what it all means. I'm not sure I believe anything very much. I just do as I'm told and try to get on with things. I've looked through the Big Book of Jesus and I can't see where he says we've got to keep trying to explain him all the time.
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Jesus is God, but he is also not God, he's a human being.
Err, no. Since when has it been impossible to be a human being and God at the same time? Jesus is fully man and fully God at the same time: this is vey old doctrine.

If being a man is incompatible with being God, you're denying the possibility of incarnation a priori. Where did you get this nugget of philosophy from? I'm pretty sure it wasn't from the Bible.
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm not sure I believe anything very much. I just do as I'm told and try to get on with things. I've looked through the Big Book of Jesus and I can't see where he says we've got to keep trying to explain him all the time.
Here's a proof text for you [Razz]

To expand on my last point, the problem with Evensong deciding who can and can't be god based on some piece of philosophy outwith the bible, is that it makes Christianity beholden to some other belief system. As was said upthread, we need to decide who or what God is before we can talk about these questions. It's not possible to talk about the Christian God unless we use the Christian concept of God, otherwise we're talking at cross puposes. Hence, extra-biblical ideas of god can't inform on whether the Jesus in the gospels was or was not the biblical God.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As trinitarians, we kind of sit between strict monotheism and polytheism.
No, we don't. We are monotheists who believe in one God in three Persons. We do not believe there are three Gods. The Godhead is indivisible. There are both three Persons and at the same time only one God.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Jesus is God, but he is also not God, he's a human being. But the same could be said of Caesar.
That's not true either. Rather, the Son, second Person of the most holy and undivided Trinity, has two natures: one divine and one human. Jesus is both fully human (as the man Jesus) and fully divine (as the Son) at the same time.

All these both/ands should really please leo. [Biased]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm not sure I believe anything very much. I just do as I'm told and try to get on with things. I've looked through the Big Book of Jesus and I can't see where he says we've got to keep trying to explain him all the time.
Here's a proof text for you [Razz]
Well that's apostles for you. Talk, talk, talk. There's no shutting them up.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jpastor:
Well, won't all the doctrines in the world be inaccurate if this one question cannot be accurately answered first? :

WHAT IS GOD?

Look forward to t definition to this...
Hello jpastor. Nice to see new blood surface. [Smile]

A good question, but probably one too big for the scope of this thread?

Start another one!

But of course all doctrines in the world will be only approximations.

Because we know God only in part now.

Btw, Jesus and Paul had a few things to say about doctrine:

quote:
“This people honours me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines.”
8You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.’
quote:
Ephesians 4.14:

We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming.
[Biased]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Now you've got it.
No. I'm afraid I still don't get it.

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

There is no such thing as a Christian who does not believe Jesus is God.

Why not? I'm afraid you've stated the idea often but haven't explained why it's so crucial to a Christian identity.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

There is no such thing as a Christian who does not believe Jesus is God.

Why not? I'm afraid you've stated the idea often but haven't explained why it's so crucial to a Christian identity.
He has, actually, and so have I:
quote:
Try: numbers x years x centrality x across other jurisdictional/denominational differences x definedness/settledness x explanatory success x some other stuff = core. If it ain't core NOTHING is. Hard-core, in fact.
What other meaningful criteria for "core" do you suggest? You've mentioned the Sermon on the MOunt - all of it - as being core, but since many Chritians call into many of the hard sayings there, and since many non-Christians would accept huge chunks of it, what criteria are you using to judge that "core" and the Incarnation/Trinity not?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Sorry - just spotted a typo form last night. I mean to say:
quote:
we only reach [Mary's] destination, if at all, after our bodies are separated from our souls and raised from the corruption of the grave - a fate which she never suffered in the first place.
Strange how all the Roman Catholics I quoted seemed to misunderstand it too.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Really? Alright then, leo - show me where they said we would all be assumed bodily into heaven at our deaths then.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

There is no such thing as a Christian who does not believe Jesus is God.

Why not? I'm afraid you've stated the idea often but haven't explained why it's so crucial to a Christian identity.
He has, actually, and so have I:
quote:
Try: numbers x years x centrality x across other jurisdictional/denominational differences x definedness/settledness x explanatory success x some other stuff = core. If it ain't core NOTHING is. Hard-core, in fact.
This sounds like it's core because it's tradition.

That still doesn't explain why it's core because it doesn't explain what it means to believe Jesus is God.

And btw, that's different from what sharkshooter said, which was:


quote:
If Jesus is God is not a core belief of Christianity, then there is no such definable thing as Christianity. For there is no other belief which differentiates it from all other religions (or lack of religions).
But I apparently misunderstood.

It's not that Jesus was God that is definitive, it's that Jesus was God.

And that's fair enough.

Since we have lots of different Gods floating around.

Gotta choose one.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...It's not that Jesus was God that is definitive, it's that Jesus was God.

And that's fair enough.

Since we have lots of different Gods floating around.

Gotta choose one.
You must live in Ontario and be enjoying your new-found freedom to smoke marijuana, because you seem to be unable to understand simple concepts.

Jesus is* God.

There are no other Gods**.

* was, is, and always will be.

** there are many false gods, but Christians dismiss them all as not being God.

This is what differentiates Christianity from all other religions.

Well, I think I have said that more than a dozen times, so I'll stop here.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
That still doesn't explain why it's core because it doesn't explain what it means to believe Jesus is God.
I've already explained what is meant by "Jesus is God": that He was God from everlasting (with the Father and the Holy Ghost), our Creator, who whilst remaining God became a human being named Jesus.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Missed this bit:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
This sounds like it's core because it's tradition.
So how did it become such an important part of the tradition?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I see you've ceded the "everybody's god ascended into heaven and is sitting down at the right hand of the father" nonsense, Evensong. Well and good.

Dying and rising to life is part of the fabric of the world. Small wonder it should be echoed in other religions. Lewis has it right here.

The sole invisible creator God becoming a man? Not nearly so prevalent, if only because religions having a sole invisible creator God are thin on the ground. But being *A* god and being *GOD* are completely different, as I pointed out and which you have not addressed. Calling Caesar "a god" and saying Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate aren't even on the same page.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Really? Alright then, leo - show me where they said we would all be assumed bodily into heaven at our deaths then.
They said her destiny was ours also - as I have already quoted
 
Posted by BalddudeCrompond (# 12152) on :
 
Isn't the Rapture (not that I believe it, per se, the way it's thought of) the physical assumuption of the bodies of the righteous? Why then do Evo's have a hard time accepting that the BVM just went ahead of us?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Really? Alright then, leo - show me where they said we would all be assumed bodily into heaven at our deaths then.
They said her destiny was ours also - as I have already quoted
Come off it, leo - you know what I'm talking about. I've made my point very explicit.

You said that protestants believed in the Assumption of Mary because that's exactly what happens to all of us. I pointed out repeatedly that that's false: we are not at death immediately assumed body and soul into heaven. I mean, that's glaringly obvious. We first have to suffer a separation of our souls and bodies, which she never did. Her Assumption was very special and all but unique.

None of the writers you quoted supported your claim - only that we would one day, after death and the general resurrection be with Our Lord and Mary body-and-soul in heaven (if judged fit).

So which is it: you misunderstood the doctrine of the Assumption and the authors you quoted, or you think everyone is "raptured" at death?
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
I would simply ask Chesterbelloc what is the Biblical evidence for either the bodily assumption of Mary or the immaculate conception of Mary.

I fully expect to be told that this is the Tradition which is to be believed.
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
Why then do Evo's have a hard time accepting that the BVM just went ahead of us?
I doubt many would say it's impossible. Rather, that there is no scriptural support for such a fleshed out doctrine (the RCC thinks there is though, but it's pretty...ermmm...sketchy in comparison to most things). Add in the general avoidance of Mary-related things in the prot. churches, such as anything about Mary being sinless, perpetual virginity, etc,...

Note that you talk about the Blessed Virgin Mary, and most others just say Mary. She holds a special place for Protestants, but generally far lower than the RCC would place her.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I would simply ask Chesterbelloc what is the Biblical evidence for either the bodily assumption of Mary or the immaculate conception of Mary.
I'll give you an answer as soon as I've heard back from leo.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Not sure how the answer to my question is contingent on Leo's response to another.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I would simply ask Chesterbelloc what is the Biblical evidence for either the bodily assumption of Mary or the immaculate conception of Mary.

I fully expect to be told that this is the Tradition which is to be believed.
I don't look to the bible, solely, for 'evidence' but there are plenty of hints:

Revelation 12

2 Corinthians 3:18: we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another

John 17 22, 24: The glory which thou hast given to me, I have given to them . . . Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given to me, may be with me where I am.

Ephesians 2:6 (God) raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

And Romans 8:30 “those whom God predestined he also called; those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified”

Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. And before you were born, I consecrated you’ Jer. 1:5

God….had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace Galatians 1:15

God chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless. Ephesians 1:4
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Not sure how the answer to my question is contingent on Leo's response to another.
To repeat: As we celebrate her Assumption – which prefigures our own reception into heaven at the general resurrection on the Last Day (Fr. Allan McDonald)

Or a sermon in the Archdiocese of Washington:The assumption of our bodies, prefigured by Christ in his own power and also in Mary by the gift of God, will one day be our gift too.

Are these RCs preaching heresy?

Or are you misunderstanding the teaching of the church?
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Not sure how the answer to my question is contingent on Leo's response to another.
To repeat: As we celebrate her Assumption – which prefigures our own reception into heaven at the general resurrection on the Last Day (Fr. Allan McDonald)
...
Are these RCs preaching heresy?
Or are you misunderstanding the teaching of the church?
But they are not saying the same thing as you appear to be saying.

According to your posts above
a) What happened/happens/will happen to Mary, when?
b) What happened/happens/will happen to everyone else, when?

According to Chesterbolloc?
a) as above
b) as above

According to Fr Allen
a) as above?
b) as above?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
God is outside time so the 'when' is irrelevant.

As for the 'how', the RCC is obsessed with detail. Hence the definition of transubstantiation. I personally believe in it but don't think it is an article of faith as long as we believe in the real presence.

I prefer 'Thou are here, we ask not how.'
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Leo: I fail to see how any of the texts you quoted (as hints admittedly) have any direct or specific reference to the doctrines of the bodily Assumption or the immaculate conception of Mary.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Answer my questions, leo, or at least have the decency to tell me you have no intention of doing so, so that I can stop wasting my time.

Please start with this one: where do any of the sources you quoted* say that we are all (or any of us) assumed body and soul into heaven at our deaths as Our Lady was at (or before) hers.


Thanks.

*I agree with every one of them. None of them, as far a s I can see, is in tension with the doctrine of the Assumption as the Church defines it.

[ 14. April 2011, 21:53: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I would simply ask Chesterbelloc what is the Biblical evidence for either the bodily assumption of Mary or the immaculate conception of Mary.
I'll give you an answer as soon as I've heard back from leo.
There are texts which the Church uses to support the doctrines, but they are not presented as proof-texts.

Catholics believe these doctrines because: they are in accord with Tradition (including the Scriptures and most of the Fathers); they speak eloquently of Mary's place in the salvation of her Son's people; concerning some points they have been the subject of visions of Our Lady which the Church has recognised as authentic; and, conclusively for Catholics, they have been most solemnly defined by the Church excercising her divine teaching charism.

I doubt any of these of these will count as convincing reasons by non-Catholics or non-Orthodox.

But to say any more would radically derail the thread, as even Catholics do not claim these doctrines (though they be infallibly proclaimed and as such require the assent all Catholics) constitute the "core" of Christian belief.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Leo: I fail to see how any of the texts you quoted (as hints admittedly) have any direct or specific reference to the doctrines of the bodily Assumption or the immaculate conception of Mary.
If you want the bible to spell everything out, then you'll be disappointed.

Some of the references, e.g. the Revelation one, speak symbolically of the church in heaven and, thereby, of the mother of the church.

Others talk about prevenient grace.

The ARCIC document on Mary spells out the scriptural material. You might find it helpful to read in full.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

There is no such thing as a Christian who does not believe Jesus is God.

Why not? I'm afraid you've stated the idea often but haven't explained why it's so crucial to a Christian identity.
He has, actually, and so have I:
quote:
Try: numbers x years x centrality x across other jurisdictional/denominational differences x definedness/settledness x explanatory success x some other stuff = core. If it ain't core NOTHING is. Hard-core, in fact.
What other meaningful criteria for "core" do you suggest? You've mentioned the Sermon on the MOunt - all of it - as being core, but since many Chritians call into many of the hard sayings there, and since many non-Christians would accept huge chunks of it, what criteria are you using to judge that "core" and the Incarnation/Trinity not?
Good question about criteria.

I think I've figured it out for me.

When Jesus was asked a similar question, he said it was to love God and love neighbour.

I think that's core.

And I think Matthew 5 and the Kingdom of God both come under that.

But each to their own.

As you were.

Personally, I don't find church doctrine particularly satisfying.

Strange that. Must make me an Evangelical.

Which is weird. Because Gamaliel recently called me a liberal fascist. *

[Big Grin]

(* which I thought was kind of cool)

[ 15. April 2011, 14:18: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
When Jesus was asked a similar question, he said it was to love God and love neighbour.

I think that's core.
...
Personally, I don't find church doctrine particularly satisfying.
I think two separate concepts are involved in this discussion. Let me put it this way:

There are people who call themselves Christian, recite creeds or statements of faith, read the Bible, attend church, and through all that describe a god whose personality is not the God I worship. A God who is looking forward with glee to finding excuses to send as many as possible to a hell of eternal torment so he can enjoy listening to their screams of pain, for example, is not the God I admire and enjoy. It seems to me there are Christians who use the story of Christianity to worship a god who cannot be described by the phrase "God is love."

And I expect there are people participating in worship in the style and using the stories of other religious systems who have concluded what matters is love - not just for family and friends and times when there's no cost, but also for neighbors and enemies and times when it means giving up everything. I.e., from God's viewpoint, they "get" what life and God is all about.

If there is a limited admission to heaven (whatever "heaven" means), I expect the ones admitted will be the ones who "get" it, who adopt (or try to) love as the guiding principle in all circumstances with all people, rather than the ones who run their lives by principles inconsistent with love, even if they claim to agreed with the ancient creeds of the Christian church.

The set of those who are "Christian" in the list of intellectual beliefs (including the historical story about Jesus walking this earth), and the set of those who understand God as love and try to live in accordance with love, overlap; but neither set wholly includes the other.

Which leaves the puzzle that has intrigued me for some years - what about the atheist who embraces love as the rule but naturally fails to "love God" because s/he does nor believe in any gods. (I know my answer.) [Smile]

[ 15. April 2011, 15:48: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
[x-p'd with Belle Ringer]

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Good question about criteria.

I think I've figured it out for me.

When Jesus was asked a similar question, he said it was to love God and love neighbour.

I think that's core.
I agree that this, Jesus's new formulation of the law, is a core teaching. But I'm not sure that it yields a criterion for other "core" doctrines.

This in part is because it requires an idea of God - who He is, what being is being referred to by the apellation "God" - to cash it out. So Christianity's answer to who God is takes us right back to the Incarnation and the Trinity.

But also, pretty much everything else is down to either love of God and/or love of neibour depending on interpretation - which might make the "core" a bit big!
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc to leo:
Please [answer] this one: where do any of the sources you quoted say that we are all (or any of us) assumed body and soul into heaven at our deaths as Our Lady was at (or before) hers.


Thanks.
quote:
leo's response:

[*tumbleweed*]

I'll take this as a "no", shall I?
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Which leaves the puzzle that has intrigued me for some years - what about the atheist who embraces love as the rule but naturally fails to "love God" because s/he does nor believe in any gods. (I know my answer.) [Smile]
I'm with you.

Going to Church (or believing certain things but not living them) Doesn't Make You a Christian Any More Than Standing in a Garage Makes You a Car.

The only trouble with the above scenario of the Atheist is they're missing out on the love God part; which is the bonus and the grace. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

But also, pretty much everything else is down to either love of God and/or love of neibour depending on interpretation - which might make the "core" a bit big!
What's the problem with a big core?

Are you after a small, select club in heaven?
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

There is no such thing as a Christian who does not believe Jesus is God.

Why not? I'm afraid you've stated the idea often but haven't explained why it's so crucial to a Christian identity.
He has, actually, and so have I:
quote:
Try: numbers x years x centrality x across other jurisdictional/denominational differences x definedness/settledness x explanatory success x some other stuff = core. If it ain't core NOTHING is. Hard-core, in fact.
What other meaningful criteria for "core" do you suggest? You've mentioned the Sermon on the MOunt - all of it - as being core, but since many Chritians call into many of the hard sayings there, and since many non-Christians would accept huge chunks of it, what criteria are you using to judge that "core" and the Incarnation/Trinity not?
Good question about criteria.

I think I've figured it out for me.

When Jesus was asked a similar question, he said it was to love God and love neighbour.

I think that's core.

And I think Matthew 5 and the Kingdom of God both come under that.

But each to their own.

As you were.

Personally, I don't find church doctrine particularly satisfying.

Strange that. Must make me an Evangelical.

Which is weird. Because Gamaliel recently called me a liberal fascist. *

[Big Grin]

(* which I thought was kind of cool)
We actually don't need Jesus for the Two Great Commandments. The first part is in Deuteronomy 6 and the second part is in Leviticus 19.

What distinguishes Christianity IMHO is that it states that Jesus is more than just a teacher. Plenty of non-Christians would readily admit that Jesus was a great teacher, including quite a few atheists and agnostics. The exclusivity at the core of the Christian claim is not simply that Jesus is a great teacher, but as Lord he superceeds all other teachers.

The divinity of Christ is a further development from this core concept. Most Christians confess that he is God, because as God, Jesus Christ is not just a teacher pointing to Wisdom, but Wisdom himself. As in, He does not say "Here is Truth", but he says "I am truth, I am the way."

Having written that, I just hit the nail on the Christian difficulty with interfaith relationships. Does Christian engagement with other faiths necessitates a putting aside of this core belief? It's an interesting theological question, and no, I don't know the answer. [Razz]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
We actually don't need Jesus for the Two Great Commandments. The first part is in Deuteronomy 6 and the second part is in Leviticus 19.
So why did he say it then?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Depends on what you mean by engagement.
It doesn't prevent learning about what others believe and why. However, like I've said before, claiming the divinity of Christ prevents us from accepting the nice and respectable elephant analogy as a justification for interfaith dialogue.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
We actually don't need Jesus for the Two Great Commandments. The first part is in Deuteronomy 6 and the second part is in Leviticus 19.
So why did he say it then?
Coz he was asked what the (OT) Scriptures said.

More seriously, in variations this has been recognised as a key belief by not only (Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, etc...), the other Rabbi's they were interacting also taught variations, and even Confucius has something similar.

However as you and JPastor have observed, the question of what is God? who is my neighbour (Christian's have that one answered)? how do I love? then spin into play.
Even before this is overlaid by my greed and self-interest.

Pretty much every thread on the board is on implementation, and clashes of this.
Which is where the 'case law'/'background' we recognise as authoritative starts to distinguish us, along with temperament, local history etc....
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc to leo:
Please [answer] this one: where do any of the sources you quoted say that we are all (or any of us) assumed body and soul into heaven at our deaths as Our Lady was at (or before) hers.


Thanks.
quote:
leo's response:

[*tumbleweed*]

I'll take this as a "no", shall I?
It's getting like the Spanish Inquisition here.
 
Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :
 
Totally unexpectedly...
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Our fate is very different and we only reach her destination, if at all, after our bodies are separated from our souls
What's with all this body/soul dualism?

All very Greek, not Christian.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
leo, even if I could be certain of getting you to answer my questions by the judicious use of thumscrews and the rack, I'm equally sure that my time could be better (if not more satifyingly) spent. It is your prerogative to evade my queries. It makes for a rather frustrating dialogue though.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Our fate is very different and we only reach her destination, if at all, after our bodies are separated from our souls
What's with all this body/soul dualism?

All very Greek, not Christian.
Says you. Not so says, for example, defined Roman Catholic teaching.

But in a triumph of hope over experience, let me ask you just a couple more questions (bolded for your convenience): what do you think happens at our deaths and before the general resurrection then?

On another recent thread you admitted that it only made sense to ask the prayers of the saints if they were in some state of conscious awareness of our requests, but they are not (Our Lady excepted) currently embodied, yes?

So how do you square your condescending scepticism above with your practice of asking the saints' intercession?

[ 16. April 2011, 17:01: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But also, pretty much everything else is down to either love of God and/or love of neibour depending on interpretation - which might make the "core" a bit big!
What's the problem with a big core?

Are you after a small, select club in heaven?
I don't see how these two question follow. By "big core" I meant that if you include everything in the Sermon on the Mount in the "core" you'll end up with a lot of belief requirements. I'd have thought it would be the opposite to what you suggest - the more stuff is in the core of Christianity, the more challenging believing it all will be.

And I still don't see how, say, the absolute prohibition on divorce makes your "core" whilst the Incarnation/Trinity doesn't.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
,,,
And I still don't see how, say, the absolute prohibition on divorce makes your "core" whilst the Incarnation/Trinity doesn't.
According to evensong, everyone who has divorced is not a Christian.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
My ears itched and I discovered that Evensong has name-checked me.

I'm glad you thought my comment was cool. But I made it on a bad day when I was all Mr Angry.

I'm trying to be all sweet and cuddly now.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Our fate is very different and we only reach her destination, if at all, after our bodies are separated from our souls
What's with all this body/soul dualism?

All very Greek, not Christian. [/qb][/QUOTE]Says you. Not so says, for example, defined Roman Catholic teaching.

But in a triumph of hope over experience, let me ask you just a couple more questions (bolded for your convenience): what do you think happens at our deaths and before the general resurrection then?[/b] [/QB][/QUOTE]
The 'soul' is not an idea in Hebrew or Greek scriptures - though the word is use to mistranslate various words like nephesh and psyche.

God is outside time so the question is irrelevant.

I assume that we live on in the mind of God until he recreates us - on the lines of 1 Cor 15.

You seem to want certainty - faith is more exciting.

We are now at the start of Holy Week where we are invited to live the issues rather than speculate about them and natter endlessly.

[ 16. April 2011, 19:09: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Could someone kindly fix leo's code? I really wouldn't want our respective comments confused.

Thanks.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I don't see how these two question follow. By "big core" I meant that if you include everything in the Sermon on the Mount in the "core" you'll end up with a lot of belief requirements. I'd have thought it would be the opposite to what you suggest - the more stuff is in the core of Christianity, the more challenging believing it all will be.
Who said Christianity was easy? [Ultra confused]

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
,,,
And I still don't see how, say, the absolute prohibition on divorce makes your "core" whilst the Incarnation/Trinity doesn't.
According to evensong, everyone who has divorced is not a Christian.
No.

Drawing the line in the sand in judgment of who is in and who is out of the Kingdom is anathema to me; that's God's business.

And to show my magnanimity, I even think you are a Christian sharkshooter.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My ears itched and I discovered that Evensong has name-checked me.

I'm glad you thought my comment was cool. But I made it on a bad day when I was all Mr Angry.

I'm trying to be all sweet and cuddly now.
[Big Grin]

Fear not. Beeswax Altar has taken me down a peg or two privately. He called me a fogey radical.

[Eek!]

May the Lord have mercy on my soul
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
We actually don't need Jesus for the Two Great Commandments. The first part is in Deuteronomy 6 and the second part is in Leviticus 19.
So why did he say it then?
Did he only say new and unique things otherwise?
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
We actually don't need Jesus for the Two Great Commandments. The first part is in Deuteronomy 6 and the second part is in Leviticus 19.
So why did he say it then?
Did he only say new and unique things otherwise?
No. He just got them right.

You know, fulfilled them. All that messiah stuff.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
what do you think happens at our deaths and before the general resurrection then?
I assume that we live on in the mind of God until he recreates us - on the lines of 1 Cor 15.
Setting aside the fact that we are not "recreated" but resurrected, how is your "living on in the mid of God" different from my (temporarily) disembodied existence in a conscious state? I assume you accept that we lose embodiedness at death but that we remain in a state to hear and say prayers, since you ask the saints for theirs, so is this not hair-splitting? Or is your "living on in the mind of God" something very different?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We are now at the start of Holy Week where we are invited to live the issues rather than speculate about them [...].
False dichotomy. I find I can manage both.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
what do you think happens at our deaths and before the general resurrection then?
I assume that we live on in the mind of God until he recreates us - on the lines of 1 Cor 15.
Setting aside the fact that we are not "recreated" but resurrected, how is your "living on in the mid of God" different from my (temporarily) disembodied existence in a conscious state? I assume you accept that we lose embodiedness at death but that we remain in a state to hear and say prayers, since you ask the saints for theirs, so is this not hair-splitting? Or is your "living on in the mind of God" something very different?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We are now at the start of Holy Week where we are invited to live the issues rather than speculate about them [...].
False dichotomy. I find I can manage both.
I used the term 'recreated' because that is how Paul envisages it in 1 Corinthians 15, especially 37And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. ....So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable

It is also behind the talk of a 'new creation' in the Apocalypse.

As for living the questions in Holy Week, you may also have time for speculation. I don't - too many liturgies to prepare for and lead/assist.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I used the term 'recreated' because that is how Paul envisages it in 1 Corinthians 15, especially 37And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
I hope I'm not being obtuse, but I just don't see creation language here at all. The new bodies that Paul is talking about are clearly to be joined to existing souls - those of the dead. In fact, Paul seems to me explicitly to be using the kind of "not Christian" concepts(dishing out new bodies to souls) you criticised above.

A new heaven and a new earth are to be created by God at the end of time, certainly: but not a new people. It's we "old" (already existing/having been born) people who inherit it in our resurrected (new, glorified) bodies.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As for living the questions in Holy Week, you may also have time for speculation. I don't - too many liturgies to prepare for and lead/assist.
Well, I don't want to add to your burden, but could I repeat my question from above: how is your "living on in the mind of God" different from my (temporarily) disembodied existence in a conscious state?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
We actually don't need Jesus for the Two Great Commandments. The first part is in Deuteronomy 6 and the second part is in Leviticus 19.
So why did he say it then?
Did he only say new and unique things otherwise?
No. He just got them right.

You know, fulfilled them. All that messiah stuff.
Okay, let's try again, more directly. Why do you ask, "Why did he say it then?"? In what way does it run counter to your expectations?
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Anglican-Brat seemed to imply Jesus' response was somehow redundant.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Actually I took him to be saying that it's a crappy definition of Christianity because it's not distinctively Christian.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Actually I took him to be saying that it's a crappy definition of Christianity because it's not distinctively Christian.
Oh, you mean, like the resurrection is not distinctively Christian?

I think crappy definitions of Christianity are those ones that have to be different from everything else.

It's too reductionist.

But beyond that, Jesus was asked what was necessary to inherit eternal life. In the synoptic gospels the response is invariably love God and love neighbor (follow the commandments).

Is eternal life not a Christian thing either because Jews could inherit it too?

Do you see the problem?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think crappy definitions of Christianity are those ones that have to be different from everything else.
That's how definitions work. If it doesn't help you pick out Christianity in a line-up, it's not a definition of Christianity. Maybe what you want to say is you don't want to define Christianity. But if you're going to define Christianity, you're going to have to say what is specifically Christian.

quote:
Do you see the problem?
Yes. That's why we have the Creed.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
When Jesus was asked a similar question, he said it was to love God and love neighbour.

I think that's core.
Here is your original post that sparked this new turn of the thread Evensong. From this post, I interpreted your view that the only thing that matters is the Great Commandment, that theology is unimportant. My response would be that this teaching is not exclusive to Christianity, indeed, any Jew would look up Leviticus and Deuteronomy and perhaps tell you that it is somewhat offensive to insist that this is a teaching thought up by the Christians.

This is my frustration with liberals. In their attempt to be inclusive (after all, being exclusivist is the only sin that still matters in our secular and pluralist world), they attempt to offer a diluted Christianity where the Creeds are watered in their importance and the major doctrines of Christianity are dismissed as mere metaphor. The consequence is that there is nothing essentially appealing about Christianity. If Christianity is nothing more than an ethical religion with little theological content, that there is no reason to be a Christian as opposed to a Buddhist, a Jew, or even a secular humanist.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Indeed. Take the word Christianity out of the following statement and replace with any other word and see how it sounds.

quote:
originally posted by Evensong:
I think crappy definitions of Christianity are those ones that have to be different from everything else.

I think crappy definitions of the color red are those ones that have to be different from everything else.

I think crappy definitions of water are those ones that have to be different from everything else.

See? Language is divisive. It's why we use it.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
I dont understand this denigration of liberals for being inclusive.

Jesus was, after all, the most inclusive person who ever lived.

As I understand it Jesus himself is not exclusively unique but inclusively so. He is the Truth in a definitive sense, not an exlusive sense.

Nor do I forget that, when he called the first disciples he did not plonk an A4 copy of the Creed(s) in front of them and say "believe that and follow me". He simply called them to follow him. It was in the following that they came to learn the truth of Who he was.

Which is not to say that the developed understanding of Christology is wrong or to be ignored as an add-on. Far from it. And I am not advocating that we re-invent the wheel when it comes to doctrine.

But I do question whether total allegiance to a Creed formulated over 1600 years ago and expressed within the philosophical assumptions of that day is required of us today.

Surely we can continue to express the conviction that Jesus is Truly Divine and Truly Human within other categories of thought today.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
I think you are mistaking compassion and forgiveness for being inclusive. You must ignore large portions of the gospels to accomplish that feat. What you have is a canon within a canon within a canon. All that means is you like some of the stuff attributed to a guy named Jesus.

Everybody is welcome to follow Jesus. Followers of Jesus are Christians. Not everybody is a Christian. It is then necessary to define what it means to be a Christian. How can we agree on what it means to follow Christ if we don't first come to an agreement about who Christ is? Hence, we have Creeds.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
So anybody who accepts Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life is just a follower and not necessarily a Christian?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
how is your "living on in the mind of God" different from my (temporarily) disembodied existence in a conscious state?
It’s part of A’ Level Religious Studies and the textbook is 'Death and Eternal life,' John Hick. John Hick argues that in certain circumstances the dead can exist after death. If an exact replica of them were to appear complete with memories and characteristics. As God is all powerful this recreation of the dead is totally possible although death can destroy us God can recreate us. He bases this on 1 Corinthians 15 verse 35-44

Imagine a computer and CD Roms – each CD Rom is a person who a great number of ‘experiences’ and the hard drive is God. At death, a person’s body is destroyed. In the analogy, a CD Rom is destroyed – but it is backed up in the hard drive – the mind of God – and can be recreated.– it saved on its hard drive. God could produce an exact ‘reprint’ using every piece of information about us. This new ‘us’ would be an exact copy, using new materials. Only one copy is made in order to preserve the identity of the original.

(Hick believes that the body and soul are one, inseparable. Therefore he does not think that the soul can exist separate to the body after death. However, he still believes in Life after Death. This is in the form of resurrection. Hicks description of resurrection would therefore be There being a replica or duplicate of the person made by God in heaven, after the persons life on Earth has ended. It is the same person, as they have the same memory and emotion etc.)

Peter Vardy claims that this is in line with traditional Christian teaching. St Paul talks about a transformed body. (This view is compatible with Hick’s view, which incorporates resurrection. “When buried it is a physical body; when raised it will be a spiritual body. There is of course a physical body, so there has to be a spiritual body.” – 1 Corinthians 15:35-44. Life after death will be as a spiritual body. This is because, unlike its earthly form as the seed, is from the plant into which it grows. They keep their personal identity, but can achieve eternal life in a bodily form.)

The syllabus overview states: In modern Christian thought, a person is usually regarded as a psycho-physical unity. Thus, in order to maintain a belief in the existence of heaven and hell, Hick's replica theory is necessary to the Christian doctrine of life after death. Indeed, when one examines the biblical accounts of the afterlife, this line of thought runs parallel to the Christian conception of heaven and the 'resurrected body.' For example, Hick describes the replica body of the deceased as one that is in good health, explaining the possibility of growing younger to the optimum age, becoming more like God and evolving in a life of 'soul making.' This portrays the image of a new 'spiritual' body, exactly as St Paul describes in his first letter to the church in Corinth
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
I thought Hick had gone back on that idea?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Thanks, leo. But if all that is left of me is the information required for future replication that seems much more like a re-creation rather than my resurection with a new spiritual body. [I also have in mind (no pun intended) the classic "tele-transporter" problems of personal identity/survival.]

How can someone ask the prayers of such an entity? Surely a stored set of person-info is not conscious. What is the communion of saints if the Church Triumphant is just stored data?

[E.T.A. to Emma Louise: given how laden it is with philosophical and theological problems, I hope Hick has rethought it.]

[ 18. April 2011, 17:23: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
So anybody who accepts Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life is just a follower and not necessarily a Christian?
Depends on what you mean by the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Zackly.

Also:
quote:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Beeswax Altar

Professor Joad would have been proud of you.

The classic response to avoid answering the question
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
No, I didn't. The Creeds explain why Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and why no person comes to the Father except through Him. What do you think it means?
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
I wonder if the following (from the Athanasian Creed) explains in any way how Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. "

The key word repeated often is "imcomprehensible" which doesnt explain much.

Furthermore the said Creed makes salvation dependant upon belief, not faith.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
I thought Hick had gone back on that idea?
I'd love to know why.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
You quoted less than a 1/3 of it. The 1/3 you quoted mentions both faith and belief. I know where you are going with differentiating between the two. I just think the claim is rather silly.

The Athanasian Creed, like the other Creeds, tells us who Jesus is in relation to God. It explains the incarnation and its purpose. Jesus being God incarnate is why He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no person comes to the Father but through Him.

Again, what do you think it means?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Thanks, leo. But if all that is left of me is the information required for future replication that seems much more like a re-creation rather than my resurection with a new spiritual body. [I also have in mind (no pun intended) the classic "tele-transporter" problems of personal identity/survival.]

How can someone ask the prayers of such an entity? Surely a stored set of person-info is not conscious. What is the communion of saints if the Church Triumphant is just stored data?

[E.T.A. to Emma Louise: given how laden it is with philosophical and theological problems, I hope Hick has rethought it.]
Hick deals with 'tele-transporter'.

You seem to like certainties where everything meshes in with everything else. I don't think we can have it this side of the grave.

If course, Kick is a protestant so he won't have much interest in the prayers of saints.

However, I see no reason why his view is inconsistent with the notion that the saints are already in heaven while those of us who are destined for purgatory will await the general resurrection.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Beeswax Altar: I think you are being disingenuous. You say the Athanasian Creed mentions faith and belief. But the faith it speaks of is the "Catholic Faith" which is not faith in the NT sense at all. It is faith in a belief system which is then elaborated.

Faith in the NT sense of the word is a matter of trust and obedience to Jesus.

When the Creeds and Tradition are taken to supercede the plain Biblical sense (because they go way beyond anything the Bible itself teaches) then you have lost me.

I say that as someone who respects and values both the Creeds and Tradition. I am not a Biblical literalist. Nor am I am Credal literalist. Nor am I a wooden Traditionalist.

I fear that between you and me there is a great gulf fixed. And I regret that, on your definition, I am not to be regarded as a Christian.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Surely we can continue to express the conviction that Jesus is Truly Divine and Truly Human within other categories of thought today.
Go for it. I'd love to see how that would look.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Beeswax Altar: I think you are being disingenuous. You say the Athanasian Creed mentions faith and belief. But the faith it speaks of is the "Catholic Faith" which is not faith in the NT sense at all. It is faith in a belief system which is then elaborated.

Faith in the NT sense of the word is a matter of trust and obedience to Jesus.

When the Creeds and Tradition are taken to supercede the plain Biblical sense (because they go way beyond anything the Bible itself teaches) then you have lost me.

I say that as someone who respects and values both the Creeds and Tradition. I am not a Biblical literalist. Nor am I am Credal literalist. Nor am I a wooden Traditionalist.

I fear that between you and me there is a great gulf fixed. And I regret that, on your definition, I am not to be regarded as a Christian.
Again, it depends on how you determine the plain biblical sense. You'd be surprised at some of the weird stuff I've heard taught as nothing more than the plain truth of scripture. The plain sense of scripture, properly interpreted mind you, supports anything you want it to support.

That's why tradition is important.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Hick deals with 'tele-transporter'.
Ok, fine. I'd be interested to see how - because I think it throws up precisely the serious inadequacies of the "soul-as-software" model - but it's not my principal issue here. It sounds as if he might have abandoned it anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You seem to like certainties where everything meshes in with everything else.
I like 'em where they can truly be had, of course - because I'm a human being and we are (albeit crookedly) truth-seeking missiles. But what I find I need from arguments or theories is, as a bare minimum, coherence. From your posts on this thread so far, that doesn't seem to be a priority for you.

If I'm honest, I don't think you've thought your ideas through properly at all - and that's why you resist straight answers to my questions. But I can take as good as I get. If you think that's not fair, go for it.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Of course, Hick is a protestant so he won't have much interest in the prayers of saints.
Right. So we can drop him, if you like. Let's concentrate on your ideas instead. You claim not to be a protestant and to seek the active intercession of the saints. How is that consistent with a theory that says the dead (inc. the Church Triumphant) are unconscious bits of software in God's hard-disk?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, I see no reason why his view is inconsistent with the notion that the saints are already in heaven while those of us who are destined for purgatory will await the general resurrection.
I see plenty - and I've expressed one in particular repeatedly. Show me, by answering my question above, how the saints' intercessory reponse to our petitions is consistent with Hick's theory.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Beeswax Altar: I think you are being disingenuous. You say the Athanasian Creed mentions faith and belief. But the faith it speaks of is the "Catholic Faith" which is not faith in the NT sense at all. It is faith in a belief system which is then elaborated.

Faith in the NT sense of the word is a matter of trust and obedience to Jesus.

When the Creeds and Tradition are taken to supercede the plain Biblical sense (because they go way beyond anything the Bible itself teaches) then you have lost me.

I say that as someone who respects and values both the Creeds and Tradition. I am not a Biblical literalist. Nor am I am Credal literalist. Nor am I a wooden Traditionalist.

I fear that between you and me there is a great gulf fixed. And I regret that, on your definition, I am not to be regarded as a Christian.
The problem with stating that the Bible has an a priori status over Tradition is that the Bible was canonized within that tradition. The Bible wasn't fully canonized until the fourth century about the same time as Nicaea. The Creeds and the Scriptures are both codified within the same living Tradition of the Church.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Zackly.

Also:
quote:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Zackly X 2

This is one of my favourite lines of scripture.

So all of us that are self-righteous enough to think we know what it truly means to follow God and pronounce judgement on others (be it via creeds, via scripture, via reason, via experience, via tradition etc.) are easily in for a big surprise.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Hick deals with 'tele-transporter'.
Ok, fine. I'd be interested to see how - because I think it throws up precisely the serious inadequacies of the "soul-as-software" model - but it's not my principal issue here. It sounds as if he might have abandoned it anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You seem to like certainties where everything meshes in with everything else.
I like 'em where they can truly be had, of course - because I'm a human being and we are (albeit crookedly) truth-seeking missiles. But what I find I need from arguments or theories is, as a bare minimum, coherence. From your posts on this thread so far, that doesn't seem to be a priority for you.

If I'm honest, I don't think you've thought your ideas through properly at all - and that's why you resist straight answers to my questions. But I can take as good as I get. If you think that's not fair, go for it.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Of course, Hick is a protestant so he won't have much interest in the prayers of saints.
Right. So we can drop him, if you like. Let's concentrate on your ideas instead. You claim not to be a protestant and to seek the active intercession of the saints. How is that consistent with a theory that says the dead (inc. the Church Triumphant) are unconscious bits of software in God's hard-disk?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, I see no reason why his view is inconsistent with the notion that the saints are already in heaven while those of us who are destined for purgatory will await the general resurrection.
I see plenty - and I've expressed one in particular repeatedly. Show me, by answering my question above, how the saints' intercessory reponse to our petitions is consistent with Hick's theory.
I think you need to read Hick's book.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
But I'm not interested in Hick's theories - I'm interested in YOURS! I really don't think I could have made that any clearer.

According to YOU, how is a belief that the dead are mere dormant data-streams compatible with asking them for their prayers? You dismissed my idea as "not Christian" - which is perfectly within the rules of engagement, as far as I'm concerned - so let's hear how yours works. Fair's fair, innit.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
And Hicks a protestant not concerned with the intercession of saints. How will reading Hick's book explain something Hick isn't interested in explaining? Surely, Chesterbelloc isn't supposed to read Hick's book in hopes that he can figure out what Leo got from reading it. It would be helpful if Leo would just explain it.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I have already explained it in some detail.

Reading the book would help to see what he DOES and what he does NOT say and enable extrapolation as to how the saints might fit in.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
No. You really haven't, leo. Where's the "create poll" button when you need it?

1. I'd be surprised if Hick even addressed the issue of the intercession of saints in his work.

2. If he hasn't, how is directing us to his book helping?

3. If has addresed praying to/for the faithful departed, why don't you just tell us what he said about that?

4. Most importantly, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN HICK AS SUCH BUT IN YOUR IDEAS. How do YOU think asking for the saints' intercessions is compatible with a theory that says they are just bit of unconscious data waiting to be "re-created"? Where SPECIFICALLY have you addressed that question, which I have now asked about half a dozen times?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Last response, repeating what I said earlier:

Let's take those we consider to be in Purgatory. They are in the mind of god, stils awaiting recreation/resurrection.

The Church Triumphant, the saints, have been fast-tracked into heaven and already partake of the beatific vision, are conscious and, thus, can intercede for us.

No more on this please - the Triduum is soon to start - Chrism Mass in the morning then the big liturgies. By Easter Monday, I might have more time.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Let's take those we consider to be in Purgatory. They are in the mind of god, stils awaiting recreation/resurrection.
If this is true they are not conscious, so how are they being "purged" at all, and what's the point in praying for them?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Church Triumphant, the saints, have been fast-tracked into heaven and already partake of the beatific vision, are conscious and, thus, can intercede for us.
Honestly, leo - why on earth (pun foreseen but otherwise unintended) could you not have said this when I first (six or seven times back) asked about it days ago?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I did. Furthermore I said that Peter Vardy said that Hick's thesis was in line with Pauline theology. It may have passed you by that Vardy is the Vice Principal of Heythrop (Jesuit RC) College.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Church Triumphant, the saints, have been fast-tracked into heaven and already partake of the beatific vision, are conscious and, thus, can intercede for us.
Honestly, leo - why on earth (pun foreseen but otherwise unintended) could you not have said this when I first (six or seven times back) asked about it days ago?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I did.
You didn't. If you had, you would have been able to point it out long before now, and I wouldn't have had to ask it half a dozen times. So: where precisely did you say it then? Please quote.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Furthermore I said that Peter Vardy said that Hick's thesis was in line with Pauline theology. It may have passed you by that Vardy is the Vice Principal of Heythrop (Jesuit RC) College.
Nothing passes me by - I am vast and contain pulchritudes.

And I couldn't care if Vardy were the Successor of Peter himself: if he's wrong, he's wrong - and I will judge him on his actual words, and not on the say so of you. Where did Vardy (in his own words, please) say that Hick's theory (that body and soul are inseperable and that the "soul" is essentially software and is unconscious after death) is compatible with Pauline doctrine as understood by the Church?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And I couldn't care if Vardy were the Successor of Peter himself: if he's wrong, he's wrong - and I will judge him on his actual words, and not on the say so of you. Where did Vardy (in his own words, please) say that Hick's theory (that body and soul are inseperable and that the "soul" is essentially software and is unconscious after death) is compatible with Pauline doctrine as understood by the Church?
If Vardy was Peter's successor, he could declare it to be a dogma!

His book 'The Puzzle of God' has a section on 'eternal life' - though it's 6 years since I taught A level so it maybe somewhere else. Hick is critical of other aspects of hichk's view.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If Vardy was Peter's successor, he could declare it to be a dogma!
Not if it contradicts defined doctrine he couldn't.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Now who is going to have the last word on this tangent?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
You, I shouldn't wonder.

But I'd be just as happy to put this whole exchange in the tomb today and not resurrect it tomorrow.

Holy Pascha to one and all.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
And also with you.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Amen. As long as you look down on us from Abraham's bosom and pity us on the burning shore.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Amen. As long as you look down on us from Abraham's bosom and pity us on the burning shore.
Sure - or vice versa, of course.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Come Sir, as a Roman, under that see which was my mother for a 1000 years (and is my disapproving grandma for a mere 500 now), surely you're a better class of Christian than even the Orthodox. You enjoy privileges and spiritual gifts and wisdom and knowledge and status and blessings that they aren't party too despite you allowing them the eucharist and they you.

Only Jesus lets me partake of that and He's not good enough I know.

IngoB himself, the Doctor of the Church here, although I suspect there are other RC Ph.Ds here, has said that I unknowingly miss out on blessings that the broken alcoholics, drug addicts, gamblers, street people I'm privileged to serve who are disproportionately communicant Romans, whom I encourage to go to confessional and talk with their priests, apparently have. And virtually every Pole and Frenchman and Irishman and Italian and Hispanic and Portugee and Walloon and Celtic supporter.

I'd be happy to polish their shoes forever left outside their mansions. Should keep me busy.

If I'm allowed for not being able to accept esoteric, non-apostolic, unbiblical truth that Romans and Muslims have even recently been led in to, with regard to Mary for example.

[Biased] CB - MPC!
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
... to ...
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0