Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TMBH

I'd love an opinion

Recommended Posts

I thought Jews are God's people? Nobosy should hateanyone for what they believe in.

This I have to jump on immediately.

Christians should NOT hate Jews. They are the Lord's original chosen people, and many Christians who converted were Jewish. This idea of yours Ghid is entirely beyond me. Muslims and Christians have nothing in common except Abraham. The creator of Islam is linked to Abraham's illegitimate child with Sarah's maid I believe it was? P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This I have to jump on immediately.

Christians should NOT hate Jews. They are the Lord's original chosen people, and many Christians who converted were Jewish. This idea of yours Ghid is entirely beyond me. Muslims and Christians have nothing in common except Abraham. The creator of Islam is linked to Abraham's illegitimate child with Sarah's maid I believe it was? P

I was thinking the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Bryan Lamb interviewed Jessica Stern, the nice Jewish girl, about her book, Terror in the Name of God, he asked her why Muslims hate the Jews, She smiled and said that everybody hates the Jews.

 

Of course, Professor Stern, meant that hatred of Jews is common around the world. Hatred of Jews by Muslims in nothing new.

 

I likely would not know about antisemitism, but I saw the movie, Fiddler on the Roof. Then I read about the author, Sholem Aleichem, who was a Russian Ukrainian author who wrote in Yiddish, a dialect of German spoken among Eastern European Jews.

 

Reading about Aleichem leads to knowing about pogroms because he saw the pogroms that swept through southern Russia in 1905.

 

A pogrom is a massacre or persecution of an ethnic or religious group. The term became an English word because of attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  

 

Like the situation in Germany before and during World War Two, the Church did not direct the pogroms, but the attackers were Christians and the victims where Jews.

 

So when I read about how in Acts the phrase "reestablishing the Kingdom of Israel" could mean "settling the score with Jews," I wonder if the attackers might use that as justification for their actions. 

 

I also know that Jewish scholars have asked the Pope to change the way the church teaches about the Jews participation in killing Jesus because they think that contributes to violence against Jews. I don't know much about that. I have not had time to read about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Episode #10

 

Seems to me that the creation is a miracle, and humans can't know if one part of it is more miraculous than another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Episode #11

 

“In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.”

 

In the Twenty-First Century, it sounds corny, a line maybe from Three Penny Opera or Elmer Gantry. (Burt Lancaster, dreamy eyes) But how is it not an incantation? When I read that, I wonder if Peter will be arrested and be put to death as a witch. We live now in a world where lame people walk, and we still condemn witches. No longer for incantations, but for selling various sorts of witches brew, for example Pablo Escobar, the hippopotamus drug lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Episode 12

 

My Baptist cousins say that John the Baptist was the first Baptist. Based on Acts 3, maybe Peter was also Baptist preacher.

 

In Acts 3, Peter and John go to the temple; and Peter lectures the crowd in a manner that must have sounded worthy of the thundering crescendo of Jonathan Edwards or Jeremiah Wright. "EEE oooo .... handed him over to be killed .... EEE ooo disowned him before Pilate ... EEE ooo disowned the Holy and Righteous One ..."

 

Now I suppose that the intent of the EEE ooo could be: Yal in the crowd who participated in the execution, and yal know who you are, but maybe Peter just got caught up in the hyperbole.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Episode #13

 

Episode #5 mentioned something about Christians being “suppressed and rejected by the state,” The arrest of Peter and John in Acts 4 suggests that the Christians had good reason to fear the temple officials.

 

Turns out Luke is a sexist. He says, “… so the number of men who believed grew … “ His interest is men. The rest of us don’t count. He’s a sexist, but maybe that is not his fault. The sexist view of life must have been the normal thing.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Episode 16

 

Speaking of stuff, John D Rockefeller is supposed to be said in Lady's Home Companion in 1915. "God gave me my money."

 

And speaking of public relations, The Crucifixion must be the most successful publicity event of all time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Episode #13
 
Episode #5 mentioned something about Christians being “suppressed and rejected by the state,” The arrest of Peter and John in Acts 4 suggests that the Christians had good reason to fear the temple officials.
 
Turns out Luke is a sexist. He says, “… so the number of men who believed grew … “ His interest is men. The rest of us don’t count. He’s a sexist, but maybe that is not his fault. The sexist view of life must have been the normal thing.
 
:)

 

Wow! Thanks for your thoughts, I thought this thread was probably dead and hadn't checked in for a while. You said a lot that I resonate with and appreciate, so it's probably kind of nitpicky for me to jump in on just one point, but hey, it's a discussion forum and that's what we do :)

Luke wasn't a sexist. At all. He went out of his way to demonstrate the parts women played in the story. We don't read Luke fairly if we apply recent 21st century Western gender ideals to his work which was more in keeping with modern values than just about anything being written at the time. Luke was opening himself up to tremendous criticism by treating women with charity and inclusiveness in his writing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Thanks for your thoughts, I thought this thread was probably dead and hadn't checked in for a while. You said a lot that I resonate with and appreciate, so it's probably kind of nitpicky for me to jump in on just one point, but hey, it's a discussion forum and that's what we do :)

Luke wasn't a sexist. At all. He went out of his way to demonstrate the parts women played in the story. We don't read Luke fairly if we apply recent 21st century Western gender ideals to his work which was more in keeping with modern values than just about anything being written at the time. Luke was opening himself up to tremendous criticism by treating women with charity and inclusiveness in his writing.

 

 

Yes, I should have given Luke some slack, but maybe Moses is the least sexist Bible author. He tells the stories of Judah's women; which are his mother Leah, the unloved wife; his sister Dinah, the original Juliet; and his daughter-in-law Tamar, who was gainfully employed.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Acts 4:32 (Ep 16) the Christians decide to have “all things in common.” To me the story sounds like a charity fundraiser, in which the apostles used the basic rule for fund raising. They asked a respected member of the community to ask for money. In the story Barnabas only donates money, but almost for sure he followed up with a request for donations, just like how on a modern telethon a Baptist minister (a modern day Levite) would ask for money.

 

So how did the Christians decide to share their stuff? Acts doesn’t really say. It just says that they did. In Acts 5 (Ep 20) we learn that some Christians agreed initially, but changed their minds. Surprise, surprise, people initially agree and then they renege. I deal with that in clubs at school. I watch my mother deal with it at charity fund raisers. It's normal human thing.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acts 5 (Ep 22) reminds me of the (Upton?) Sinclair Lewis novel, Elmer Gantry. I have never had a faith healing experience as is described in Gantry, but my Grandfather says that he has had one.

 

I have an aunt who does not drive. We take turns driving her to the bus station, so she can go to work. This morning, Gramps and I had just left the bus station for the ride home when we heard a radio advertisement for healing music. The ad claimed that if we listened to the music, God would heal what ails us.

 

That plunked Gramps’ twanger, and he waxed eloquent about how when he was in high school, he wrote a paper about Kathryn Kuhlman, a faith healer who had a weekly television show in the Shrine Auditorium here in Los Angeles.

 

A typical show had patients and doctors with before-and-after x-rays showing how patients had been healed with the implication that God had healed them.

 

In the school assignment, Gramps wrote about a doctor who had examined more than two dozen patients who claimed to have been healed while watching Kuhlman’s television show. In the doctor’s opinion, all of the patients were terminally ill.

 

A few years later, Gramps had a customer near the Shrine auditorium while Kuhlman broadcast the television show. The streets were full of people who thought they had been cured. Who knows? Maybe they had been cured, but the doctor’s experience suggests otherwise.

 

While faith healing would be a wonderful thing to behold, the claim of faith healing and the belief by people that they have been cured is not particularly miraculous. In fact it is rather common.  

 

People magazine article about Kathryn Kuhlman

 


 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Episodes 17 - 19 Historical Jesus

 

Jesus, as a person in history, became an academic subject during the Enlightenment. 
 
Herman Reimarus, a philosopher and long time resident of Hamburg, began the search when he wrote, Apologies, which he had the sense to not publish himself.  Modern critics call his views “mere products of the imagination.” They say he emphasized the importance of end times to understanding the historical Jesus. After Reimarus’s death 1768, his friend published his ideas about the Jesus using the title, “Fragments by an Anonymous Writer"
 
Sometime in the early nineteenth century, a group of scholars as the University of Tubingen convinced other scholars that the Gospels of Luke, Mark, and Matthew should form the basis for the historical Jesus because the Gospel of John is too different.  
 
Heinrich Julius Holtzmann of the University of Strasbourg promoted the Marcan Hypothesis, the idea that the Gospel of Mark was written first before the other Synoptic Gospels.
 
Karl August von Hase, a Professor of Theology at Jena promoted the idea that an historical Jesus should have a self consciousness, an idea which modern scholars have adopted.
 
Probably the most radical idea of all and maybe the most productive was David Friedrich Strauss’ suggestion in his book, The Life of Jesus, that the life of an historical Jesus should have no supernatural events.
 
Georg Friedrich Eduard William Wrede renewed the attempt of previous scholars to eliminate altogether the Messianic element from the life of Jesus.  
 
And coming full circle, Johannes Weiss of the University of Heidelberg revived Reimarus’ claim that end times are important part of the story.
 
All of this is from a book, Quest for the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer. 
 
 
:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Episodes 17-19

 

The First Historical Jesus

 

Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768), a professor of oriental languages in Hamburg, wrote the first modern biography of the Historical Jesus. Reimarus did not publish his ideas during his lifetime for reasons which will become clear to anyone who reads the rest of this.

 

Reimarus began with the idea that Jesus preached that people should  "Repent, and believe the Gospel," or, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand," which to Reimarus meant that the good news was that the Kingdom of heaven was about to arrive.

 

However, the Bible does not explain the meaning of “Kingdom of Heaven,” and Reimus believed that it should mean what Jews at the time thought it meant, namely that a prophet would come to throw off the Romans.

 

Jesus expressed his acceptance of the Jewish belief in an expected prophet in Matthew 5:17-18 when he said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” So the Historical Jesus accepted the Jewish religion. He did not want to put another religion in its place, and he expected the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven sooner than later.

 

According to Matthew 10:5 Jesus preached to the Jews.  He said to the disciples, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” 

 

The Historical Jesus expected a popular uprising. He said to the disciples in Matthew 10:21-23  “And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” The Historical Jesus thought that the disciple’s preaching could cause people to proclaim him the expected prophet, but that did not happen. 

 

The Historical Jesus tried a second time to generate a revolt when he entered Jeruselem. In the temple he called for an open revolt against the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees. In Matthew 23, Jesus said, “  … Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. … Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” And he continues more or less in the manner of a Baptist preacher, to the end of the chapter.

 

But the people in Jerusalem did not rise up, and the Sanhedrin convinced the Romans to execute the Historical Jesus who closed His life with the words "My God! my God! why hast Thou forsaken me?"  

 

Well, I gotta say it is an interesting yarn. Schweitzer gives credit to Reimarus for imagination. I think that other authors have expanded on Reimarus’ ideas. One in particular is a book that I found in my great grandmother’s stack of books, The Passover Plot, a 1965 best seller by Hugh Schonfield. I have not read it, but from what I know about it, Schonfield got his basic ideas from Reimarus.

 

This information is from Quest for the Historical Jesus, "Chapter 2" by Albert Schweitzer

 


 

:)  :taz:  :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Padre, about Episode 27 

 

In Acts 5 some members of the commune give less than their share, and in Acts 6 one group in the commune complains that they didn’t get their share. The dissension becomes heated, and the apostles decide not to deal with it. They tell the Christians to pick a committee to deal with the day to day governing of the commune.

 

As I read Acts 5-6, I thought about how I had heard the story before. The other version of the same situation happened in Shandong, China during World War Two.

 

During the war, Japan controlled the eastern part of China, and they interned the non-Chinese residents of Peking in a Presbyterian mission compound located in Shandong Province. (formerly spelled Shantung Province) By categories the internees included Americans, British, Belgian, and at least one Russian. They had formerly worked as bankers, businessmen, diplomats, lawyers, medical workers, missionaries, teachers, and Belgian monks. They were children, old people, families, single men, single women, and monks. 

 

Langdon Gilkey, a young English teacher, lived as an internee in the camp for more than two years. Twenty years after the war he wrote Shantung Compound about his experience.

 

In the internment camp Gilkey lived much like people in the commune in Acts. The Japanese guards, like the apostles in Acts, took no part in the day to day running of the camp. 

 

Now, before I finish talking about communes, I need to talk about management.

 

I’m sure that my Dad has never read Acts, but he would laugh out loud at the disciples saying, in Acts 6:2 “It would not be right for us … to wait on tables.” If he were to read that, I can hear him say,“What a load of horse p***y!” 

 

Dad's profanity has a certain humor.

 

I live in a house of rules, axioms, and management guidelines. One of dad’s management guidelines says, “Managers will spend some time working on the street.” Simply stated that means the managers must spend part of their time like on the television show, Undercover Boss. The managers must spend some time away from their prayer books, so they can learn about what real people really do.

 

Well, enough of that, back to the Christians.

 

The Christians in the camp, like Christians in Acts, had to govern themselves. They, like the Christians in Acts, chose leaders. They divided the work among committees. 

 

Acts only records a fight over food, but the internees at Shandong fought over everything: the overcrowded living quarters; who would clean the toilets, how to cook food for 2000 people, and probably most important, how to provide security to control rampant theft.

 

Gilkey does not say, and I don’t know if any of the internees lived in a commune after the war, but I doubt that any did.

 

So if Acts 5-6 has any lesson, that lesson must describe the difficulties of living in a commune or that people should not live in communes.

 

:)  :taz:  :clap:

Edited by Ghid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But lots of Christians hate Jews. That's one thing Muslims and Christians have in common. Something in the Bible must be a basis for that. Are you going to talk about what parts of the Bible give Christians permission to hate Jews?

 

John Chrysostom,
 
Did I say that lots of Christians hate Jews? And I had wondered out loud if some of that hatred stemmed from Acts 1. Well, turns out that maybe not. The real source comes from the Gospels, especially Matthew 25:27, but also others. 
 
I should begin with John Chrysostom because his sermons have been a contributing cause in every pogrom for the last sixteen hundred years.  
 
 
John Chrysostom, who eventually became the Archbishop of Constantinople, lived during the end of the fourth century when Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome competed to lead the Christian Church. He preached homilies in which he criticized Jews, accused them of immoral behavior, and as a priest in Antioch, he accused the Jews of Antioch of crucifying Jesus. He used quotes from the Gospels and the Old Testament to criticize Jews, but as near as I can tell he did not use the Book of Acts. 
 
 
In his homilies he asked Christians, “Do you fast with the Jews? Then take off your shoes with the Jews, and walk barefoot in the marketplace, and share with them in their indecency and laughter.” This quote suggests that Chrysostom’s main concern might have been Christians who associated with Jews. He saw Judaism as a competing religion, but  I don’t know why bare feet should be a problem. 
 
Often he accused Jews of being demons. “… the Jews themselves are demons?” So, if I may stop for a vocabulary lesson, I wonder if the term, demonization comes from calling people demons.  
 
In some references he sounded like modern day people when he said, “Indeed the synagogue is ... not merely a lodging place for robbers and cheats but also for demons. ...This is true not only of the synagogues but also of the souls of the Jews, …But the Jews practice a deceit which is more dangerous ...  “ Lots of modern people believe in Jewish dishonesty, for example WEB du Bois and Henry Adams.  
 
He spoke equally harshly about pagans, “So the godlessness of the Jews and the pagans is on a par ... In their synagogue stands an invisible altar of deceit on which they sacrifice not sheep and calves but the souls of men.” I hope this is a metaphor. 
 
Or even more bizarre, “No necessity forced the Jews when they slew their own children with their own hands to pay honor to the avenging demons, ... Their ungodliness or their cruelty or their inhumanity? That they sacrificed their children or that they sacrificed them to demons? Because of their licentiousness, did they not show a lust beyond that of irrational animals?”  This quote sounds like something I read in the Quran or maybe some other Islamic source.
 
Chrysostom spoke equally harshly about people he called Judaizing Christians, meaning Christians who attended Jewish events, which I think meant traditional Jewish holidays and also secular events like the theater, which Jews attended.
 
In a homily he said, “... demons dwell in the very souls of the Jews and in places in which they gather?... How do you Judaizers have the boldness, after dancing with demons, to come back to the assembly of the apostles? After you have gone off and shared with those who shed the blood of Christ, how is it that you do not shudder to come back and share in his sacred banquet,... “ So Christians, who attended Jewish events, annoyed Chrysostom, and again he he blamed Jews of Antioch for the crucifixion, something in which they could not have participated.
 
When he served as a priest in Antioch, he used Bible quotes to blame Jews for the crucifixion.  
 
In at least three homilies he quoted Matthew 27:25. In one he said, “Consider, then, with whom” the Judaizing Christians “are sharing their fasts. It is with those who shouted: ‘Crucify him, Crucify him,’ with those who said: ‘His blood be upon us and upon our children’ ". 
 
And in another homily, “For the martyrs have a special hatred for the Jews since the Jews crucified him for whom they have a special love. The Jews said: ‘His blood be on us and on our children’ the martyrs poured out their own blood for him whom the Jews had slain.”  
 
So clearly Chrysostom blamed the Jews of Antioch for the crucifixion even though none of them were alive 400 earlier when the crucifixion happened, but he did not invoke the Kingdom of Heaven to rain down fire on the Jews. As near as I can tell, he did not advocate violence against Jews.
 
 
I have no idea who translated Chrysostom’s homilies, but various websites appear to use the same source.
 
Here is a google book source, Discourses Against Judaizing Christians 
 
 
Chrysostom appears to me to have considered Jews as adversaries in much the same way that he might have considered pagans or rival Christian factions to be adversaries rather than enemies. To be fair to Chrysostom I should say that he is not alone as a Christian antisemite. He is only one of two thousand years of them.
 
:)  :taz:  :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acts 1:12-26 (Episodes 5 and 6 )

 

I have returned from the Stone Age. When school ended, my family went to visit my oldest brother. Sometimes his living conditions lack plumbing and electricity, so I call it the Stone Age.

 

Anyway, Acts 1:12 says that The Mount of Olives is a Sabbath Day’s walk from Jerusalem. I should wonder if that has become a tourist thing. Do people go to Jerusalem, so they can walk from Jerusalem to The Mount of Olives?

 

The first Christians must have organized themselves like a democracy. For example, they elected Matthias to replace Judas. 

 

The text is not clear about who voted. Maybe only the apostles voted, and first Christians organized themselves as an oligarchy. 

 

:thumbup:  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acts 6:8-15 Episodes 29-30

 

So antiquity had Babylonian, Grecian, and Judean Jews.  I asked one of my Chinese cousins if he knew of Chinese Jews. We went to a Chinese restaurant, and we asked the waiter. The waiter went to get the cook. The cook came from the kitchen and he said something in Chinese. My cousin translated, "We have orange juice, tomato juice, but no Chinese juice."

 

:thumbup:  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×