A question on the hypocricies of religion

[Trash Can]

Originally posted by melon:
It would be black-and-white if the Bible was written by unbiased individuals, but it wasn't. The New Testament was created by the Catholic Church, not vice versa. Even then, it was created by one of two sects that dominated the early Church.

It is more than reasonable to question what has been given before us, especially considering the contradictory writing and language we get from the four gospels.

Melon

Interesting tid-bit I learned yesterday in a church class I had ( this week, it delt with the history of the Bible). Apparently, there were more than just four gospels circulating around when the books of the Bible were still being "chosen". I forgot the man's name but this guy (God... I sound sooo learned, dont I???) chose the four and only four gospels, because in his view, four was the "perfect" number. And for no other reason.
I'm sure each denomination has its view of the Bible. For example, I believe Fundementalists take each and everything the Bible says as fact and directly from the mouth of God. Well, in Catholicism, the Bible is viewed as "nspired"by God, but written by men, so then it is not perfect. There ARE many inaccuracies in the Bible.
It is not viewed as a historical document. It is stories... that show how God works in our lives, and that tell about one man who claimed to be the Christ.
In the end, it always... ALWAYS falls back to faith and what one chooses to believe in or reject.

One side note: apparently it was discussed during the Vatican II meetings in the 60's that in fact one could be "saved" and go to heaven, if that person had never heard of Jesus, yet lived a "Jesus-like" life... Be it, in service to God, by serving and LOVING others...

Interesting, eh????


------------------
My love for you
It's in the things I do and say
If I wanna live I gotta
Die to myself someday.
Surrender.

[80sU2isBest]

TC, where'd you hear that? I had always heard it was decided on by a consortium, not one man.
Also, the Vatican discussing that man can be saved by living a Jesus-like life? Good gried, I'm glad that's not the way to be saved. I'd never make it...(neither would anyone else)...To be Jesus-like is to never sin.

[foray]

Originally posted by melon:
There is a terminology difference. The "crucifix," which karaoke used specifically, refers to the image where Jesus is crucified on the cross. Most Protestants just use an empty "cross," without Jesus. Of course, without Jesus, in my opinion, the cross is meaningless.

Melon

melon melon, are you looking? Boy, who dug up this ancient thread, anyway?

The difference between a crucifix and a cross is, yes, the image of Jesus dying on it. However, I must put it to you that the reason Protestants don't have the image of Jesus on their crosses, is the fact that Jesus has triumphed from the cross and Death. It is the 'empty cross' that signifies victory to Protestants.

Personally, I also think that the 'empty cross' is a way of not focusing so much on the crucifixion, like the Catholics seem to do; rather, focusing on his might and power. Not an image of a limp Jesus hanging on the cross. That is my personal opinion, not representative of other Protestants here.

foray

[kerc]

I personally hate the way Jesus is represented on most religious literature, art, etc. as a skinny, pale, weak man. Apart from the fact that he was/is the son of God, hey, he was the son of a carpenter! He worked with his father...and there were no Craftsman tools at that time!

I think that representing him as a pitiful man, or maybe worse, as a baby in Christmas, weakens his image to the people, you know what I mean?

------------------
k e r c

La aventura del comienzo
La intriga de lo incierto
No temas y busca lo nuevo
Sólo empieza desde cero

[kerc]

I personally hate the way Jesus is represented on most religious literature, art, etc. as a skinny, pale and weak man. Apart from the fact that he was/is the son of God, hey, he was the son of a carpenter! He worked with his father...and there were no Craftsman tools at that time!

I think that representing him as a pitiful man, or maybe worse, as a baby in Christmas, weakens his image to the people, you know what I mean?

------------------
k e r c

La aventura del comienzo
La intriga de lo incierto
No temas y busca lo nuevo
Sólo empieza desde cero

[melon]

I think he was often portrayed as "skinny" and "weak," because Jesus was meant to be portrayed as one of "us." The people he preached to weren't exactly bodybuilders, and with a Europe in turmoil during for over a millennium after His death and resurrection, it was seen as comforting. Also remember that Jesus was likely less than 5' tall, as that was the average height back then.

Melon

------------------
«Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.» - Hui-neng (638-713)

[melon]

Well, foray, Protestants can do what they want, but often the symbolism came after the change. Most of the stuff was just changed to be contrary to Catholicism during the Reformation. Of course, I think that both the crucifix and the cross are equally valid meaning-wise.

Melon

------------------
«Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.» - Hui-neng (638-713)

[melon]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
TC, where'd you hear that? I had always heard it was decided on by a consortium, not one man.
Also, the Vatican discussing that man can be saved by living a Jesus-like life? Good gried, I'm glad that's not the way to be saved. I'd never make it...(neither would anyone else)...To be Jesus-like is to never sin.

This is where I get honestly and sincerely confused. In one aspect, it sounds as if it is easier to be saved, as you rely on faith-alone. However, as I listen to a hysterical campus evangelist, he condemns everyone to hell and makes it act like it's very difficult to get into Heaven. So what is it?!

Also remember, 80s, that Catholicism also has purgatory, which has it's basis in Maccabees, a book omitted from the KJV as "apocryphal." So it isn't black-and-white like heaven or hell after you die.

Melon

------------------
«Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.» - Hui-neng (638-713)

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by melon:
This is where I get honestly and sincerely confused. In one aspect, it sounds as if it is easier to be saved, as you rely on faith-alone. However, as I listen to a hysterical campus evangelist, he condemns everyone to hell and makes it act like it's very difficult to get into Heaven. So what is it?!

Also remember, 80s, that Catholicism also has purgatory, which has it's basis in Maccabees, a book omitted from the KJV as "apocryphal." So it isn't black-and-white like heaven or hell after you die.
Melon

Melon, you'll never hear ME say that it takes anything other than faith, so don't ask me that question. Ask one of the people you've heard preach works that question. The only thing that it takes to spend eternity with the Father is by faith in the son of God, Jesus Christ, by the grace of God.
I, of course, don't believe in Purgatory. None of the books outside the Apocrypha support the concept of Purgatory. In fact, in one place in the Bible it says that "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that the judgment", and in another, "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord", and there are other passages that directly oppose the Apocrypha, which is probably one of the reasons the council rejected the Apocrypha. Now, those who have never heard of Christ? God is just, and the scriptures say that they will be judged according to what they do with what they do know. Without sounding too new-agey, the Bible speaks of an "inner knowing" that these people have been granted.

[kerc]

Originally posted by melon:
I think he was often portrayed as "skinny" and "weak," because Jesus was meant to be portrayed as one of "us." The people he preached to weren't exactly bodybuilders, and with a Europe in turmoil during for over a millennium after His death and resurrection, it was seen as comforting. Also remember that Jesus was likely less than 5' tall, as that was the average height back then.

You can be short but do not have to look puny and weak, or pale. See what I mean? It degrades him in a certain way.



------------------
k e r c

La aventura del comienzo
La intriga de lo incierto
No temas y busca lo nuevo
Sólo empieza desde cero

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by kerc:
You can be short but do not have to look puny and weak, or pale. See what I mean? It degrades him in a certain way.

I agree, Kerc. However, I personally don't mind representing him as a baby at Christmas, because that futher symbolizes the human aspect of him.

[melon]

Degradation is in the eye of the beholder. While you may call it "puny" or "weak," I see it as humanized, and I often think that is why it was done to begin with.

But you can't please everyone. The Pharisees were looking for a strong warrior to vanquish their enemies and to elevate them to a powerful kingdom, but Jesus was very much a disappointment to them. That, however, doesn't negate His magnificence.

Melon

------------------
«Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.» - Hui-neng (638-713)

[]{arao]{e]

Has everyone noticed MELON'S homepage??? Just click on the question mark by the date and time of his messages.

I totally get your point, kerc

[melon]

Originally posted by ]{arao]{e:
Has everyone noticed MELON'S homepage??? Just click on the question mark by the date and time of his messages.

It's an SNL reference, BTW.

Melon



------------------
«Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.» - Hui-neng (638-713)

[Spiral_Staircase]

Originally posted by melon:
Of course, without Jesus, in my opinion, the cross is meaningless.

Originally posted by melon:
The Pharisees were looking for a strong warrior to vanquish their enemies and to elevate them to a powerful kingdom, but Jesus was very much a disappointment to them. That, however, doesn't negate His magnificence.

good answer....melon, like it or not, I think you're bordering on evangelism!


[This message has been edited by Spiral_Staircase (edited 09-06-2001).]

[Trash Can]

ok... "Jesus-like" was probably the wrong way to put it.
"Good and holy" life???????

See, I'm not a scholar. They deacon that I've learned this from IS. I'll have to get back with him and get the details.

Oh! As for the "cross vs. crucifix" deal. I agree... The cross SHOULD be displayed!
After all... THAT IS the "Good News".
The Resurrection! The empty cross symbolizes it.
You know, MANY changes were made during "Vatican II" , THIRTY years ago... Thing is, many of these changes have NOT been followed ( Its like pulling teeth, with these stubborn old-time Catholics, I tells ya!... At least we got rid of the Latin)
The cross to replace the crucifix WAS suggested. So was the absense of all statues from churches (to take care of the whole "idolitry" issue, I guess), plus many other changes... that I cant remember right now
We Catholics ARE behind in the times. NO doubt about that! You can find MANY priests and Church folk who are not "ashamed" to say so. We are trying to catch up... We even admit now that, in fact, the sun DOES NOT revolve around the earth!

AND, there is the whole other issue of "salvation". What constitutes it. "How do I get to Heaven!?"

Catholics have been stuck on the "good works" deal for ages. We even seem to neglect the TRUE fact that salvation can only come from accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
See, I believe that "accepting" is much much more than just saying, "ok, Jesus... I'm in!"
Actions speak louder than words.
As St. Francis of Assisi said "Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary... use words."
By saying Yes to Jesus, I also say Yes to good works, because it IS all entwined in the whole deal! Heck, I can't help but want to help!
For me, salvation is an every day process. God saves me... every single day!

I AM truely blessed and oh soooo thankful!

Can I get an "Amen!"???




Peace

------------------
My love for you
It's in the things I do and say
If I wanna live I gotta
Die to myself someday.
Surrender.

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Trash Can:
I AM truely blessed and oh soooo thankful!

Can I get an "Amen!"???



Peace

TC, I'll AMEN ya!!!
I am truly blessed, also. In fact, I have dubbed myself the most blessed man in the world. And that of course, is not a boast, but a testimony to the grace and mercy of God!
I'll AMEN ya bout the works things, also. The Bible says that Christians will show fruit. So, good works is a natural output of being a Christian. I think that if a person truly believes in the Lord, those good works will come as a result of being a "new creation" in God, not that we have to force ourselves to be good, in order to please God. When we accept him, and his spirit takes residence in us, he kicks the old man out, and we have a new nature, the nature of Christ, and with that nature comes another gift, the holiness of God, for "our righteousness is as dirty rags".

[]{arao]{e]

Jesus called the Jewish spiritual leaders hypocrites because they were more concerned with money and notoriety than people (poor people especially). That was their job, to help people spiritually by teaching them the law and living by it (Leviticus).

So, if you are using the bible (i.e. Jesus Christ) to determine hypocrisy in today's religious bodies, then it's easy to see who are hyprocrites. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a deacon of a church to determine hyprocrisy. Even a 5 year old can see that his/her parents don't always do as they say. Therefore the churches have warped the Bible's meaning/teaching to fit their own actions.

The cross has symbolized many things besides the sacrifice of Jesus. Before Jesus came along the cross was a religious symbol in Egypt (the ankh). So, the cross is associated with pagan worship and not really Jesus.

Another fact being that Jesus didn't even die on a literal cross. According to the King James Bible, Jesus was "impaled" by the Romans on a "tree". NOWHERE in the bible does it say that Jesus was crucified on a cross. You don't have to take my word for it. Go look in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John yourself and see.

Oh, one more thing about idol worship. It's carving or making things to represent God. According to Exodus 20:4, God's law stated exactly what His worshippers should NOT do.
Jesus never went along with any idol worship.

[melon]

Originally posted by ]{arao]{e:
Jesus called the Jewish spiritual leaders hypocrites because they were more concerned with money and notoriety than people (poor people especially). That was their job, to help people spiritually by teaching them the law and living by it (Leviticus).

Well, that surely reminds me of a lot of Christians today. All you have to see are televangelists, the fundamentalist revivals of the 1920s and 1980s (with a belief that poverty is predestined and wealth is a sign of God 'blessing you'). However, it was not just that that Jesus condemned; it was their very essentialist, restrictive, and exclusionist nature regarding people around them. Jesus constantly flaunted the Mosaic Law, hanging with lepers and prostitutes, protecting adulterers from getting executed, and even rejecting a contentious issue even today: the idea of "an eye for an eye." But it's funny. Conservative Christians tend to overlook all this.

St. Paul very much took notice of this part of Jesus, and at the Council of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 fought against the Church of Jerusalem, led by St. Peter and St. James traditionally, to abolish the Mosaic Law, as he saw Jesus as the replacement of the Mosaic Law. The gospel of Matthew, which conservatives often use to support continued use of oppressive Mosaic Law, was a direct book from the Jewish-minded Church of Jerusalem, and was part of a sect that believed you had to become Jewish before Christian. As Christianity is very much the actualization of the St. Paul's Church of Antioch, you have to take Matthew with caution.

So, if you are using the bible (i.e. Jesus Christ) to determine hypocrisy in today's religious bodies, then it's easy to see who are hyprocrites. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a deacon of a church to determine hyprocrisy. Even a 5 year old can see that his/her parents don't always do as they say. Therefore the churches have warped the Bible's meaning/teaching to fit their own actions.

Yes, it is very easy to see who the hypocrites are.

The cross has symbolized many things besides the sacrifice of Jesus. Before Jesus came along the cross was a religious symbol in Egypt (the ankh). So, the cross is associated with pagan worship and not really Jesus.

Another fact being that Jesus didn't even die on a literal cross. According to the King James Bible, Jesus was "impaled" by the Romans on a "tree". NOWHERE in the bible does it say that Jesus was crucified on a cross. You don't have to take my word for it. Go look in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John yourself and see.

Once again, this is a classic case of essentialism. Does it matter after all? So Jesus dies on a cross and resurrects or Jesus dies on a tree and resurrects. Big whoop. The importance is on the resurrection and salvation, not the method of his death. Also, I take the KJV with a grain of salt. The mistranslations are so deep and there are so many that it makes many Hebrew/ancient Greek scholars cringe.

Once again, even if the origins of the cross were pagan (which I disagree with), so what? In the early Church, they often built churches on top of pagan temples almost as a symbol of conquest; that Jesus triumphs over "evil." Of course, conservative Christians, as usual, have now flip-flopped, acting as if paganism is infiltrating Christianity. Once again, it is an unintended meaning.

Oh, one more thing about idol worship. It's carving or making things to represent God. According to Exodus 20:4, God's law stated exactly what His worshippers should NOT do.
Jesus never went along with any idol worship.

You treat God as a dim-witted blind-deaf-mute. God knows the intentions of his followers, and he will know that it is not "idol worship." Once again, I don't care what Exodus says. The writers of Exodus did not write this to apply to today, but rather to people creating statues of false gods. Not once is anyone in the Bible condemned for making an image of God or any Judeo-Christian figure. You are putting in meaning that it not intended.

And speaking of meanings put into the Bible that were unintended, most of the books written make no claim of being divine or being written by God. They make no claim of being intended to be put in a collection of books we call the "Bible." Yet, man decided to put this divinity into this book, and say it came from God.

You won't want me to get started on the "hypocrisy" of Jehovah's Witnesses, but the difference is that I don't think that the semantical differences matter as much as they seem to affect you. And I have read up on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, knowing full well that most of the statements you have made are beliefs pretty much exclusive to Jehovah's Witnesses. I will be kind, however, and not attack a specific religion, as that is not my nature.

No offense, but I think you have the focus all wrong.

Melon

------------------
«Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.» - Hui-neng (638-713)

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 09-08-2001).]

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by ]{arao]{e:
The cross has symbolized many things besides the sacrifice of Jesus. Before Jesus came along the cross was a religious symbol in Egypt (the ankh). So, the cross is associated with pagan worship and not really Jesus.

Another fact being that Jesus didn't even die on a literal cross. According to the King James Bible, Jesus was "impaled" by the Romans on a "tree". NOWHERE in the bible does it say that Jesus was crucified on a cross. You don't have to take my word for it. Go look in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John yourself and see.

The Ankh is not the same shape as the Christian cross.

Not only was crucifixion on trees AND crosses the "execution of choice" for Romans in those days, the Bible does indeed specifically use the word "cross" many times in referring to the cruicifixion of Christ. And indeed, several are even from the Gospels.
Matt 27:32 (Simon of Cyrene carrying Jesus' cross. He didn't carry a "tree")
Matt 27:40 ("...If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross...")
John 19:17,25
1 Cor. 1:17, 18
Gal 6:14
Phil 2:8
Phil 3:18
Heb 12:2

And these are not all of them. The places it refers to it as a "tree", it does so because crosses are made from trees.