MERGED-->Jesus- Tomb found with body + James Cameron is...

[speedracer]

1 Peter 3.

Have you read Proverbs 31:10-31? The godly wife cooks and cleans up around the house.

She also exercises regularly, conducts business in the community, invests the family's money wisely, gives to the poor and teaches the children right from wrong. Seems like the godly wife is a strong leader in her household and community.

I think there's a passage somewhere about the godly husband drinking beer and watching football all day, but I can't seem to find it right now.

Seriously now, Peter does have a point that women do tend to be "weaker", meaning less aggressive and less comfortable making big decisions. Obviously that is much less true now than it was 2000 years ago, and a man who allows his wife to make big decisions for the family is not abdicating his duty to the family and has nothing to be ashamed of. Both the husband and the wife need to know when to submit to the other.

 

[martha]

a man who allows his wife to make big decisions for the family is not abdicating his duty to the family and has nothing to be ashamed of.

"allows"??????

 

[speedracer]

"allows"??????

When two people disagree on something and they decide to follow one person's decision, isn't the other person "allowing" him/her to have his/her way? The post above certainly wasn't meant to be construed as saying that the man has a God-given right to be in charge of everything.

 

[martha]

When two people disagree on something and they decide to follow one person's decision, isn't the other person "allowing" him/her to have his/her way?

I wouldn't use that word for that situation at all, but I get your point.

The post above certainly wasn't meant to be construed as saying that the man has a God-given right to be in charge of everything.

Other Christians would disagree with you. That's why I asked.

Or yelled, really.

 

[Irvine511]

That's interesting, since Peter was writing to comfort women who refused to dress like the prostitutes of the day, and who didn't understand how to obtain self-worth without soliciting men for sex.

And telling husbands to treat their wives as equal partners in the gift of life they had received was pretty amazing for their day. (And ours.)

You're right, absolutely incendiary.

you've done a great job illustrating my point.

you've well assimilated these passages into your modern, post-feminist worldview.

i also don't know if i'd exactly call the description of husbandly or wifely duties as an "equal" partnership, but it isn't downright servitude, you're right.

 

[Irvine511]

Seriously now, Peter does have a point that women do tend to be "weaker", meaning less aggressive and less comfortable making big decisions. Obviously that is much less true now than it was 2000 years ago, and a man who allows his wife to make big decisions for the family is not abdicating his duty to the family and has nothing to be ashamed of. Both the husband and the wife need to know when to submit to the other.

well, i can think of quite a few women who are quite comfortable making big decisions, but i suppose i'll have to defer to the viewpoint of the heterosexual man on this one.

is this the expectation you have for your wife? that you allow her to make decisions because it's big of you and good for her self-esteem?

 

[speedracer]

well, i can think of quite a few women who are quite comfortable making big decisions, but i suppose i'll have to defer to the viewpoint of the heterosexual man on this one.

is this the expectation you have for your wife? that you allow her to make decisions because it's big of you and good for her self-esteem?

No, read my response to martha for clarification.

 

[U2Bama]

I'll somewhat agree with what Ormus (melon?) said; it seems that throughout history, various groups, be they conservative, liberal, Christian, non-Christian, etc. have attempted to re-create God and/or Jesus in their own image. I don't see the pattern ending anytime soon.

Perhaps the movie guy James Cameron will prove that the DNA from the alleged ossuaries of Jesus' alleged family are a direct match to his and he is a descendant of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Next thing you know, people will start a Cameron cult and ride pontoon boats out to the site of the Titanic wreckage and expect Cameron to go out there and raise it in some messianic fashion.

~U2Alabama

 

[speedracer]

Back to the general theme of interpreting the Bible: yes, people do take certain passages here and there, blow them out of proportion and interpret them to suit their views.

As for the general wisdom the Bible dispenses about basic living, if you were to simply distill it into the command to "love your neighbor as yourself", you'd be alright. The Apostles' Creed mentions nothing about who should be the head of the household, whether it's okay to abort a fetus, or a whole bunch of other things that people like to argue about.

What the Apostles' Creed does mention is the divinity and resurrection of Jesus, and here I have to insist that the Bible be interpreted a specific way.

The Jews are God's chosen people, a race that had witnessed astounding miracles and the fulfillment of amazing prophecies throughout their history. One of the prophecies was that the Messiah who would save everyone would be a person who would authenticate himself by performing these miracles and then give himself over to death as a sacrifice for our sins, then rise from the dead three days hence, thus conquering sin and making eternal life available to all.

Interpret the Bible's creation story, its wisdom on social living, etc. however you think appropriate, but the doctrines of Jesus's divinity and resurrection are not negotiable. Jesus, Peter, John, Paul and the other early apostles were quite clear about what it meant. Modernist theologians who seek to "reinterpret" the gospel of Jesus by getting rid of the miracles and resurrection are instead commiting a literary crime. If they don't believe it's true, that's their prerogative, but they can't fudge it to make it say something completely different.

 

[U2Bama]

I am in full agreement with your analysis of the divinity and resurrection of Jesus and your take on the Apostle's Creed, speedracer. I have seen a quote by Bono along those same lines. Good post.

~U2Alabama

 

[coemgen]

To add to speedracer's comments, when discussing this topic it's good to read Ephesians 5:22-33, too. (As with any topic, it's good to read what the entire Bible says to get a more complete picture.)

The Ephesians part says:
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Most people stop there and dismiss it because they feel it's anti-woman. But they neglect to keep reading:

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

I would argue the man has the more difficult job: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."

That's not even the point to be made though, it's about both submitting to each other, and in turn having the "couple" the "group of one" then submitting to Christ.

"However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

My wife and I happen to be in our pastor's small group and we did a study on marriage last year. It was incredible. One of the things we touched on was women like the romance and like to feel like they're the princess. They like the devotion and attention. Men like to be the hero, so we appreciate respect. My wife and I see that last quote from the section in Ephesians as a version of that.

 

[yolland]

One of the prophecies was that the Messiah who would save everyone would be a person who would authenticate himself by performing these miracles and then give himself over to death as a sacrifice for our sins, then rise from the dead three days hence, thus conquering sin and making eternal life available to all.

Not sure if you meant to suggest this or not, but if you were implying that that's a Jewish understanding of what the Messiah will do, that is incorrect. I don't want to derail this already rambling thread with digressions into the interpretation of various OT passages but by way of overview, here's a post I made awhile back summarizing the major themes and variants of Jewish views on the Messiah, from Roman times through today.

 

[coemgen]

I don't remember that either. I know Christ made those claims prior to his death though. There's also a lot of OT references to Christ, but I'm not aware of those. Do you have verses speedracer?

 

[yolland]

My guess is he's referring to Isaiah 26:19 & 53:5 and Hosea 6:2. I'm not interested in debating what The Correct Interpretation of those passages is, and commenting on the Apostles' Creed is not my place--I was just pointing out that, to the extent he was suggesting this is a Jewish understanding of them (which may not have been his intent), that that is untrue.

 

[coemgen]

I'd heard Isaiah 53:5, but not Hosea 6:2. Wow.

I'm curious, yolland. After reading those verses, what do you think? Psalm 22:14-18 is another one I've always been curious as to what Jewish people think. (I'm not trying to trick you into a debate or any crap, I seriously have never asked someone who's Jewish about such OT verses.)

 

[Ormus]

I'll somewhat agree with what Ormus (melon?) said; it seems that throughout history, various groups, be they conservative, liberal, Christian, non-Christian, etc. have attempted to re-create God and/or Jesus in their own image. I don't see the pattern ending anytime soon.

Yes, I am "melon," and that hasn't been a secret. I'm considering reviving my old name soon, though, actually.

Happy to see that you agree with me.

 

[Irvine511]

No, read my response to martha for clarification.

i did. i found it more rationalization than clarification. but i take your point, and i hope that people will take mine: it's a lovely way to view the passage, as one of Jesus advocating "equality" between men and women, and that seems to be the liberal thing to do these days. it's quite sexy and modern to think of Jesus as an "incendiary" Brando-type figure, a Rebel With A Cause, and all that is lovely, not to mention a bit self-flattering, sort of what Mac users tell themselves after seeing all those Ghandi commercials. it's just not eternal.

 

[Irvine511]

the only other thing i'd point out is that another crucial thing about the resurrection is that it gives us what, to my knowledge, Christianity has to offer over all other religions: it solves the problem of death. that's the big mystery, isn't it? what happens when you die? isn't that the existential crisis? are we just big bags of water on a rock floating through space? or are we special and loved by forces greater than just our parents? isn't that the human paradox, you are born to die and you don't know what happened before or after and the idea that it is all a big nothing is enough to make you lie down in the middle of the road and not get up like in that old Radiohead video.

and Christianity offers an answer to this. and it's presented in non-negotiatble terms. and fair enough. and i'm not here to comment on whether things are right or wrong or true or false or whatever. it can't be known, and that's fine. but i do think it's important to point out that Christianity -- like any religion -- has a blueprint, and functions as a brand (just how are we different?)

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Is this still about the tv show?Is there any way the rest of it can be split off or something?

I realized I don't have the Discovery Channel any longer, so I'll probably miss it. I really want to see it, I find the whole subject to be completely fascinating.

 

[speedracer]

My guess is he's referring to Isaiah 26:19 & 53:5 and Hosea 6:2. I'm not interested in debating what The Correct Interpretation of those passages is, and commenting on the Apostles' Creed is not my place--I was just pointing out that, to the extent he was suggesting this is a Jewish understanding of them (which may not have been his intent), that that is untrue.

I didn't mean to imply that it's what all Jewish people believe, but Jesus's apostles certainly presented him as the fulfillment of prophecy in their preaching and writing. I just wanted to make the point that the modernist theologian's de-mythologization of Jesus goes completely against what the apostles actually preached.

 

[yolland]

Is this still about the tv show?Is there any way the rest of it can be split off or something?

I realized I don't have the Discovery Channel any longer, so I'll probably miss it. I really want to see it, I find the whole subject to be completely fascinating.

I'm afraid the parts not pertinent to the program are too rambling and diverse to lend themselves to a separate thread. If I'm going to take the time to split 10 pages' worth of posts, there really needs to be an obvious other thread in there.

I'm sure once the show airs the thread will stagger back on topic. I don't know that there's much left to discuss about the show itself, sight unseen, at this point, other than posting new articles.

I won't be able to watch the program either.

 

[martha]

sort of what Mac users tell themselves after seeing all those Ghandi commercials.

Sez you.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Back on the topic of the documentary....

At the university where I work (united methodist affiliated) they are actually going to be having a viewing event complete with food and discussion hosted by the chaplain and the institute of church professions. As much as I'd like to go....I'm too lazy to leave my cozy living room at 9pm when I could just as easily watch at home or DVR it. lol.

 

[Irvine511]

^ your man is handsome

 

[sulawesigirl4]

teehee. Thanks, I certainly think so. Btw, so is yours.

 

[U2Bama]

Back on the topic of the documentary....

At the university where I work (united methodist affiliated) they are actually going to be having a viewing event complete with food and discussion hosted by the chaplain and the institute of church professions. As much as I'd like to go....I'm too lazy to leave my cozy living room at 9pm when I could just as easily watch at home or DVR it. lol.

You should go. We Methodists keep our theological debates rather civil, but they are always interesting and often lively, with a broad diversity of viewpoints. I tend to consider myself a "United Methodist, orthodox," a personal sub-denomination I founded. That is a "small o" in orthodox. I am the only congregant that I know of, so far.

~U2Alabama

 

[Harry Vest]

James Cameron is The AntiChrist!!!

Just kidding...but what a knob. Never liked that guy. At all.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

So I'm watching it now.

Not too impressive. Lots of conjecture and whatifs. Sort of a whodunit. Actually this same guy did a documentary on the Exodus story not long ago that was much better.

I'm going to keep recording it and go to bed and finish it next week, methinks.

 

[Irvine511]

it's not great TV, though its about as good as it could be -- archeology isn't all that filmable unless you've got a man in a fedora cracking a whip at a bunch of scary nazis.

i suppose what i've taken from this is how quickly we can reasses what we've learned -- i remember growing up hearing about Mary Magdalen and how she was a prostitute who washed Jesus's feet and then became a devout follower.

now, she's esteemed as much more, and the designation to prostitute seems indicative of a Middle Ages mindset that women are either mothers or whores.

for whatever that's worth.

 

[Irvine511]

for whatever it's worth, the post-show discussion with Ted Kopple has been very interesting.

and it makes me wonder: just what need would Jesus have for bones in heaven?