Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Some questions that I should have asked when I was little but didn't.
-
12-06-2011 9:06am#1
Comments
-
-
This is probably just going to show how bad my religious education was when I was small, but OK.
Ha! yes it does
...Whereabouts was Jesus before he came to earth? Or did he exist before he became flesh?
the first line of John's gospel answers this. (in the beginning was the Word etc) The Word is Jesus. That is why we say "the word was made flesh" to describe the Incarnation.
...Where did Jesus go when he died, before he was Risen again?
He went to where the souls of the Just who had died prior to His passion and death were, often called Abraham's bosom. As heaven was now open, he released them from their prison and brought them to heaven.
...are there any generally accepted theories as to what he actually got up to during the so-called 'hidden years'?
Yes. but better get the basics covered first.
...can the bible be read with the importance being placed *only* on the teachings of Jesus himself, and not on what other people (I'm looking at you, St Paul, you crazy psycho) thought about him?
No
...Do this in memory of me. Could he have just meant eating? No. He took the bread and said "this is my body" I feel really stupid asking this question but eating is central to the human experience. Everyone has to eat. So does that mean by extension that we remember him during the most mundane actions of our lives, and not necessarily through the act of communion? [2 parter - where did the whole 'transubstantiation' thing come from anyway??] It came from Holy Mother Church, an interesting word thought up by someone to help us better understand the doctrine of the Real Presence
There's probably more questions, and if I can think of them later then I will.
those are catholic answers, I think that's what you wanted?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
...Whereabouts was Jesus before he came to earth? Or did he exist before he became flesh?
Christians differ (as you see from this thread!) but Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant and Pentecostal Christians all would argue that the Scriptures suggest Jesus has always existed. The Creeds talk about him as begotten and not made. The Scriptures say that in the beginning he was with God.
This is actually a beautiful question (and thus prompts me out of my boards.ie retirement to write about it - damn you!
). When the Gospel of John begins with the glorious poem about Jesus, what John is claiming is that the WORD by which God created in Genesis is Jesus. Hence, he is making this early, deeply Jewish allusion to the emerging Christian belief in Trinity. It's all very rich and fertile stuff to think about!
(By the way: I propose that those four categories are a better way of thinking about the different wings of the church than arid arguments about fringes and so on!)...Where did Jesus go when he died, before he was Risen again?
Again, the answer reveals the Jesus movement to be profoundly Jewish in nature. In the New Testament letter 1 Peter, we are told that Jesus went to the "imprisoned spirits". The early prayers of faith of the church, the Creeds, sometimes described that as descending to hell. But a range of answers from the four quarters of the church have been advanced and each of them are viable without being compelling.
Suffice to say, he was separated from God....are there any generally accepted theories as to what he actually got up to during the so-called 'hidden years'?
Ann Rice wrote some books about that after she became a Christian a few years ago but there is not enough evidence to even build a theory. It's an enigma.
Reading Jesus, I am amazed by how deeply he understood the Scriptures and how comfortable he was in solitude. I think whatever he did from the age of 12 to 30, it had lots of time for prayer and contemplation....can the bible be read with the importance being placed *only* on the teachings of Jesus himself, and not on what other people (I'm looking at you, St Paul, you crazy psycho) thought about him?
My dad and I often talk about Paul. He thinks Paul might have had a few screws loose too. But I think that our antipathy to Paul is in part based on a subconscious desire to strip Christianity of its Jewish roots. When we stop trying to read him as a post-Enlightenment moral teacher, Paul comes alive. (In my opinion!)
Jesus wrote nothing. I think there are good theological reasons for that. So the portrait of Jesus we have has to be by other people.0 -
-
This is actually a beautiful question (and thus prompts me out of my boards.ie retirement to write about it - damn you! ). When the Gospel of John begins with the glorious poem about Jesus, what John is claiming is that the WORD by which God created in Genesis is Jesus. Hence, he is making this early, deeply Jewish allusion to the emerging Christian belief in Trinity. It's all very rich and fertile stuff to think about!
ooooo I like that. It reminds me of something I read long ago in the History of God. Jesus is the Word, and was made Flesh. That's fantastic!
Again, the answer reveals the Jesus movement to be profoundly Jewish in nature. In the New Testament letter 1 Peter, we are told that Jesus went to the "imprisoned spirits". The early prayers of faith of the church, the Creeds, sometimes described that as descending to hell. But a range of answers from the four quarters of the church have been advanced and each of them are viable without being compelling.
Suffice to say, he was separated from God.
This raises more questions to my mind. Were all his wanderings alone in the wilderness a preparation for this seperation? Would he have been severed from his own soul, like the daemons in His Dark Materials? What dreadful ways did he walk, then?
Ann Rice wrote some books about that after she became a Christian a few years ago but there is not enough evidence to even build a theory. It's an enigma.
I read them! Or two of them anyway. They were OK. I've written to her a few times about theology and things, she's actually really helpful and sent me a list of books to read because The Imitation of Christ was scaring me so much [in that it seemed to advocate self-harm? Or at least that was the way I read it at the time, in that mindset, all those years ago].
Reading Jesus, I am amazed by how deeply he understood the Scriptures and how comfortable he was in solitude. I think whatever he did from the age of 12 to 30, it had lots of time for prayer and contemplation.
I've said to people before that if, hypothetically speaking, Jesus wasn't really the Messiah and this was all some elaborate, successful sham, then he was definitely a Jesus-freak in that he would have been then just a man completely obsessed with the Jewish sacred texts to the point that he could reel them off the top of his head, no bother on him, fixated on the idea of the Messiah. He really knew his stuff, and did everything to the letter of the law.
And finally....Well hello I am so glad that you're here now! A new friend to play with! Or something... 0 -
-
-
-
-
This raises more questions to my mind. Were all his wanderings alone in the wilderness a preparation for this seperation? Would he have been severed from his own soul, like the daemons in His Dark Materials? What dreadful ways did he walk, then?
I think that the answer to the question has to be much more rooted in First Century Judaism than in late 20th Century literature! If you look at the Gospels, John is especially clear on this, Jesus' prayer life reveals a soul that is the opposite of severed- he is deeply connected to the Father.
While Christians have done a crappy job at this, the questions you are asking are very sharply bringing into focus the real dynamism of Christian spirituality. In Jesus' wilderness wanderings we see a soul utterly raptured by YHWH. This Trinitarian reimagining of Jewish spiritual disciplines is probably more historically viable a reading than drawing in Pullman.
(Subtle Knife is deadly though)I read them! Or two of them anyway. They were OK. I've written to her a few times about theology and things, she's actually really helpful and sent me a list of books to read because The Imitation of Christ was scaring me so much [in that it seemed to advocate self-harm? Or at least that was the way I read it at the time, in that mindset, all those years ago].
Ah! At last someone else who writes to authors. I have that annoying habit too!
I'll get back to the Messiah thing after I go read some Weimar philosophy and have a coffee!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
In my experience, those who reject Paul have the vested interest in not liking his affront to sin. Due to his work in confronting sin and corruption in his letters to the early congregations, he is quite direct.
Clearly, just because I think Paul is a bit of a tool doesn't mean I have a 'vested interest in not liking his affront to sin'. If I can read the rest of the Scriptures and try to live by their rules, surely I'm going back to the original source by doing that? Paul just reiterates the Scriptures.
As for why I think he's a psycho, I answered my own question earlier:And OK, I'll just have to put up with Paul. I find him irritating and stuck up.
Story time.
My father's family are Jewish, OK, but I was brought up as a Catholic because my mother wanted it that way. When I was little, my nana's brother, Stan, used to tell this story about why he converted to Catholicism. He had a very great friend who was sick, and the doctor wouldn't come to see him because it was the Sabbath, and his friend died. So he converted to Catholicism, and was a fanatical, zealous Roman Catholic from then on until the day he died.
For some reason, this always rubbed me the wrong way, and reminds me of Paul's own conversion. I just feel he had the zeal of the newly converted, and wanted to throw the book at people because of it. You see it in the younger priests, the ones I've known, anyway, and often as they grow older they mellow or something, and become more compassionate, I think. Unsure as to whether compassionate is the right word.
Again, this is all just me talking. I realise it'll probably really irritate some people, so maybe I'm not educated enough in my bible reading or something, but this is my stance at the moment.0 -
-
-
Story time.
My father's family are Jewish...
I don't want to get embroiled in the argument about the ways you can discard Paul and still be a Christian. I do just want to say that I think your honesty here is admirable. Personal testimony influences our positions and convictions far more than our culture happily allows.
Your own family experience of what I call turbo-Catholicism casts Paul in a certain light that lends you less than open to any insight he has to offer. Articulating your scepticism of his intentions in this way actually frees you up to do two valuable things:- Continue to re-assess Paul on his own terms
- By so doing, allow you to re-consider your family of origin and the particular narrative that shapes your life.
From where I stand, Paul is distorted by the nature of the letters he left behind. He wrote many letters that we no longer have. What we call 1 Corinthians is at least the second letter to the church at Corinth (since he makes reference to earlier dialogues). The letters that we do have almost all have to deal with particular conflicts in the church. As he is forced to write in response to conflict, he dedicates much time to hard statements. These need to be read in their appropriate context and that inevitably changes the angle with which we view him.
Still, in spite of this, he ends up writing passages like the end of chapter 3 of Galatians, Romans 8 or the great love chapter of 1 Corinthians 13- pieces of text that I think reveal his true heart- which is far from the book throwing, law-creating, egomaniacal, moral monster we sometimes see him presented as.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Clearly, just because I think Paul is a bit of a tool doesn't mean I have a 'vested interest in not liking his affront to sin'. If I can read the rest of the Scriptures and try to live by their rules, surely I'm going back to the original source by doing that? Paul just reiterates the Scriptures.
As for why I think he's a psycho, I answered my own question earlier:
Story time.
My father's family are Jewish, OK, but I was brought up as a Catholic because my mother wanted it that way. When I was little, my nana's brother, Stan, used to tell this story about why he converted to Catholicism. He had a very great friend who was sick, and the doctor wouldn't come to see him because it was the Sabbath, and his friend died. So he converted to Catholicism, and was a fanatical, zealous Roman Catholic from then on until the day he died.
For some reason, this always rubbed me the wrong way, and reminds me of Paul's own conversion. I just feel he had the zeal of the newly converted, and wanted to throw the book at people because of it. You see it in the younger priests, the ones I've known, anyway, and often as they grow older they mellow or something, and become more compassionate, I think. Unsure as to whether compassionate is the right word.
Again, this is all just me talking. I realise it'll probably really irritate some people, so maybe I'm not educated enough in my bible reading or something, but this is my stance at the moment.
TBH, if this is how you feel about Paul, I don't think you get Paul. Remember it was Paul who had to confront Peter and Barnabas about withdrawing from the company of gentiles at meal times when members of the Jewish congregation came. He was certainly zealous, as every Christian should be. Having your Christianity 'mellow' is a common thing, but its NOT a good thing when you consider what it means.0 -
-
-
-
I think you are all deluded, and none of you are interested in the truth. So such claims mean very little to me as I don't think you are any more interested in the truth than any other Christian including the OP.
This opens up the discussion as to the nature of truth, of reality. Abstract, even metaphysical concepts. I could argue it, but I have elsewhere, often, in the last few days (mostly on the After Hours forum) and I'm tired of doing it right now. Sorry
Sometimes though I do feel that there are no universal truths, that everything about the workings of our minds and perceptions is subjective and personal and unique, and that nobody should be allowed to belittle someone else for what their truth is. You know?0 -
-
-
This opens up the discussion as to the nature of truth, of reality. Abstract, even metaphysical concepts. I could argue it, but I have elsewhere, often, in the last few days (mostly on the After Hours forum) and I'm tired of doing it right now. Sorry
Sometimes though I do feel that there are no universal truths, that everything about the workings of our minds and perceptions is subjective and personal and unique, and that nobody should be allowed to belittle someone else for what their truth is. You know?
No discussion required. I was just reminding Jimi that appealing to the idea that he and those who think like him are the genuine seekers of truth and others are not means very little to me. You are all equally deluded to my mind
If you are interested Richard Dawkins as a very funny anecdote in The God Delusion about some Church of England members rolling their nose up at the religion of some Polynesian tribe, as if Christianity was some how far more reasonable and rational and the tribes men were being stupid for following their religion.0 -
-
Advertisement
Advertisement