Christian theology thread for Christians - Deus homo factus est naturam erante, mundus renovatus est a Christo regnante

[Headdot Reddot]

When it comes to online communities, it's useful to label people as Christian if they affirm the Nicene Creed as a bare minimum. I've seen a lot of Discord Christian groups do this. It is very helpful especially when you're dealing with people who pretend to be sheep but they're really wolves of some form.

Some servers will even put you into a timeout area and label you a tare among the wheat unless you repent.

New Kingdom Media (a Anglican YouTuber) did a good video recently about Denominational Apologetics, and how torturing yourself with overthinking ancient historical documents can be detriment to your wellbeing. It's important to touch grass and remember the basics of Christianity is true. People overvalue online Christian voices over their more educated clergy and the laymen in their congregation, it's like trying to live on a diet of Junk food alone.

All of these nitpickers kind of suck. The whole concept that Jesus delivers is a one-on-one relationship that in theory could evolve with the times way better than dogmatic rituals. Thats its strength. Then again I'm protestant leaning and enjoy learning about the history surrounding the era Jesus lived in.

Some Christians refuse to discuss various miracles being viewed as anything other than magic tricks which I think goes against the Lords message. For example, turning water into wine is one way to interpret the passage and translation. Another way is to say that it was a comment on how Jesus taught; he didn't water down his lessons (which was how people commonly drank wine in that era) but gave the truth at full strength. Like telling someone they tell it like it is. While not as "impressive" as turning water to wine it does kind of make more sense and in theory the Son of God could still be the Divine one without doing parol tricks. What benefit is there in sending a Divine teacher to teach a people a new faith by doing things only He can do and no one else could repeat? We constantly see Jesus trying to get his followers to understand that being like him means being nice to others and showing love in a way alien to most humans, no miracles are required to do that.

I always felt the infinite fishes story got misconstrued at some point. I imagine it went something more like this: they passed around what little food they had after Jesus kind of guilt tripped everyone and by some "miracle" enough food appeared to feed everyone. People naturally hoard resources. Even I do it (I stop at a gas station to buy some M&M's before visiting a friends house, I buy 2 packs--one to eat at his place and share a few with him and one I leave in my glove compartment that I'll eat to myself on the drive home.) I doubt a massive group of followers would all just up and leave without taking something as basic as food with them--this was a famine culture here (these are cultures that experienced famine so regularly they had pagan gods they worshipped to deliver them healthy crops so they didn't starve.)

George Washington used a similar technique during the Revolutionary war during a particularly bad time. His generals were all pissed, the congress wasn't giving them supplies and many of the generals had personally paid massive amounts to supply their men. They were meeting and basically ready to mutiny. Washington, the master actor, pulls out his reading glasses and says something like, "forgive me but like yourselves I have sacrificed everything... even my sight... for my country." As the story goes there were some teary eyes in the room and it all but shutup the calls for rebellion. This was not novel tactic, he was reminding his followers who had totally justifiable complaints that they were all suffering together and by sticking together they might still survive.

Perhaps when Jesus's followers heard his message and saw them pass around their meager portions many of the people who were hoarding their own personal M&M's felt compelled to make a sacrifice for the greater good. Tell me, is this any less miraculous than making infinite fish appear from nowhere? In honesty, it's more a miracle because human greed is a difficult hurdle to clear.

But forget having such discussions with some Christians. They refuse to accept that any of these miracles were any different than the cartoonish way we often see them imagined (Family guy saying "this is the blood of Christ, he must've been wasted 24/7" or South Park having Jesus perform the fish miracle by having everyone turn around while he wheeled out a cart of fish. Sometimes such naivety can backfire whereas the truth would likely help the overall message of Christ make way more sense to people.

But yeah, I've had that theory shotdown by fellow Christians before.

 

[Preacher ✝]

The Wisdom of Bl. Fulton Sheen

Day 211 - The humble are not cast down by the censures or the slights of others. If they have unconsciously given occasion for them, they amend their faults; if they deserve them not, they treat them as trifles.

 

[Cassius Crayfish]

But forget having such discussions with some Christians. They refuse to accept that any of these miracles were any different than the cartoonish way we often see them imagined (Family guy saying "this is the blood of Christ, he must've been wasted 24/7" or South Park having Jesus perform the fish miracle by having everyone turn around while he wheeled out a cart of fish. Sometimes such naivety can backfire whereas the truth would likely help the overall message of Christ make way more sense to people.

The point of feeding the thousands was that Jesus is the new exodus. Just as God provided manna miraculously in the original exodus from Egypt, so too Jesus provides bread miraculously as proof of the new exodus he is bringing about (from slavery to sin), because only God could do such a thing.

Your rationalisation actually reduces the message of Christ to a guilt-trip, which makes Jesus into little more than an effective speaker, and says nothing about his divinity.

 

[Derrick]

While not as "impressive" as turning water to wine it does kind of make more sense and in theory the Son of God could still be the Divine one without doing parol tricks. What benefit is there in sending a Divine teacher to teach a people a new faith by doing things only He can do and no one else could repeat

If somebody told you they were God and then failed to do anything supernatural to verify this why on Earth would you believe them?

To paraphrase the 18th century rationalist David Hume, "What's more likely? A man rising from the dead or eleven people lying about it?" Jesus's miracles, such as his resurrection, completely uprooted the temporal order, they helped to prove that he was more than human by demonstrating he had command over nature itself. His early critics tried to discredit them by various ways (calling them sorcery or saying that they were mere magic tricks) but they never said that they didn't happen, that is they never settled for there 'there was no purported miraculous event' route, even though it would have been an easier argument to make had it been available.

For example, Celsus (~170 AD), took aim at the very miracle you mentioned, writing, "Well, let us believe that these cures, or the resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a few loaves, from which many fragments remained over, or those other stories of a marvelous nature were actually wrought by you. These are nothing more than the tricks of jugglers, who profess to do more wonderful things". For him the solution wasn't, "oh there was no miracle". It was, "yes, there was indeed a miracle, but it occurred naturally through street magic, sleight of hand, it was (to borrow your words) a parlor trick".

For Jesus's Jewish critics in the Talmud (~200 AD) they too recognized Jesus's miracle but chalked them up to, as Paulie Walnuts once put it, "Satanic black magic, sick shit!" "Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray".

Perhaps with the exception of Thallus (~52 AD), who said the eclipse at Jesus's death was a natural one, I'm unaware of any early critic who attempts to wholesale dismiss Jesus's miracles as nonoccurence, even though if they didn't happen in a miraculous way that would be the easiest argument to make.

For Christians the miracles were the proof they needed to believe Jesus was the man, he was really fully Divine. Paul, for example, calls the miracle of Christ's resurrection the whole reason for the Christian faith, "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain".-1st Corinthians 15:14

We constantly see Jesus trying to get his followers to understand that being like him means being nice to others and showing love in a way alien to most humans, no miracles are required to do that.

I believe you misunderstand this. While Jesus wanted his followers to "be nice to others" (he did call it his greatest commandment) his main message was on his Kingdom, and how to enter it. To quote Bible scholar Gary R. Habermas, "There is remarkably little dispute about the teachings of Jesus as found in the list above. That Jesus' central message was the Kingdom of God and the entrance requirements is rarely questioned, even by critics".

The first time Jesus is quoted in Mark is in relation to the Kingdom, "'The time is fulfilled,' He said, 'and the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe in the gospel!'”-Mark 1:15

If Jesus was like a therapist or motivational speaker who only wanted you to be nice he wouldn't have needed to preform miracles to convince his followers of his message. However in order to convince his followers he had a supernatural kingdom to offer them he had to demonstrate he had supernatural abilities.

 

[24nagging]

Yeah, I've been going to a Lutheran Church for three weeks and I appreciate how small and simple it is, but I can't really accept some of the stuff the LCMS believes. That's all secondary stuff though, I know that.

There's a small Anglican church nearby which I plan to see what it's like.

(Disclosure: am Catholic)
You should go to a Church based on study and inquiry, not on feels. Maybe that's why you feel stuck, you let your passions dictate where you go. You should go to the Church that best reflects historic Christianity and the teachings of Fathers. You probably heard that phrase, and just means going to Churches that have a solid claim to practice and teach what Christ said and did, and what the early followers and leaders (33-500 AD) of the Church said and did. All Churches claim this to some extent, so it's up to you to decide who has the best claim and to follow your conscience. I would start by reading the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the short version of the CCC), and then reading the writings of the Church Fathers or watching videos about the Church Fathers, and then read the respective Catechisms of the other major apostolic traditions (Orthodox, Oriental, and Church of the East), and then the protestant ones.

You should also have a proper predisposition to finding the Truth. By that I mean you should have a solid life of prayer (reading the Catechism on Mental Prayer by Fr. Simler would be excellent), and you should have your moral life in order (avoid the deadly sins, specially Lust, follow the Ten Commandments, specially 6 and 9). Reading spiritual works would aid you immensely. Imitation of Christ is very good, Introduction to the Devout Life, or Confessions are good places to start. But above all, talk to the priests, talk to the parishioners, tell them your struggles with the Faith. If you don't talk to anyone, how are you going to find the truth? How can you understand a denomination if you never even spoken to a member of said denomination, specially the leaders of such? Since they are in it, they surely have a better grasp of it.

In fighting is bound to occur in every place where there are a lot of people, and the Church, sadly, is no exception. It is part of our fallen nature to do so, even. The only religions that don't have infighting are cults, and you should be careful about this topic. See past the infighting on any particular group and see what they have to say. I am praying for you.

 

[Derrick]

Inspired by a book I read I made this chart some of you may find informative.

A list of every First and Second Century source that references the miracles surrounding Jesus's Crucifixion (the 3 hour eclipse, massive earthquake, or resurrection of dead saints)

 

[FlawlessCowboy]

The point of feeding the thousands was that Jesus is the new exodus. Just as God provided manna miraculously in the original exodus from Egypt, so too Jesus provides bread miraculously as proof of the new exodus he is bringing about (from slavery to sin), because only God could do such a thing.

Your rationalisation actually reduces the message of Christ to a guilt-trip, which makes Jesus into little more than an effective speaker, and says nothing about his divinity.

It turns the miracle of loaves into Stone Soup (I love that story, the one I know is French and not the usual Christian Pilgrim one).

 

[Mad_Dog]

Your rationalisation actually reduces the message of Christ to a guilt-trip, which makes Jesus into little more than an effective speaker, and says nothing about his divinity.

Getting a bunch of jews to share their hidden stash with thousands of other people is arguably a greater miracle than creating fish and bread out of nothing.

 

[Preacher ✝]

The Wisdom of Bl. Fulton Sheen

Day 212 - By finding others who apparently are more evil than we, we falsely believe that we are somehow better "than the rest of men" (Luke 18:11). It used to be that the most popular biographies were stories about the lives of good men and women worthy of our imitation, rather than the recounting of scandals for the sake of making us believe we are more virtuous than we really are.

 

[24nagging]

Inspired by a book I read I made this chart some of you may find informative.

A list of every First and Second Century source that references the miracles surrounding Jesus's Crucifixion (the 3 hour eclipse, massive earthquake, or resurrection of dead saints)
Ver archivo adjunto 7715684

the Gospel of John is from this time also

 

[Froggy Fresh Sextape]

Perhaps with the exception of Thallus (~52 AD), who said the eclipse at Jesus's death was a natural one, I'm unaware of any early critic who attempts to wholesale dismiss Jesus's miracles as nonoccurence, even though if they didn't happen in a miraculous way that would be the easiest argument to make.

To be fair, I'm not sure anyone's mind would have worked that way. For example Josephus talks about chariots of fire descending from the air in The Jewish War and is basically like "yeah this sounds crazy but a lot of people told me about it so it's true."

The inclination to treat every claim with extreme skepticism is a modern invention.

 

[Among Us Gaming]

All of these nitpickers kind of suck. The whole concept that Jesus delivers is a one-on-one relationship that in theory could evolve with the times way better than dogmatic rituals.

What would you disavow from the Nicene creed then? Its more or less a statement of "I believe in the Gosepel" with specifics.

 

[Mad_Dog]

 

[Headdot Reddot]

The point of feeding the thousands was that Jesus is the new exodus. Just as God provided manna miraculously in the original exodus from Egypt, so too Jesus provides bread miraculously as proof of the new exodus he is bringing about (from slavery to sin), because only God could do such a thing.

Your rationalisation actually reduces the message of Christ to a guilt-trip, which makes Jesus into little more than an effective speaker, and says nothing about his divinity.

Not really. Jesus can still be the Son of God without every single miracle being some magic. in fact, many would argue that coming to the realization that he is the Savior because of his charitable acts and simple lessons is a better path than "look he can do magic tricks that no one else can do he must be Gods son!!!"

Humble people helping others are closer to Christ than a magician that can perform a trick of turning water to wine. And a modern magician performing such an illusion doesn't mean Jesus wasn't the Son of God, nor does Jesus not performing such a trick not make him the Son of God, nor does performing such an illusion nowadays make the one doing so the Son of God.

If you need magic to believe then go for it. My argument is retard Christians totally overlook the instructions Christ gave for his followers, a common occurrence and theme in his own ministry on earth, and that it might be better to focus on the lessons he taught us that we can imitate rather than going "wow-wee look at that magic trick he did, how did he do that?"

What would you disavow from the Nicene creed then? Its more or less a statement of "I believe in the Gosepel" with specifics.

I don't really give it much thought. Same as I don't care about the bureaucracy of the Catholic church. The NT is wildly available and I've read it many times, Between that and guidance from God I feel I've got a decent enough understanding of Christs message. Not real interested in the dogma of man. In terms of historical research my aim is to gain a better understanding of the world Jesus lived in since that was millennia ago and it more difficult to relate to (the authors didn't provide nearly enough details for various reasons but its nice to find some additional context to help fill out the picture.)

Getting a bunch of jews to share their hidden stash with thousands of other people is arguably a greater miracle than creating fish and bread out of nothing.

And to be fair is this human nature, I gave a fun example of how I often do something similar. This also echo's Christs lessons as he was trying to build a community of generosity, love and empathy for one's neighbor. I've familiar with the argument that "removing even one miracle leads to Jesus not being the Son of God and the resurrection not happening" but thats a bs argument.

We know that some of these stories could've been corrupted by time, a loss of context or by the authors themselves either accidentally or intentionally. There are minor discrepancies between the 4 main accounts of Jesus's life and ministry, I don't think its that unreasonable to discuss other interpretations of specific events. Most Christians don't mind discussing such omitted details (like the specifics of Jesus being a carpenter in his early life and possibly working in neighboring cities and stuff like that.)

 

[Among Us Gaming]

I don't really give it much thought.

But have you read it? The church you go to most likely affirms it, catholic or otherwise. I understand not liking church bureaucracy or dogmas but the Nicene creed isn't really either. It should be worth noting as well that the Unitarian Universalists, widely considered to be one of the most heretical churches when it comes to liberalization rejects it, while most non liberal Protestant denominations along with Catholics and Orthodox avow it often

 

[Divine Power]

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.

For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

[Froggy Fresh Sextape]

Not really. Jesus can still be the Son of God without every single miracle being some magic. in fact, many would argue that coming to the realization that he is the Savior because of his charitable acts and simple lessons is a better path than "look he can do magic tricks that no one else can do he must be Gods son!!!"

In my view it doesn't really matter if you think that something like the Pentecost was a real historical event or not, but you do need to believe in the resurrection. Otherwise Christianity doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Derrick]

the Gospel of John is from this time also

The Gospel of John makes no mention of the darkness, eclipse, or dead saints rising. Therefor I didn't include it.

To be fair, I'm not sure anyone's mind would have worked that way.

The inclination to treat every claim with extreme skepticism is a modern invention.

That's true. Plutarch wrote that, after Julius Casear died, almost a year of prolonged darkness occurred. No doubt the ancients had no knowledge for how long an eclipse should be (no more than 7 1/2 minutes) and a three hour eclipse therefor didn't seem as big a deal. As a matter of fact early apologists like Sextus Africanus (~220 AD) latched onto the fact the eclipse happened during a full moon (which is impossible) and seemingly, for the time being at least, ignored the length of the eclipse in their arguments.

While it's impossible to know exactly what arguments Thallus made beyond 'it was a natural eclipse', since they have become lost to time, my assumption is that he pointed to stories of the year of darkness following Casear's death as what he saw as proof we shouldn't put too much stock into the Crucifixion Darkness.

For example Josephus talks about chariots of fire descending from the air in The Jewish War and is basically like "yeah this sounds crazy but a lot of people told me about it so it's true."

This incident is of interest to me. Josephus didn't just say somebody told him. He was there when it happened. His descriptions are repeated 35 years later by Tacitus in Book V of his Histories:

Spoiler: Tacitus, Histories (~110 AD)

"Prodigies had indeed occurred, but to avert them either by victims or by vows is held unlawful by a people which, though prone to superstition, is opposed to all propitiatory rites.⁠ Contending hosts were seen meeting in the skies, arms flashed, and suddenly the temple was illumined with fire from the clouds. Of a sudden the doors of the shrine opened and a superhuman voice cried: "The gods are departing": at the same moment the mighty stir of their going was heard. Few interpreted these omens as fearful; the majority firmly believed that their ancient priestly writings contained the prophecy that this was the very time when the East should grow strong and that men starting from Judea should possess the world".

Josephus's book on the Jewish War had been given Imperial ascent from Titus as the "officially approved" history of the First Jewish Revolt, as a result theres no doubt in my mind Tacitus had read, and is merely copying, Jospehus's description of chariots in the skies instead of giving an independent testimony. Regardless as a Christian this intrigues me. Jesus said that, within a generation, the Temple would be destroyed and then people would see the Son of Man comings on the clouds and sending his angels out (Mark 13). It's been called the "most embarrassing verse" in Christianity since (seemingly) Jesus didn't come back on the clouds within a generation. However I wonder if the chariots in the sky seen by Josephus over Judea were just that, the Son of Man coming to pronounce his judgement on Israel for the destruction of it's temple and sending out his angels. Of course I'm unaware of any Christian testimonies from the war who said it was Jesus (certainly they would have recognized him after only 40 years) although they may have been lost to time. Eusebius is the oldest surviving Christian source I know to describe this point in history so it's possible somebody before him mentioned it, the Christians at this point in time were hiding in the mountains outside of Jerusalem.

 

[Amerikaner Teddybär]

One thing I find somewhat funny about internet atheists denying God is the claim of Yahweh being a sky war god, despite their being some debate if Yahweh of the old Israelites and the Yahweh in the Bible are the same deity. Anyone more knowledgeable than I got any opinion about this?

 

[not william stenchever]

One thing I find somewhat funny about internet atheists denying God is the claim of Yahweh being a sky war god, despite their being some debate if Yahweh of the old Israelites and the Yahweh in the Bible are the same deity. Anyone more knowledgeable than I got any opinion about this?

I am no expert but the whole "You will hold no god before me" thing implies that Yahweh emerged from a polytheistic background and was turned into a more monotheistic deity over time.