The Christian Discussion Thread VI

[Cill Airne]

So then they wouldn't be Jewish then, now would they?

Jewish guys were writing them, weren't they?

The "New Testament" is as Jewish as Pesach.

If the religion you were born into determines the religion of the book(s) you write, wouldn't that mean Buddhism is actually just Hinduism, since its earliest followers (including Siddhartha Gautama) were Hindus?

They may have been Jewish at birth, but they'd come to Christ's teachings since then. As a Christian is a follower of Christ, I would argue that it was Christians writing them. But I guess that's an argument of semantics.

[Efraim-Judah]

Jewish guys were writing them, weren't they?

The "New Testament" is as Jewish as Pesach.

If the religion you were born into determines the religion of the book(s) you write, wouldn't that mean Buddhism is actually just Hinduism, since its earliest followers (including Siddhartha Gautama) were Hindus?

They may have been Jewish at birth, but they'd come to Christ's teachings since then. As a Christian is a follower of Christ, I would argue that it was Christians writing them. But I guess that's an argument of semantics.

Jesus didn't make a new religion friend. That would make him a heretic.

[The Archregimancy]

If the religion you were born into determines the religion of the book(s) you write, wouldn't that mean Buddhism is actually just Hinduism, since its earliest followers (including Siddhartha Gautama) were Hindus?

They may have been Jewish at birth, but they'd come to Christ's teachings since then. As a Christian is a follower of Christ, I would argue that it was Christians writing them. But I guess that's an argument of semantics.

Jesus didn't make a new religion friend. That would make him a heretic.

Well no, that would make him the founder of a new religion.

A 'heretic', strictly speaking, is someone who holds false teachings within an existing religious framework rather than someone who founds a new one.


There's room for quibbling there; Mohammed, Baha'u'llah, Guru Nanak, and Mani, for example, could all potentially be considered heretics in the early stages of developing their religions - but they were no longer merely 'heretics' by the time their respective distinctive religious philosophies had become fully developed.

[Efraim-Judah]

Jesus didn't make a new religion friend. That would make him a heretic.

Well no, that would make him the founder of a new religion.

A 'heretic', strictly speaking, is someone who holds false teachings within an existing religious framework rather than someone who founds a new one.


There's room for quibbling there; Mohammed, Baha'u'llah, Guru Nanak, and Mani, for example, could all potentially be considered heretics in the early stages of developing their religions - but they were no longer merely 'heretics' by the time their respective distinctive religious philosophies had become fully developed.

Which would be a heresy. He didn't make a new religion.

[Sanctissima]

Well no, that would make him the founder of a new religion.

A 'heretic', strictly speaking, is someone who holds false teachings within an existing religious framework rather than someone who founds a new one.


There's room for quibbling there; Mohammed, Baha'u'llah, Guru Nanak, and Mani, for example, could all potentially be considered heretics in the early stages of developing their religions - but they were no longer merely 'heretics' by the time their respective distinctive religious philosophies had become fully developed.

Which would be a heresy. He didn't make a new religion.

Could you specify? There's about 2.2 billion people who I imagine would disagree.

[The Archregimancy]

Jewish guys were writing them, weren't they?

The "New Testament" is as Jewish as Pesach.

If the religion you were born into determines the religion of the book(s) you write, wouldn't that mean Buddhism is actually just Hinduism, since its earliest followers (including Siddhartha Gautama) were Hindus?

That argument has been made; there are those who would stress the commonalities between Buddhism and Hinduism rather than the differences. I offer no opinion on the validity of that opinion, but certainly a close comparison of the two belief systems can prove rewarding.

Not that I'm supporting Efraim-Judah's perspective on the issue, mind.

[Efraim-Judah]

Which would be a heresy. He didn't make a new religion.

Could you specify? There's about 2.2 billion people who I imagine would disagree.

What do you mean by this?

[The Archregimancy]

Well no, that would make him the founder of a new religion.

A 'heretic', strictly speaking, is someone who holds false teachings within an existing religious framework rather than someone who founds a new one.


There's room for quibbling there; Mohammed, Baha'u'llah, Guru Nanak, and Mani, for example, could all potentially be considered heretics in the early stages of developing their religions - but they were no longer merely 'heretics' by the time their respective distinctive religious philosophies had become fully developed.

Which would be a heresy. He didn't make a new religion.

<wooshing sound of point going totally over your head>

Never mind; I don't know why I bothered.

[Sanctissima]

Could you specify? There's about 2.2 billion people who I imagine would disagree.

What do you mean by this?

There's roughly 2.2 billion Christians worldwide.

Are you saying that Christianity (and by extension all of its various denominations) isn't its own religion? Because in that case, there's a lot of people who would disagree.

[Efraim-Judah]

What do you mean by this?

There's roughly 2.2 billion Christians worldwide.

Are you saying that Christianity (and by extension all of its various denominations) isn't its own religion? Because in that case, there's a lot of people who would disagree.

Oh...the majority of you are.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

In Canada, we actually do vote for parties and not candidates. The party itself selects which candidate will be prime minister if that party forms a government.

I should say that many candidates might try to do something about abortion in the US, but they will fail. Bush was in office for 8 years and he didn't really manage to change anything.

In Canada, unfortunately there is definitely no one who will do anything about abortion, because none of the political parties here are pro-life. The poison has set in too deep, and there is no cure in the foreseeable future. The only way I can see an end to abortion is through the technology of artificial wombs, which would allow fetuses to be removed without being killed. Unfortunately peoples minds have become too clouded with the delusion that bodily autonomy matters more than life itself for much to be done about it.

No, in Canada, we vote for a candidate, specifically for the candidate to be the Member of Parliament of the riding in which we reside. The party that gets the most seats has its leader become Prime Minister.

And as a Canadian, I'm quite frankly appreciative of the fact that religious fundamentalism has gone to the wayside in politics when we have actual issues to deal with like racism, the continual plight of the indigenous, the economy, the education systems, and so forth. Things that would actually reduce abortion.

You could always vote for the Christian Heritage Party of Canada if there is a candidate in your riding.

I wouldn't vote for them, they are economic right wingers, even more so than Harper.

[Menassa]

So then they wouldn't be Jewish then, now would they?

Jewish guys were writing them, weren't they?

The "New Testament" is as Jewish as Pesach.

The "New Testament" a Greek word, is as Jewish as the Hebrew word Pesach?

[Cill Airne]

If the religion you were born into determines the religion of the book(s) you write, wouldn't that mean Buddhism is actually just Hinduism, since its earliest followers (including Siddhartha Gautama) were Hindus?

That argument has been made; there are those who would stress the commonalities between Buddhism and Hinduism rather than the differences. I offer no opinion on the validity of that opinion, but certainly a close comparison of the two belief systems can prove rewarding.

Not that I'm supporting Efraim-Judah's perspective on the issue, mind.

It was the only example I could come up with at the time apart from potentially saying Islam is pagan due to Muhammad having been pagan (a follower of Jahiliyya) before he founded Islam. And I was slightly concerned that'd open a... Less-than-friendly discussion. But, I digress and I do agree with your thoughts on the comparison of Buddhism and Hinduism.

[Efraim-Judah]

Jewish guys were writing them, weren't they?

The "New Testament" is as Jewish as Pesach.

The "New Testament" a Greek word, is as Jewish as the Hebrew word Pesach?

Please note the quotation marks, friend.

[Menassa]

The "New Testament" a Greek word, is as Jewish as the Hebrew word Pesach?

Please note the quotation marks, friend.

The entire corpus was written in Greek, "The language of the oppressor." and you still think it's a Jewish book? Never mind the clearly non-Jewish content.

[Luminesa]

Which would be a heresy. He didn't make a new religion.

<wooshing sound of point going totally over your head>

Never mind; I don't know why I bothered.

We do love you, Arch. We do.

[Efraim-Judah]

Please note the quotation marks, friend.

The entire corpus was written in Greek, "The language of the oppressor." and you still think it's a Jewish book? Never mind the clearly non-Jewish content.

Not the originals.

[Living Stones]

The entire corpus was written in Greek, "The language of the oppressor." and you still think it's a Jewish book? Never mind the clearly non-Jewish content.

Not the originals.

What language do you read the Pesach in?
Do you read the originals?
If not, what language is it translated from?

[Tveria]

The entire corpus was written in Greek, "The language of the oppressor." and you still think it's a Jewish book? Never mind the clearly non-Jewish content.

Not the originals.

Most scholars are fairly certain the original New Testament writings were in Greek. So few argue in favor/support of Aramaic primacy and Hebrew Gospel hypothesis because very little evidence can be produced in support of their theories.

[Diopolis]

The entire corpus was written in Greek, "The language of the oppressor." and you still think it's a Jewish book? Never mind the clearly non-Jewish content.

Not the originals.

The only bit of the new testament that was originally in a language other than Greek was the gospel of Matthew, whose originals have been lost.

[The Alexanderians]

Ok I figured I'd add this to the thread because I've been contemplating it recently andre-examining some stuff from my past. What are different church stances on exploring faith?
There was a time when I looked into other religions (without formally leaving my church ind you). I'm firmly cemented in where I stand now but I get the feeling my experience may have been..."skewed" with the general good natured responses I got at the time.

[Cill Airne]

Ok I figured I'd add this to the thread because I've been contemplating it recently andre-examining some stuff from my past. What are different church stances on exploring faith?
There was a time when I looked into other religions (without formally leaving my church ind you). I'm firmly cemented in where I stand now but I get the feeling my experience may have been..."skewed" with the general good natured responses I got at the time.

I don't know whether we have an official stance on it, but in my experience the Anglican Communion (at the very least, the Episcopal Church of the United States and the Church of England) welcomed and embraced my spiritual exploration. I spent years studying religions, and even practicing different religions. They were fascinated to learn about my Buddhist practice, my experiences in Islam, &c. They were curious to see how I related these experiences to my newfound Christian faith. I see no harm in exploring religion, as you will never know what beauty you can find and how it relates to your own Christian faith.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The entire corpus was written in Greek, "The language of the oppressor." and you still think it's a Jewish book? Never mind the clearly non-Jewish content.

Not the originals.

Yes they were, the original apostles were illiterate, Paul was a Greek educated Jew. The works were composed in the trade language, Koine.

[Luminesa]

Ok I figured I'd add this to the thread because I've been contemplating it recently andre-examining some stuff from my past. What are different church stances on exploring faith?
There was a time when I looked into other religions (without formally leaving my church ind you). I'm firmly cemented in where I stand now but I get the feeling my experience may have been..."skewed" with the general good natured responses I got at the time.

Depends. I love to study other religions, but I know where I am and where I want to be.

[Menassa]

Not the originals.

What language do you read the Pesach in?
Do you read the originals?
If not, what language is it translated from?

Pesach is the Hebrew word for Passover.