• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pope Francis Basically Just Admitted There May Not Be a God

Junebug said:
Rev, sorry to jump in, but can you explain more what you mean by divine? Are you talking about orthodoxy's view of the incarnation of Jesus as fully God and fully man? Or is it something different?
Click to expand...

God Incarnate. The Word/YHWH/Creator of the Universe becoming flesh. Orthodoxy. Though, when the Limited took on limits, somehow (and no point debating, as we really don't know), he took the limits of humanity as well. I'd affirm Chalcedon. I might seem liberal in approach, but I'm fairly orthodox in belief. The issue is that the early Church and writers of the Bible aren't as "orthodox" as today's Christian conservatives are. So I may seem liberal, but I'm really closer to orthodox, just in the historical sense and not modern.
 
RJKarl said:
The difference between you and about 90% of the board is the rest of us can have a civil discussion. You immediately go to name calling and insults.

Your last statement is baseless and silly. Firstly, no one here is speaking about Dan Brown. That's a pure red herring.

Next, why would any atheist have faith in God? That's a preposterous comment.
Click to expand...


By the way, I didn't insult you, or at least not intentionally so. I said the view that Jesus went to India is nutjob. I have no idea whether you believe that or not. I recall you posting something about it a few pages back, but I don't recall if you said you believed it or not. If memory serves, I thought you were just asking Rev about it.

If you do believe that, then, okay, I'll insult you--that's a nutjob view. Read up on it, and cure thyself.
 
RevDeac06 said:
God Incarnate. The Word/YHWH/Creator of the Universe becoming flesh. Orthodoxy. Though, when the Limited took on limits, somehow (and no point debating, as we really don't know), he took the limits of humanity as well. I'd affirm Chalcedon. I might seem liberal in approach, but I'm fairly orthodox in belief. The issue is that the early Church and writers of the Bible aren't as "orthodox" as today's Christian conservatives are. So I may seem liberal, but I'm really closer to orthodox, just in the historical sense and not modern.
Click to expand...


Gotcha. Thanks for sharing.

I agree that American Christianity is more orthodox than historical orthodoxy. Kindof strange, really. Maybe it's the result of unsophisticated hunkering down against the onslaught of modernity.
 
RJKarl said:
You just can't help yourself from name calling and insults. It's speaks deeply about your character.

As to the subject, there are hundreds of books and papers by scholars hypothesizing that Jesus may have gone to India or China during his "lost years" of ages 12-29.
Click to expand...

if you are going to throw out a bullshit number on top of a bullshit theory you might want to provide at least one semi-reputable source to back it up.
 
You need to get the stick out of your ass. When you Google this theory, there are pages and pages and pages.

Here are a couple:

http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

Here's a book that has alleged evidence.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Lost-Years-Jesus-Documentary/dp/0916766616

Do I believe it? I don't know. There's really no definitive proof one way or the other. If you paid attention, I started this in the form of a question, but this alludes you.

Also if you asked me if I believe Jesus is the Son of God? My answer to this question is no. He was a great teacher and leader. HE could be considered a rabbi and maybe even a prophet.
 
RJKarl said:
You need to get the stick out of your ass. When you Google this theory, there are pages and pages and pages.

Here are a couple:

http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

Here's a book that has alleged evidence.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Lost-Years-Jesus-Documentary/dp/0916766616

Do I believe it? I don't know. There's really no definitive proof one way or the other. If you paid attention, I started this in the form of a question, but this alludes you.
Click to expand...

I clicked the link to Amazon. Is that a coloring book?

The answer alludes me.
 
I've never heard of a credible scholar who would even consider supporting the India hypothesis. Just because you can find people who write books about it doesn't make it a legitimate theory.
 
RevDeac06 said:
Something can have meaning, even if that wasn't the cause. Lots of examples, but think of the Star Spangled Banner. It was written during a specific time with specific influences, but that doesn't mean that the only viable interpretation is the one that Francis Scott Key had in mind. Maybe he wrote something without even being aware of the connection. But this is the sort of what metaphorical writing is like- a real event reminds someone of a larger meaning. I'm not sure what's so confusing about this- didn't you all take literature courses at Wake? The Bible is a a form of literature.

Re: Jesus- Yes, Divine. View of own mission- dunno, never talked to the guy. But it's pretty clear from Scripture that his purpose was the Kingdom of God, not being worshiped.
Click to expand...
You believe the gospels are literature, not historical narrative?

Also, still wondering about your view of the atonement. If it's only one legitimate interpretation, does that mean those who do not interpret it as such are not in need of atonement?
 
DeacDaddy said:
You believe the gospels are literature, not historical narrative?

Also, still wondering about your view of the atonement. If it's only one legitimate interpretation, does that mean those who do not interpret it as such are not in need of atonement?
Click to expand...

Of course they are literature, based in historical events, but there's no rationale way to view them in any way other than literature.

On atonement- our interpretation of things doesn't change our need for them. If I think that I don't need oxygen to breathe, that doesn't make it true. Maybe I'm not being clear, or maybe it's more complicated that I realize and all these years of theology just make it second-nature for me, I don't know.

Maybe this will be clearer- the Cross is a prism. Line shines in and what we find is a variety of outcomes- all perfectly valid, but none of those colors are the "cause" of the light coming into the prism, nor is any one color of light a wrong way to view the Cross. But also, no one color captures the entirety of the event. Now, what caused the light to enter the prism was Jesus making the Temple leadership mad, but that doesn't change the fact that the event led to a variety of outcomes on the other side of the prism- one of which is atonement. Another is showing us Jesus' resolution to his cause. Another is solidarity with the oppressed. Another is victory over death. Another is glorification (which is actually a more "original" understanding of the Cross than atonement).

An event can have meanings that are larger than the ingredients that caused the event.
 
RevDeac06 said:
I've never heard of a credible scholar who would even consider supporting the India hypothesis. Just because you can find people who write books about it doesn't make it a legitimate theory.
Click to expand...

Which is why I asked the question. Some people (not you) don't understand the difference between asking a question (which is how this started) and making a statement.
 
RJKarl said:
Which is why I asked the question. Some people (not you) don't understand the difference between asking a question (which is how this started) and making a statement.
Click to expand...

That would explain this post (kinda, it's a pretty stupid question)

RJKarl said:
What do you think about the idea that Jesus' "lost years" may have been spent in India (or that area) and he may have been influenced by regional religions?
Click to expand...

But doesn't do much to explain this post.

RJKarl said:
You just can't help yourself from name calling and insults. It's speaks deeply about your character.

As to the subject, there are hundreds of books and papers by scholars hypothesizing that Jesus may have gone to India or China during his "lost years" of ages 12-29.
Click to expand...

That thing in bold there is a statement. It is supported (upon request) by three links to non-reputable sources.


You asked a dumb question and got called on it. Instead of saying my bad you doubled down, trying to make your question seem reasonable by appealing to "hundreds of scholars" that don't exist.
 
I asked a question a question to an expert about an historical figure. The "lost years" have been a question for centuries. There are theories.

It's sad that someone so young has to be so bitter and combative. Your false need to make yourself feel superior is sad as well.
 
RJKarl said:
I asked a question a question to an expert about an historical figure. The "lost years" have been a question for centuries. There are theories.

It's sad that someone so young has to be so bitter and combative. Your false need to make yourself feel superior is sad as well.
Click to expand...

Perfect. You are correct that I have no need to make myself feel superior.

I do however, feel the need to call you out on the baseless assertions you make on a daily basis. Why you continue to do so has been a question for years. There are theories.
 
It's sad that I am so important to you.

Thanks for proving my point.
 
It's really pathetic that your that your life is so devoid of excitement and meaning that you have to stalk and try to start shit with me.
 
RevDeac06 said:
Of course they are literature, based in historical events, but there's no rationale way to view them in any way other than literature.

On atonement- our interpretation of things doesn't change our need for them. If I think that I don't need oxygen to breathe, that doesn't make it true. Maybe I'm not being clear, or maybe it's more complicated that I realize and all these years of theology just make it second-nature for me, I don't know.

Maybe this will be clearer- the Cross is a prism. Line shines in and what we find is a variety of outcomes- all perfectly valid, but none of those colors are the "cause" of the light coming into the prism, nor is any one color of light a wrong way to view the Cross. But also, no one color captures the entirety of the event. Now, what caused the light to enter the prism was Jesus making the Temple leadership mad, but that doesn't change the fact that the event led to a variety of outcomes on the other side of the prism- one of which is atonement. Another is showing us Jesus' resolution to his cause. Another is solidarity with the oppressed. Another is victory over death. Another is glorification (which is actually a more "original" understanding of the Cross than atonement).

An event can have meanings that are larger than the ingredients that caused the event.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is absolutely the rational view of many that the Gospels are intending to present themselves as records of historical fact. Whether or not you believe the events recorded therein does not change the fact that this is what the authors had set out to do.

I appreciate your thoughtful answer on atonement. It certainly speaks to some of the deep mysteries of the Crucifixion. At the same time, it still fails to answer a simple question, what I believe to be its foremost purpose: Is humankind's reconcilation with God the Father (if in fact you even believe is necessary, which I don't mean to presume) possible only through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, or isn't it.

*Funny, my phone wanted to correct "atoning" as "stoning." On the right track, I guess.
 
DeacDaddy said:
Yes, it is absolutely the rational view of many that the Gospels are intending to present themselves as records of historical fact. Whether or not you believe the events recorded therein does not change the fact that this is what the authors had set out to do.

I appreciate your thoughtful answer on atonement. It certainly speaks to some of the deep mysteries of the Crucifixion. At the same time, it still fails to answer a simple question, what I believe to be its foremost purpose: Is humankind's reconcilation with God the Father (if in fact you even believe is necessary, which I don't mean to presume) possible only through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, or isn't it.

*Funny, my phone wanted to correct "atoning" as "stoning." On the right track, I guess.
Click to expand...

You can think that's true, but it's not. The writers of the Gospels were interpreting history, not documenting it. Is it even possible to record history without interpreting it? Especially since they aren't eyewitness accounts. Not sure how much you've studied the genre, but it is very widely accepted, even by conservatives.

On atonement, I think you're making a (common) assumption that you're unaware of- that reconciliation is necessary. I'm not disagreeing that, but it should be well considered and teased out before just running past it. I think atonement is possible without the Cross, this is God we're talking about. But atonement is in the Cross, I'm not debating that, just saying it doesn't explain why it happened. And I wouldn't say that the cross was necessary, I think the Incarnation (and Incarnational theology doesn't get enough play) is "enough" on its own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top