Do most Christians even understand their own religion?

[Celticguy]

Including Muslims and Jews? Atheists?

well atheists are the opposite of faith based so not applicable.
actual faith based groups ? why not if they are providing services ? soup kitchen is still dishing soup even if it is kosher or hallah (I think thats the right term).

What do you see the differences, including advantages and disadvantages, to using Muslims, Jews and Christians to help the poor and disadvantaged (with government/taxpayer) support versus welfare?

well its all welfare if it involved tax dollars.
plus: more hands make shorter work and TYPICALLY those hands are not paid a salary so far more efficient use of funds.
minus: some degree of supervision needed to insure they are playing by the rules.

Would you have a problem if President Harris appointed a Black Muslim to be her official White House spiritual counselor like Trump appointed Paula White?

there was a president HarriSON, no president Harris.
White was not a White House Spiritual Advisor so not applicable.
now if you meant a president appointing some non-christian in a role like White then sure, why not. They should be able to join with other religious leaders in a non-denominational manner as happens all over the country in smaller ways and has done so for generations if not longer. Christians do not own the franchise of helping the less fortunate.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

well atheists are the opposite of faith based so not applicable.
actual faith based groups ? why not if they are providing services ? soup kitchen is still dishing soup even if it is kosher or hallah (I think thats the right term).


well its all welfare if it involved tax dollars.
plus: more hands make shorter work and TYPICALLY those hands are not paid a salary so far more efficient use of funds.
minus: some degree of supervision needed to insure they are playing by the rules.


there was a president HarriSON, no president Harris.
White was not a White House Spiritual Advisor so not applicable.
now if you meant a president appointing some non-christian in a role like White then sure, why not. They should be able to join with other religious leaders in a non-denominational manner as happens all over the country in smaller ways and has done so for generations if not longer. Christians do not own the franchise of helping the less fortunate.

They won't admit it but almost all atheists deny God/gods/supernatural exists. That's a matter of faith not factual evidence just like Theists. The only logical position is agnosticism. Also, anyone can start a charity. Even Jeffrey, Ghislaine and Donald could have started a foundation to help young orphaned girls.

Agreed charities help but most States see the logic in working with other States to coordinate education and helping citizens get jobs.

Fox News disagrees: https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/trump-paula-white-spiritual-adviser-2020-evangelical-vote
Paula White on how she became Trump's spiritual adviser

 

[Celticguy]

They won't admit it but almost all atheists deny God/gods/supernatural exists. That's a matter of faith not factual evidence just like Theists. The only logical position is agnosticism. Also, anyone can start a charity. Even Jeffrey, Ghislaine and Donald could have started a foundation to help young orphaned girls.

Agreed charities help but most States see the logic in working with other States to coordinate education and helping citizens get jobs.

Fox News disagrees: https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/trump-paula-white-spiritual-adviser-2020-evangelical-vote
Paula White on how she became Trump's spiritual adviser

Yes anyone can start a charity but the topic is faith based charities. Have to have some basis to be one of them. Mainly you have to be a faith to get you to that tax exempt arena. That kinda leaves Jeff Bubba and Andrew out.

there is no conflict in coordination between municipal jurisdictions and faith based groups. Many hands make the work go faster.

Davis can be Trump's spiritual advisor and a White House Faith Based Outreach person concurrently but there is no White House Spiritual Advisor. That could rightly be construed as a violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[Ross Dolan]

By dying on the cross he fulfilled those laws, There are no longer punishments for those former sins… AKA They are no longer sins. He brought forth a new order, one where forgiveness is king, one where the inconsistencies from the old laws Are destroyed by the new laws. He fulfilled the old law, once for filled no one must obey them anymore. That’s what I choose to believe, that’s what I feel is true. The teachings of Jesus are very consistent with my understanding of love reigning. supreme.

Okay...so you "believe" he was a liar when he said what he said in Matthew.

You are free to "believe" whatever you want.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Christian theology was developed by Paul and the apostolic Fathers, not by Jesus.

That is essentially correct...although "Christian theology" was created long after Paul and the apostolic fathers were dead.

It was decided within a few years of Jesus' crucifixion that if the apostles were going to convert Gentiles then gentiles would not be beholden to the law of Torah.

It was decided by PAUL that the gentiles were to be converted...

...AND THE ONLY LAW OF THE TORAH THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO OBSERVE WERE THE LAWS OF CIRCUMCISION AND CERTAIN DIETARY RESTRICTIONS.

None of the Apostles, including Paul, suggested in any way that converts were not constrained by the laws of the Torah.

 

[Cypress]

That is essentially correct...although "Christian theology" was created long after Paul and the apostolic fathers were dead.



It was decided by PAUL that the gentiles were to be converted...

...AND THE ONLY LAW OF THE TORAH THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO OBSERVE WERE THE LAWS OF CIRCUMCISION AND CERTAIN DIETARY RESTRICTIONS.

None of the Apostles, including Paul, suggested in any way that converts were not constrained by the laws of the Torah.

That is why I didn't limit the development of Christian theory to just Paul, but to church fathers who came well after him. In fact, as you suggest, Christian theology continued to develop over the course of centuries and millennium. The law of Torah holds an ambiguous, and some might say generally irrelevant place in Christian theology.

The general takeaway is that Jesus did not develop Christian theology. Others after him did.

The Christian Old Testament is, of course, the Jewish scripture, sometimes called the Hebrew Bible. In many Christian communities today, the Old Testament occupies a rather ambiguous position. Rarely are sermons preached on the Old Testament, and many Christians see it as irrelevant.

-- Bart Ehrman, Professor of Theology, Univerty of North Carolina

 

[Ross Dolan]

That is why I didn't limit the development of Christian theory to just Paul, but to church fathers who came well after him. In fact, as you suggest, Christian theology continued to develop over the course of centuries and millennium. The law of Torah holds an ambiguous, and some might say generally irrelevant place in Christian theology.

Thank you, Cypress. I agree with you and Prof. Ehrman. The laws of the Torah do hold an ambiguous, possibly irrelevant place in Christian theology.,

BUT...the GOD Jesus worshiped supposedly was the author of those laws...and the notion that they are not TOTALLY relevant, no matter how justified, is gratuitous and self-serving.

The GOD Jesus worshiped considered slavery to be moral and homosexuality to be immoral. The former was considered consistent with dignity...the latter considered such an abomination, it merited death. Stubborn children should be dealt with by being stoned to death; people who are crippled, deformed, blind, deaf, or malformed...are to be dealt with differently than those who are not. Anyone who does "not seek the Lord" should be put to death.

Arguments that those laws should not apply to non-Hebrews for some reason are absurd. Even the ones Paul "relaxed" should apply...UNLESS Heaven and Earth have both "passed away." Either ALL those laws still do apply in full measure...or Jesus was a liar.

 

[Jarod]

Okay...so you "believe" he was a liar when he said what he said in Matthew.

You are free to "believe" whatever you want.

I do not believe he was a liar, I believe the translations have cause you to misunderstand.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I do not believe he was a liar, I believe the translations have cause you to misunderstand.

Tell me what the "translations" should have read, Jarod.

Here is a bibliography of the books I use. Which would you prefer that I use for further discussion?

St. Joseph Edition of The New American Bible; Catholic book Publishing, NY; 1968 (Catholic)

The New American Bible; Thomas Nelson Inc, Nashville; 1971 (Catholic)

The Holy Bible King James Version; Thomas Nelson, Nashville: 1984 (Protestant)

The Holy Bible New International Version; Zondervan Bible Pub. Grand Rapids; 1978 (Non-demoninational)

The Scofield Reference Holy Bible (King James Version); Oxford Univ. Press; NY; 1909 (Protestant)

The Holy Scriptures Masoretic Text; Jewish Publ Society; Philadelphia: 1955 (Jewish)

The Holy Bible, St.Joseph Textbook Edition, Confraternity Version; Catholic book Publ: NY; 1963; (Catholic)

The Holy Bible Revised Berkeley Version; The Gideons Intrl; 1984; (Non-denominational Protestant)

The New American Catholic Edition of The Holy Bible; Benziger Bros, Boston; 1950 (Catholic)

The Old Testament; Guild Press NY; 1965 (Catholic)

The Living Bible; Holman Illustrated Edition: A.J. Holman Co; Philadelphia; 1973 (Protestant)

The Holy Bible; King James Version; The World Publ Co: Cleveland; (no date); (Protestant)

The Old Testament; Hebrew Publishing Co: NY; 1916 (English & Hebrew) (Jewish)

**** Also I use

The Common Catechism of the Christian Faith: Seabury Press;NY 1975 (Protestant)

Catechism of the Catholic Church: Libreria Editrice Vaticana; Urbi et Orbi Comm; 1994 (Catholic)

The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism: Catholic Book Publish; NY; 1962 (Catholic)

 

[Cypress]

Thank you, Cypress. I agree with you and Prof. Ehrman. The laws of the Torah do hold an ambiguous, possibly irrelevant place in Christian theology.,

BUT...the GOD Jesus worshiped supposedly was the author of those laws...and the notion that they are not TOTALLY relevant, no matter how justified, is gratuitous and self-serving.

The GOD Jesus worshiped considered slavery to be moral and homosexuality to be immoral. The former was considered consistent with dignity...the latter considered such an abomination, it merited death. Stubborn children should be dealt with by being stoned to death; people who are crippled, deformed, blind, deaf, or malformed...are to be dealt with differently than those who are not. Anyone who does "not seek the Lord" should be put to death.

Arguments that those laws should not apply to non-Hebrews for some reason are absurd. Even the ones Paul "relaxed" should apply...UNLESS Heaven and Earth have both "passed away." Either ALL those laws still do apply in full measure...or Jesus was a liar.

I guess I would say anyone who has a problem with Torah law, should ask a Jewish person or acquaintance in their life to defend it. Torah and the entire Tanakh was written by Jewish people.

I always felt like Christian theology - as developed by people who came after Jesus - made Christianity a religion about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Not about Torah law..

As for myself, I think religions develop and change through time. The Judaism practiced today is nothing like the Judaism practiced in the 7th century BCE. The authors of the Hebrew Old Testament would not even recognize Rabbinic Judaism. Anymore than Christians of 50 AD would recognize Christians of 2021.