Why did Jesus allow demons to enter a herd of pigs?

ChrisJ84

Peregrinus wrote: »

Definitely not the "own intent" of the bible, most of which, remember, is a legacy of Judaism. What you are offering here as "own intent" is a reading of the texts that Christians came up with, centuries after they were written. And it's a contested interpretation; Jews, obviously, don't share it.

I think you're over-egging this slightly. The whole sweep of the old testament takes humanity from fall to promised salvation - as early as Genesis 3 God promises Adam and Eve that he will send a "serpent crusher" to undo sin. The choosing of Israel and their history through the OT is moving this narrative forward - throughout we see repeated promises of a future saviour, and hints that this will overflow from Israel to the whole world.

So I would summarise by saying that both a Jewish and a Christian reading of the old testament anticipates a saviour to be sent by God - the disagreement is that Christians maintain that this saviour has already come, in the person of Jesus.

Effects

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

So I would summarise by saying that both a Jewish and a Christian reading of the old testament anticipates a saviour to be sent by God - the disagreement is that Christians maintain that this saviour has already come, in the person of Jesus.

But in modern times, there's no way the Jewish people will accept anyone that may be deemed to be that saviour.

ChrisJ84

Peregrinus wrote: »

What you are offering here as "own intent" is a reading of the texts that Christians came up with, centuries after they were written.

This isn't something Christians came up with, but in fact something Jesus himself said (Luke 24:26-27). Which brings us to the nub of the issue - are Jesus' claims credible, and is he who he claims to be? If he is, then of course he can tell us how to interpret the bible, and for that matter will have no problems with making demons enter pigs.

Effects

The problem is with the reporting of what Jesus' said. We have no way to corroborate what the bible tells us Jesus said.

Peregrinus

We shouldn't pontificate with too much authority about how Jews read the Jewish scriptures; that is after all for Jews to say. But we must acknowledge that, while Jews expect a Messiah, they expect a very different Messiah from the one that Christian believe has already come. He's not going to redeem creation, or even redeem the whole of humanity, from its fallen nature; he has the more modest ambition of being a communal leader for the Jewish people who will restore theire fidelity to their Covenant with God. Various good things will follow from this, but (a) they are mostly worldly good things (general prosperity, a reign of justice, the people of Israel become a light to other nations, that kind of thing) and (b) they are incidental; the point of the messianic reign is not to secure these advantages and benefits, but simply to promote fidelity to the Covenant - an inherently good thing that justifies itself. Thus the arc of history that Jews find in the scriptures isn't one from Fall to Redemption/Salvation, involving the whole of creation, but from infidelity to fidelity, involving the whole Jewish people.

In short, the Jewish/Christian disagreement is about much more thant the person of the saviour; it's about the whole notion of saviour, who or what he saves, and what it is that he saves from.

ChrisJ84

Effects wrote: »

But in modern times, there's no way the Jewish people will accept anyone that may be deemed to be that saviour.

I know very little about modern Judaism to be honest, but would draw a parallel.

Many people who say they are Christians or come from a Christian heritage would deny the need for a saviour, or at least a saviour as presented by the bible and the orthodox Christian faith. They would say that we are all basically good, that everyone goes to heaven etc.

Not that's fine and people can believe what they like, but we need to ask whether those beliefs stack up with what Christianity is and teaches, or whether they should properly be called something else.

ChrisJ84

Peregrinus wrote: »

We shouldn't pontificate with too much authority about how Jews read the Jewish scriptures; that is after all for Jews to say. But we must acknowledge that, while Jews expect a Messiah, they expect a very different Messiah from the one that Christian believe has already come. He's not going to redeem creation, or even redeem the whole of humanity, from its fallen nature; he has the more modest ambition of being a communal leader for the Jewish people who will restore theire fidelity to their Covenant with God. Various good things will follow from this, but (a) they are mostly worldly good things (general prosperity, a reign of justice, the people of Israel become a light to other nations, that kind of thing) and (b) they are incidental; the point of the messianic reign is not to secure these advantages and benefits, but simply to promote fidelity to the Covenant - an inherently good thing that justifies itself. Thus the arc of history that Jews find in the scriptures isn't one from Fall to Redemption/Salvation, involving the whole of creation, but from infidelity to fidelity, involving the whole Jewish people.

In short, the Jewish/Christian disagreement is about much more thant the person of the saviour; it's about the whole notion of saviour, who or what he saves, and what it is that he saves from.

Agreed, it is more complex than the mere fact of whether Jesus is the messiah or not. My point is that the Christian reading of the old testament is coherent and consistent.

Effects

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Not that's fine and people can believe what they like, but we need to ask whether those beliefs stack up with what Christianity is and teaches, or whether they should properly be called something else.

What do you expect with the examples they are given?

The upper echelons of the Catholic church preach from palaces, worship gold, false gods and power over everything else.

realdanbreen

I've asked this question before but never got a straight answer.

Humans are on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years so therefore why would God only decide to send his son, Jesus, to earth only 2000 or so years ago? What became of the billions of humans who lived and died before God sent his son to spread the word?

Effects

realdanbreen wrote: »

I've asked this question before but never got a straight answer.

Humans are on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years so therefore why would God only decide to send his son, Jesus, to earth only 2000 or so years ago? What became of the billions of humans who lived and died before God sent his son to spread the word?

Well there's only two things that could have happened.

God created the world, and started the ball rolling in terms of evolution.
He then stepped back to see what his creation would become. He had no idea how man was going to turn out.

The other option is that, again, he started the process of evolution, but he knew exactly how Homo Sapiens was going to evolve and become the dominant species of the genus Homo.

In either case, God knew that he had to wait until the right time to introduce his son Jesus to the world, to be born of a fallen woman, Mary.
Mary was most certainly not a virgin, but this narrative fits the misogynistic views of the bible/catholic church.

To add to your question, I think it's more important to discuss when souls became existent. Did god only introduce them with homo sapiens, or do earlier precursors to modern humans have them?
Do they go to the same heaven as we do, or is it a different existence?

realdanbreen

Effects wrote: »

Well there's only two things that could have happened.

God created the world, and started the ball rolling in terms of evolution.
He then stepped back to see what his creation would become. He had no idea how man was going to turn out.

The other option is that, again, he started the process of evolution, but he knew exactly how Homo Sapiens was going to evolve and become the dominant species of the genus Homo.

In either case, God knew that he had to wait until the right time to introduce his son Jesus to the world, to be born of a fallen woman, Mary.
Mary was most certainly not a virgin, but this narrative fits the misogynistic views of the bible/catholic church.

To add to your question, I think it's more important to discuss when souls became existent. Did god only introduce them with homo sapiens, or do earlier precursors to modern humans have them?
Do they go to the same heaven as we do, or is it a different existence?

So if the humans that lived and died pre Jesus arriving are gone to heaven then did we not get the short straw insofar as we can end up in hell?

Peregrinus

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Agreed, it is more complex than the mere fact of whether Jesus is the messiah or not. My point is that the Christian reading of the old testament is coherent and consistent.

Oh, sure, I wouldn't disagree. But I think we have to acknowledge that it's a reading that is heavily influenced by (a) faith in Jesus Christ, and our reflections on the implication of that faith, and (b) reading the Jewish scriptures together with, and in the light of, the New Testament texts. And, obviously, these are factors which were not at work, cannot have been at work, when the OT scriptures were produced, and when they were first received as inspired scripture.

So, Christian readings of the OT texts are driven by something outside the OT texts themselves. Which doesn't in any way invalidate those readings, or make them incoherent or inconsistent. It just means we can't claim that the Christian readings reflect the texts' "own intent", which is the claim I came in to argue with. I think Jewish readings of the OT texts have a much better claim to reflect the "own intent" of those texts than Christian readings do.

Peregrinus

realdanbreen wrote: »

I've asked this question before but never got a straight answer.

Humans are on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years so therefore why would God only decide to send his son, Jesus, to earth only 2000 or so years ago? What became of the billions of humans who lived and died before God sent his son to spread the word?

The Christian view is that the sacrifice of Christ is for the redemption of the whole of humanity. There is no distinction between those who lived and died before Jesus's time, Jesus's contemporaries, or those who came after.

gozunda

Effects wrote: »

Well there's only two things that could have happened.

God created the world, and started the ball rolling in terms of evolution.
He then stepped back to see what his creation would become. He had no idea how man was going to turn out.

The other option is that, again, he started the process of evolution, but he knew exactly how Homo Sapiens was going to evolve and become the dominant species of the genus Homo.

In either case, God knew that he had to wait until the right time to introduce his son Jesus to the world, to be born of a fallen woman, Mary.
Mary was most certainly not a virgin, but this narrative fits the misogynistic views of the bible/catholic church.

To add to your question, I think it's more important to discuss when souls became existent. Did god only introduce them with homo sapiens, or do earlier precursors to modern humans have them?
Do they go to the same heaven as we do, or is it a different existence?

Why would mary have been a 'fallen woman'?

realdanbreen

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Christian view is that the sacrifice of Christ is for the redemption of the whole of humanity. There is no distinction between those who lived and died before Jesus's time, Jesus's contemporaries, or those who came after.

But the people who lived before Jesus arrival never heard the word of God so can't have been judged in the same way as those who did hear the word of God. So if you happen to believe in heaven and hell then the early humans got the better deal?

Peregrinus

realdanbreen wrote: »

But the people who lived before Jesus arrival never heard the word of God so can't have been judged in the same way as those who did hear the word of God. So if you happen to believe in heaven and hell then the early humans got the better deal?

We can't say that they never heard the word of God; only that they never heard the word of God (a) in the person of Jesus Christ (b) during their own earthly lives. The Christian tradition is that Jesus preached salvation to the dead also, and they had the same opportunity to respond as the rest of humanity; you just didn't observe it because you weren't dead at the time. Google the "harrowing of hell' for artistic representations of this theological concept.

realdanbreen

Peregrinus wrote: »

We can't say that they never heard the word of God; only that they never heard the word of God (a) in the person of Jesus Christ (b) during their own earthly lives. The Christian tradition is that Jesus preached salvation to the dead also, and they had the same opportunity to respond as the rest of humanity; you just didn't observe it because you weren't dead at the time. Google the "harrowing of hell' for artistic representations of this theological concept.

I'm afraid when it all starts getting a little fuzzy like this that is when I get even more sceptical about the whole thing.. Let me pose another simple question. About say 60 years ago the seminaries were overflowing with guys who had received a 'calling or vocation' from God to become priests( mind you the vast majority of these callings were received by sons of big farmers and businessmen). Why is God not sending out these 'callings' today?

Peregrinus

You're making two assumptions there, Dan. The first is that, 60 years ago, the people who thought they had a calling to the priesthood did in fact have a calling to the priesthood. The second is that, today, people who don't discern a calling to the priesthood aren't in fact called to the priesthood.

I myself am a little more sceptical than you, because I'm not prepared to make either of those assumptions.

realdanbreen

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're making two assumptions there, Dan. The first is that, 60 years ago, the people who thought they had a calling to the priesthood did in fact have a calling to the priesthood. The second is that, today, people who don't discern a calling to the priesthood aren't in fact called to the priesthood.

I myself am a little more sceptical than you, because I'm not prepared to make either of those assumptions.

It's fierce early in the morning for me to be getting my head around this Pere.
I suppose I should cut to the chase. As a young fella growing up I had a faith/belief in the existence of God as most of my peers had. Now as I've grown older I am a little less inclined to have that faith/belief. Would you, or other posters here, feel much the same?

Peregrinus

I think pretty well everyone who has grown older has a different faith or belief from the one they had as a youth; that comes with the territory of growing up.

And one of the things I notice - don't take this personally; it's not a dig at you or at anyone in particular - is that a lot of atheist critiques of faith are framed as critiques of a very childish, simplistic faith. This is partly because (a) it's easy to critique; it's like shooting fish in a barrel, but possibly also because (b) what they are actually critiquing is their own childish faith that they rejected when they stopped being children, because that's the form of faith they are most familiar with.

No doubt there are adult believers who still hold a very child-like, simple faith. I could name one or two. But it's not typical, or normal. Your question about vocations assumed that all the vocations in the 1950s were genuine spiritual vocations (and had nothing to do with, e.g., the social capital that priesthood represented at the time; the limited other opportunities that people had) and that the current lack of vocations is simply the result of God not calling people, and is not influenced by other factors. I doubt that many adult Christians believe either of those things, so your question doesn't really pose much of a challenge to their faith.

realdanbreen

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think pretty well everyone who has grown older has a different faith or belief from the one they had as a youth; that comes with the territory of growing up.

And one of the things I notice - don't take this personally; it's not a dig at you or at anyone in particular - is that a lot of atheist critiques of faith are framed as critiques of a very childish, simplistic faith. This is partly because (a) it's easy to critique; it's like shooting fish in a barrel, but possibly also because (b) what they are actually critiquing is their own childish faith that they rejected when they stopped being children, because that's the form of faith they are most familiar with.

No doubt there are adult believers who still hold a very child-like, simple faith. I could name one or two. But it's not typical, or normal. Your question about vocations assumed that all the vocations in the 1950s were genuine spiritual vocations (and had nothing to do with, e.g., the social capital that priesthood represented at the time; the limited other opportunities that people had) and that the current lack of vocations is simply the result of God not calling people, and is not influenced by other factors. I doubt that many adult Christians believe either of those things, so your question doesn't really pose much of a challenge to their faith.

So can you explain what this "different " faith is and how it differs from the faith I grew up with. As for vocations you seem to be suggesting that there never was such a thing (BTW I'm inclined to agree with you ) and that chosing the priesthood was much like deciding to become a painter or a car salesman.

theological

Effects wrote: »

The problem is with the reporting of what Jesus' said. We have no way to corroborate what the bible tells us Jesus said.

It's odd that you say this and then go on to say what is more certain to you without any eyewitness testimony at all.

At the time the New Testament was disseminated there were hundreds of not thousands of people who could have openly contradicted the claims made in the gospels of they were to be false or even in the oral gospel spread by the first believers or in the written letters of the apostles. The Bible is the only religious text that I have come across that makes specific claims about specific people in specific places at specific times. This is particularly true of the gospels. If you wanted to avoid scrutiny you wouldn't go into specific details like the gospel writers did. You'd be vague and not make any claims about the temporal nature of the world.

Effects wrote: »

Mary was most certainly not a virgin, but this narrative fits the misogynistic views of the bible/catholic church.

Most certainly on what basis? You're not following your own rules on what counts as valid testimony here.

If you're interested in genuinely finding out more about Christianity great but if you're more interested in putting your own opinion above Scripture without basis I can't say I respect that a lot.

realdanbreen wrote: »

I've asked this question before but never got a straight answer.

Humans are on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years so therefore why would God only decide to send his son, Jesus, to earth only 2000 or so years ago? What became of the billions of humans who lived and died before God sent his son to spread the word?

Fortunately the Bible gives us an answer on both parts of your question.

Romans 4 tells us that Abraham who lived long before Jesus was justified by faith in God long before. The sacrifice of Jesus was sufficient even for him. I guess this is why in Genesis 22 God stops Abraham sacrificing Isaac the son of the promise by providing a ram. This points forward to the day when God's Son would die in our place for our sin.

Galatians 4 also looks to the example of Abraham. But in verse 4 it says "in the fullness of time" God sent His Son. In Romans 5 just a chapter on in verse 6 it says "at the right time Christ died for the ungodly". So Scripture tells us God decreed it was the right time. It doesn't spell out exactly why but I suspect if God had sent Jesus right at the Garden of Eden we wouldn't have understood the tension of his a holy God can deal with a sinful people and we wouldn't have understood the severity of our sin.

I point to the Bible first and foremost. It contains everything needed for life and godliness and it is written for our instruction. I'd recommend you read it for yourself rather than trusting me.

santana75

realdanbreen wrote: »

But the people who lived before Jesus arrival never heard the word of God so can't have been judged in the same way as those who did hear the word of God. So if you happen to believe in heaven and hell then the early humans got the better deal?

People who lived before Jesus did hear the word of God though. The scriptures were written long before Jesus walked the earth. I mean Jesus himself quoted the scriptures when he was being tempted by Satan in the wilderness. How could Jesus quote from something that didnt exist? The information was there, the pharisees were the religious leaders at the time and they lived by the "Law of Moses".
I'd second looking into the "Harrowing of hell" though. The idea is that after Jesus was laid in the tomb he went to Hades to preach to the dead so that it was an even playing field so to speak. I believe Paul mentions this, that in the 3 days after his death, Jesus preached to the dead.

santana75

realdanbreen wrote: »

I suppose I should cut to the chase. As a young fella growing up I had a faith/belief in the existence of God as most of my peers had. Now as I've grown older I am a little less inclined to have that faith/belief. Would you, or other posters here, feel much the same?

I'd have the opposite experience. I grew up catholic but turned away from it when I was a teenager. But I came back to faith by my own volition, gradually over time. I feel like my faith grows in proportion to how much of my time I devote to God on a daily basis. I used to just get up in the morning and set about the days tasks, and by the end of the day I wouldnt have given any time to God really. So I changed things in my life and made God number 1. In the morning I get up and I read the scriptures, I pray, I sit and meditate on the word of God. This has made a massive difference in my faith. Its simple, the more time I devote to God the more my faith and belief grows.

ChrisJ84

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, sure, I wouldn't disagree. But I think we have to acknowledge that it's a reading that is heavily influenced by (a) faith in Jesus Christ, and our reflections on the implication of that faith, and (b) reading the Jewish scriptures together with, and in the light of, the New Testament texts. And, obviously, these are factors which were not at work, cannot have been at work, when the OT scriptures were produced, and when they were first received as inspired scripture.

So, Christian readings of the OT texts are driven by something outside the OT texts themselves. Which doesn't in any way invalidate those readings, or make them incoherent or inconsistent. It just means we can't claim that the Christian readings reflect the texts' "own intent", which is the claim I came in to argue with. I think Jewish readings of the OT texts have a much better claim to reflect the "own intent" of those texts than Christian readings do.

My only problem with what you've said is that the Christian claim is more far reaching than that. Christianity doesn't claim to only re-interpret the OT or bring a new understanding to it, rather it claims to fulfil the OT, and bring into full focus things that were previously unclear or partial. In that sense, I would say that the Christian reading of the OT is the best way to understand it, and in fact is the way it is intended to be understood. And so Abraham, Isaac, King David and others would recognise in the new testament the fulfilment of everything they were longing for.

The other danger is that we drive too much of a wedge between the old testament and the new, whereas Christianity emphasises the unity of scripture, and teaches a continuity that runs through the history of redemption from creation to new creation.

The other thing I would way, and I said it in a reply to another post, is that all these claims hinge on the question of who Jesus is, and what he came to do.

realdanbreen

It's good to hear

santana75 wrote: »

realdanbreen wrote: »

I suppose I should cut to the chase. As a young fella growing up I had a faith/belief in the existence of God as most of my peers had. Now as I've grown older I am a little less inclined to have that faith/belief. Would you, or other posters here, feel much the same?

I'd have the opposite experience. I grew up catholic but turned away from it when I was a teenager. But I came back to faith by my own volition, gradually over time. I feel like my faith grows in proportion to how much of my time I devote to God on a daily basis. I used to just get up in the morning and set about the days tasks, and by the end of the day I wouldnt have given any time to God really. So I changed things in my life and made God number 1. In the morning I get up and I read the scriptures, I pray, I sit and meditate on the word of God. This has made a massive difference in my faith. Its simple, the more time I devote to God the more my faith and belief grows.

It's good to hear that you get such benefit from your faith. The God that you pray to, is that the same God that the 1.3 billion Muslims pray to? I'm not trying to be smart I just need someone to clarify these things.

Effects

gozunda wrote: »

Why would mary have been a 'fallen woman'?

She had sex outside of wedlock and became pregnant.
She was lucky that Joseph took her in.
She wouldn’t have been so lucky in 20th Century Ireland.

Effects

theological wrote: »

It's odd that you say this and then go on to say what is more certain to you without any eyewitness testimony at all.

You don’t need eye witness testimony when you have empirical evidence.

Most certainly on what basis? You're not following your own rules on what counts as valid testimony

Again, you don’t need eye witness accounts, when you have science to fall back on.

the dark phantom

Effects wrote: »

She had sex outside of wedlock and became pregnant.
She was lucky that Joseph took her in.
She wouldn’t have been so lucky in 20th Century Ireland.

According to this Facebook page Jesus did come back and he settled in Ireland.

https://www.facebook.com/Church-of-our-lords-son-Duncan-Sloan-143612859643961/?ref=bookmarks

santana75

realdanbreen wrote: »

It's good to hear
It's good to hear that you get such benefit from your faith. The God that you pray to, is that the same God that the 1.3 billion Muslims pray to? I'm not trying to be smart I just need someone to clarify these things.

But why do you need clarification? Its simple: Read the Bible, regularly. If you do that you wont even think about what other people worship. Its about you and your personal relationship with God.