|
It's all conservative Victorian attitudes toward sex being spread around by various religious movements, in light of and often in response to various more libertine ideas that were floating around. Now, the ideas of groups like the Oneida Community were never common or particularly popular in society, but because of groups like that a lot of the more conservative groups, who would ultimately win that culture war, made prudish ideas about sex into articles of faith. Over time the reason for that being important to distinguish was lost (or directly suppressed) and it became common wisdom that the church and western culture in general were always like that. We're still undoing a lot of the damage from Victorian archaeologists seeing obvious sexual stuff and hastily scribbling "unknown ritual purposes" on a note and slamming it into a drawer so they won't have to think about it.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
LITERALLY A BIRD posted:The Christians I grew up around spoke intensely of the love and safety they felt from God, but also of a sense of terrifying awe that made it clear it was not the kind of love I had ever yet experienced, being an actual child. But they were equally intense in their disapproval of me not experiencing the "right" emotions for God, in a way that made me extremely conscious of the fact I loved God wrong, or just not enough maybe. I felt the absence of feeling the kind of Belief all the adults and seemingly other children around me felt too. Eventually, something began happening in my life that necessitated my prayers and praying to my family's God continued to leave me feeling alone and wrong. I prayed instead to a God from an ancient history book I had read and I felt it -- that love and safety and then immediately behind that a little bit of terror that I had felt so heard. Religion was from then on a very confusing thing for me, but I have always been able to center back on Belief, because I felt it when I needed it and knew it by its name. this is a really cool story and all of ur posts in here have been cool and good
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
I really appreciate that, sinnesloeschen. Thank you. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 01:47
|
|
|
sinnesloeschen posted:hi can i hear more about this plz Many heathens today think we are living in the age of Ragnarök . Ragna, from Regin, means 'pertaining to the gods', and rökk is a lot more murky, taken to mean origin, cause, relation and fate depending on context. However, since several poems talk about 'alda rökkr' (the end of an age, or the twilight of an age), it is usally taken to mean either the doom/end of the gods, or the twilight of the gods. Traditional heathenry in general views life as a struggle between chaos and order. Even the gods die, so you get up and do the best you can, right? It's a cyclic thing too, since the heathens who wrote about ragnarökk probably suffered the effects of the minor ice age in the 500s, and thought another climate event was coming (if they only knew!). Hinduism, on the other hand, is divided into four cyclic world yugas, or world ages. The last of these, is the Kali-Yuga. The "Kali" of Kali Yuga means "strife", "discord", "quarrel", or "contention" and Kali Yuga is associated with the demon Kali (not to be confused with the goddess Kālī). According to Puranic sources, Krishna's death marked the end of Dvapara Yuga and the start of Kali Yuga, which is dated to 17/18 February 3102 BCE. Lasting for 432,000 years (1,200 divine years), Kali Yuga began 5,124 years ago and has 426,876 years left as of 2023 CE. Kali Yuga will end in the year 428,899 CE, so we got some ways to go. Near the end of Kali Yuga, when virtues are at their worst, a cataclysm and a re-establishment of dharma occur to usher in the next cycle's Krita (Satya) Yuga, prophesied to occur by Kalki - which is to say, the tenth and final incarnation of Vishnu himself! Tias fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Jun 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 07:15
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Oneida Community quote:The Oneida Community practiced communalism (in the sense of communal property and possessions), group marriage, male sexual continence, and mutual criticism. That's one hell of a development.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 08:56
|
|
|
I'm at Genesis 6. God knows that human beings literally do nothing all day but just have evil thoughts. It's Evil Thought radio, nothing but the most evil thoughts 24/7. So he's going to wipe everything out and start again from scratch. And he's going to wipe out all the animals too. Were they having evil thoughts? What did the birds do? e: I want to point out that in Kabbalah God's first attempt at creating reality involves ordering all the emenations in concentric circles which then totally breaks down before he reassembles them as the tree of life where everything balances. So it seems to be a tradition that God's first attempt at creating reality always fails. Prurient Squid fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Jun 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 11:40
|
|
|
I know in classical Christianity, it's often understood that the Fall didn't just affect humanity, but broke all creation. There's even a theory floated by some Russian Orthodox theologians of a meta-historical Fall, which occurred outside of chronological history as we know it:Wikipedia posted:The biblical fall of man is also understood by some Christians (especially those in the Eastern Orthodox tradition) as a reality outside of empirical history that effects the entire history of the universe. This concept of a meta-historical fall (also called metaphysical, supramundane, or atemporal) has been most recently expounded by the Orthodox theologians David Bentley Hart, John Behr, and Sergei Bulgakov, but it has roots in the writings of several early church fathers, especially Origen and Maximus the Confessor.[28][29][30] Bulgakov writes in his 1939 book The Bride of the Lamb translated by Boris Jakim (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2001):
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 13:21
|
|
|
Would this be the right thread to post in if I was curious about the religious background for certain portrayals of Jesus I've seen? Lifelong agnostic myself but I really enjoy learning about people's faiths.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 15:35
|
|
|
two fish posted:Would this be the right thread to post in if I was curious about the religious background for certain portrayals of Jesus I've seen? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
two fish posted:Would this be the right thread to post in if I was curious about the religious background for certain portrayals of Jesus I've seen? Absolutely. Let it fly. We can handle it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 15:56
|
|
|
Alright. So, admittedly, this was actually prompted by watching Jesus Christ Superstar last night (the trippy 1973 movie), but it reminded me of many portrayals I've seen of the Passion. What was meant when Jesus cried out to God, asking why he had forsaken him? If Jesus is the Son in the Trinity, would he have not understood what was going on, and would he not have therefore been crying out to himself? This also made me wonder another thing: as Jesus walked the earth in the body of a man, was he aware that he was God, or in some way was his awareness taken away for the duration of it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 16:02
|
|
|
I don't have any answers about christianity i just want to give a shoutout to the 2000 version of JCSS for being my favourite, the costume design is painfully early 2000s (Simon has frosted tips ffs) and it does the Romeo + Juliet thing of there being guns for some reason https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej8YumsC5VQ the whole thing is on youtube
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 16:10
|
|
|
My impression was that things like Jesus crying out when in agony, or acting in a moment of rage, are meant to emphasize that Jesus was truly a human being, not a God-shaped avatar or angel in human form or anything. He got mad, he suffered when he hurt, and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 16:43
|
|
|
two fish posted:Alright. So, admittedly, this was actually prompted by watching Jesus Christ Superstar last night (the trippy 1973 movie), but it reminded me of many portrayals I've seen of the Passion. Take a look at Psalm 22. Most people think he was actually reciting that, which ends up in praise. The Gospels show Jesus was acutely aware of his divinity. He often referred to himself as "The Son of Man" which I take as a sort of self-deprecating "lol, look at me - I'm in a human body."
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 16:44
|
|
|
There was actually a controversy, leading up to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, over whether Christ had both a human will and a divine will, or only a divine will. St. Maximus the Confessor lost his tongue and hand for defending the two-wills theory, and the Council took the same side. And yeah, Jesus' cry on the cross is a pretty clear allusion to Psalm 22. All through the Gospels he's portrayed as fully aware of who he is and what he's doing, saying several times that he's getting crucified once he gets to Jerusalem. There's also the Transfiguration, where his disciples get a full glimpse of his true nature while he talks to Moses and Elijah like it's nothing. Here's what Chrysostom says: St. John Chrysostom, homilies on Matthew posted:Why does he speak this way, crying out, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” That they might see that to his last breath he honors God as his Father and is no adversary of God. He spoke with the voice of Scripture, uttering a cry from the psalm. Thus even to his last hour he is found bearing witness to the sacred text. He offers this prophetic cry in Hebrew, so as to be plain and intelligible to them, and by all things Jesus shows how he is of one mind with the Father who had begotten him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
two fish posted:Alright. So, admittedly, this was actually prompted by watching Jesus Christ Superstar last night (the trippy 1973 movie), but it reminded me of many portrayals I've seen of the Passion. No small amount of ink has been spilled on exactly that question. I'll offer my own thoughts, which I think are generally in line with mainstream Protestant interpretations, and I'll touch a bit on the Historical Jesus, as that's one of my personal areas of interest. First, that cry must be understood as Jesus directly quoting Psalms 22 and so any interpretation of what the cry itself means has to be grounded in what the psalmist is saying. I'd recommend reading the whole thing, which I'll link but not quote: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2022&version=NRSVUE. The psalm is about someone feeling that all is lost but still trusting in God, so keep that in mind as we go forward. Given the psalm, I take the cry to be that of one suffering in absolute desolation and despair, which is fitting for someone being crucified, as crucifixion is not only designed to be supremely painful but also supremely humiliating. Jesus, at that moment, feels furthest from God the Father, but with his cry he doesn't just express that he also expresses his trust in God's plan. This is an area where Jesus the man as understood in the context of the Historical Jesus butts up against later theological development of the Trinity, which I'll address more in your second question, but for now, let's not inquire too deeply over exactly who's plan we're dealing with. This idea of Jesus being willing to suffer and die is prefigured by his anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane earlier when he says "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." (Matthew 26:39) and then "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.” (Matthew 26:42). I would also argue that Jesus, as fully human, experienced the full range of human experiences and an unavoidable part of that is feeling despair at not being able to perceive the presence of God in times of hardship, yet with that cry, he also simultaneously expresses that he knows God is there and that he trusts God. Now, admittedly, this is a complex reading of the text and more plain readings are possible. One of those readings is that Jesus the man was crying out to God because God had actually departed from him before his death. This is a view considered heretical by most modern Christians. Basically it says that Jesus wasn't born divine but that God entered into Jesus at his baptism by John the Baptist and he then departed Jesus on the cross, usually reasoned because God cannot possibly die. It also has the advantage of explaining why Jesus needed to be baptized at all, another theologically tricky question. I don't personally hold to that view, but it was common enough in early Christianity that it needed to be condemned as a heresy later. Now, this brings up a point that will take me into your second question. The four narratives of the crucifixion presented in the canonical Gospels are irreconcilable. Jesus cries out to God in Mark and Matthew but says other things in Luke and John. So we have to ask ourselves, did Jesus really quote Psalm 22 from the cross? My answer to that is that it's possible but we don't really have a way to know. Matthew is very concerned with portraying Jesus as the fulfillment of Israelite prophecy about the Messiah, so having Jesus quote a Psalm there fits perfectly with what he's doing. That Mark includes it when he doesn't have the same goal is a point in favor of authenticity, but it's an open question in scholarship exactly how scripture Jesus would have been able to recite as it's generally accepted that he was illiterate. Personally, I think it's likely that, on the cross, he did express a feeling of abandonment and desolation, though I question whether it was in those specific words. And here we come to the Historical Jesus. quote:This also made me wonder another thing: as Jesus walked the earth in the body of a man, was he aware that he was God, or in some way was his awareness taken away for the duration of it? The mainstream (little-o orthodox) understanding would say that Jesus understood at all times that he was God and this view seems to have developed early within Christianity, though it was by no means universal in the early Christian community. It is, however, the view expressed by the eventual winners of the theological struggle. Something that may help here is understanding the order in which the Gospels were written. It is generally accepted that Mark was written first, followed by Matthew and Luke, then John. Whether Luke used Matthew or vice versa is an unsettled area of scholarship but most scholars agree that they were written pretty close to each other and that they used Mark when writing, with John coming later. Personally, I subscribe to Mark being written first, then Matthew who had a copy of Mark, then Luke who had a copy of both Mark and Matthew. This is relevant because on the chain of Mark -> Matthew -> Luke -> John, we see a historiographical shift in the presentation of Jesus. In Mark, Jesus is portrayed as the most human while in John he is portrayed as the most divine. Scholars will vary on that, but to me it is plain as day, with the caveat that I think Matthew and Luke both are about on the same level. It's also important to remember that despite the names attached, none of the authors knew Jesus. None of the writers claim to be disciples, and we know with certainty that they were not. Mark claims to have been written by the companion/translator of Luke, but that is not likely for a variety of reasons. So basically it needs to be accepted that although the writers of the Gospels were passing on hearsay about the life of Jesus. Also note, they are called by convention after the name of their Gospel though not accepted by anyone anymore to actually be said historical figures. So when Mark includes the direct Aramaic that Jesus spoke, he didn't hear it from Jesus' lips. He also likely didn't hear about it from someone who heard it directly either. Same for Matthew, who likely included what Mark wrote because it fit his goals, not because he necessarily knew it to be historically accurate, though he may have thought it was. By the time we get to John, we have gone from the very human Jesus sweating bullets about the crucifixion in Mark to a very divine Jesus in John who acts much more in line with the modern view of a Jesus who could look upon the world in knowing bemusement as it all plays out. Personally, I think that Jesus understood himself to be the prophecied Messiah eventually but not right away at birth. My reading, informed by a historical critical framework, is that Jesus was initially a follower of John the Baptist and at some point around his baptism came to understand himself as the one John was talking about, and thus began his own public ministry. I tend to view this as being caused by the killing of John the Baptist, which caused Jesus to rethink a lot of things. I get this and the next point from Historical Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan, who asserts that Jesus' big innovation was understanding that humans were waiting on God to fix the world and God was waiting on humans to start the process. So Jesus preached about the coming Kingdom of God, which he viewed as very much an earthly creation. Note, this is in express contrast to little-o orthodox understanding of the Kingdom of God as something spiritual. He asserts that it is likely that Jesus thought he was building an earthly kingdom and that God would eventually place him on the throne of said kingdom. I am dubious on that specific point about earthly power, in that I view Jesus through an apocalyptic lens (which Crossan does not). My view is that Jesus also thought the world was going to be radically remade by God in the very near future, so unlike Simon bar Kokhba who a hundred years later would claim to be the messiah and rule over an earthly kingdom, I don't think Jesus thought that it would get that far before God came back, resurrected the dead, and instituted his kingdom on Earth. As for why Jesus would not know all this, well, if he knew everything, he wouldn't be fully human. Humans cannot be omniscient so it makes sense that Jesus would have a period where he would experience that. I don't think that continues today of course, but there's a bunch of places where Jesus either explicitly or implicitly lacks full knowledge, and that's fundamental to the human experience. I've rambled enough on this, so I think I'll just cut this here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
I want to quibble with the illiteracy claim, at the very least: Jesus read from the scriptures in the synagogue. He also quoted scripture many, many times and was intimately familiar with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
Why would Jesus be illiterate? I'd have assumed the converse; I'd expect any Jewish boy from a manual trade background to be at least basically literate in Hebrew and to have read from a Torah if maybe not sat down and read the whole thing. I don't know if they did bar mitzvah back then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
That’s solid and in-line with what I’ve read over the years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 18:16
|
|
|
Winifred Madgers posted:I want to quibble with the illiteracy claim, at the very least: Jesus read from the scriptures in the synagogue. He also quoted scripture many, many times and was intimately familiar with it. Yeah, the Jesus of the Gospels was far from illiterate. He was renowned for his depth of knowledge and understanding, far beyond his years or social standing. At no point was he an empty vessel through which God spoke. He knew his stuff on his own. It was Mohamed who was famously illiterate. People seem to get the two confused.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
Winifred Madgers posted:I want to quibble with the illiteracy claim, at the very least: Jesus read from the scriptures in the synagogue. He also quoted scripture many, many times and was intimately familiar with it. I was debating putting that in, because I didn't want to imply that he was unaware of the scriptures and was obviously quite familiar with them. He obviously gets Son of Man directly from the book of Daniel, as an example. As for how illiterate he was, at a minimum, he could not write. No Christian writer, biblical or otherwise, speaks of the writings of Jesus, nor do any survive. A bunch of later writing claims to have been written by Jesus but for a variety of good reasons, no scholar thinks that is authentic. As for how much he could read, I'll grant that it is possible he could have had some reading ability, but he was also from a poor peasant family in the hinterlands of a minor kingdom that had recently been incorporated into the Roman Empire. He would have gotten a religious education in the synagogue but I question how much that would have involved learning to read the scriptures himself vs. hearing those scriptures recited by local priests. Exactly how well he was able to quote direct vs. paraphrase is a good question. The Gospels clearly show him quoting directly, as you say, but given the distance in time from composition, I assert that it isn't possible to know whether he was quoting directly or using a gloss. Also, I would point towards the story in Mark and Matthew where Jesus is rejected by his local synagogue because he was a "tekton", which is where we get the idea that Jesus was a carpenter. However the general use of the word is probably better understood as what we'd today call a construction worker. Someone with building skills who in the time and location would not have been expected to be literate. We do then see him reading a scroll directly in Luke, but that also fits with my assertion about the evolving portrayal of Jesus in later written Gospels. Regardless, I did not mean to imply he was ignorant of the scriptures, in any reconstruction of Jesus, he clearly was highly versed in what they say. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 18:35
|
|
|
Something to have in mind about Christian revelation. The revelation is the person (or people by the Holy Spirit) not the documents. And if one uses the symbol Logos to talk about Jesus, one is affirming a spoken character of that revelation. The documents are talk that is written down that comes after. It’s an event, where our sources are viewpoints of the event constructed after the fact from different perspectives. It’s like watching Rashōmon. Personally I think our relationship with the truth and the real has that character, it’s dynamic rather than fixed and unchanging. Edit: but some folks find that threatening if they aren’t prepared for it when they encounter it. It’s very much in contrast with Islam which has a written revelation in the Koran.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
I can't back-cast it reliably, but I know that after the Babylonian exile there was a lot of education for male children. It is possible Jesus qua Jesus was not much of a writer and did not do much writing; I imagine a lot of people who could read to at least some extent did not do much or any writing, other than maybe things like short lists or using letters while sketching something out on a slate or in the dust. Aren't there stories where he's hanging out with the rabbis and such?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 18:46
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I can't back-cast it reliably, but I know that after the Babylonian exile there was a lot of education for male children. It is possible Jesus qua Jesus was not much of a writer and did not do much writing; I imagine a lot of people who could read to at least some extent did not do much or any writing, other than maybe things like short lists or using letters while sketching something out on a slate or in the dust. The "Historical Jesus" adherents make a lot of lack-of-evidence = evidence-of-lack assertions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I can't back-cast it reliably, but I know that after the Babylonian exile there was a lot of education for male children. It is possible Jesus qua Jesus was not much of a writer and did not do much writing; I imagine a lot of people who could read to at least some extent did not do much or any writing, other than maybe things like short lists or using letters while sketching something out on a slate or in the dust. There's one from him as a child where he goes to Jerusalem and teaches the teachers, but that's about as historically reliable as the infancy narratives. For his adult ministry, he is rejected by the priests and the scribes. The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone and all that. On the whole writing front, I'll reiterate that it begs belief that if Jesus wrote anything that we wouldn't have mention of it let alone an actual copy. I'm well aware absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but beyond the Gospels we have Paul who also doesn't mention any surviving writings of Jesus yet we have his surviving writing, nor do we have mention of such writing from any early church father, which seems like something they would have mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
He writes in the dirt in John.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 19:13
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:He writes in the dirt in John. In a passage that doesn't appear in our earliest and most reliable manuscripts of John and which is generally considered to be a later interpolation (assuming you're referring to the story of the woman taken in adultery), though as I posted up thread, I do hold open the possibility that it was original, though I wouldn't bet on it. I really like the message of that story and would like it to be authentic but it's hard to ignore that it's very likely a late addition to a gospel that was already written 50+ years after the crucifixion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:There's one from him as a child where he goes to Jerusalem and teaches the teachers, but that's about as historically reliable as the infancy narratives. For his adult ministry, he is rejected by the priests and the scribes. The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone and all that. That he left behind no writings is not any kind of evidence that he was illiterate. There are many explanations as to why he left behind no writings. Him being illiterate is only one of them, which is contraindicated by plenty of other evidence. This is an extremely thin reed to be grasping at.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 20:05
|
|
|
I don't think it's an article of faith or anything, and I don't have more to say on the topic, but as it relates to the original question about whether Jesus was aware that he was God while alive it's super tangential and I regret the derail. To that original question, I think he did. I don't think he expressed things in a neat, triune theology but it's also hard for me to read the Bible and even at the earliest not see that the claim was part of his ministry. What complicates matters is that he also clearly was cagey about claiming it out loud so it's a common theme that the people around Jesus, even his closest disciples, didn't get it until after the resurrection. My read of this is that he would have led his disciples to this understanding in private, after he knew that they could be trusted, but wouldn't have claimed it to strangers as he was going about his ministry. As for why, well, claiming he was the Messiah (which is not the same as claiming to be God mind you) is what ultimately got him killed. Had he gone around proclaiming that he was literally God, he would have immediately been locked up either by the Romans for sedition or by the Jewish authorities for blasphemy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Personally I think our relationship with the truth and the real has that character, it’s dynamic rather than fixed and unchanging. Edit: but some folks find that threatening if they aren’t prepared for it when they encounter it. Could I impose upon you to expand on this? Much of why I have been redoubling my inquiries into faith and religion is that it feels as though things -- ~mystical things~ -- the world itself is changing and evolving in a way that settles itself very neatly in harmony with my personal beliefs but is antithetical to the world that I was told about growing up. Magic, for example. I never believed in magic or miracles until pretty recently, and admitting that I believe in it now, even if I staple six pages of addendums and footnotes and explanations to that belief, still feels hideously old-school or new-age in exactly the way I have always explicitly tried to avoid. But regardless of my caveats and pussyfooting, the statement stands: today, I believe in magic. Five years ago, I did not. But as you say, life is dynamic, so it makes sense that reality might be too. What your post makes me wonder is -- is this thing that I believe in now new to all of us, and not just me? Have enough people been exploring reality and ability and pushing enough boundaries over the last few years that something fundamental is different now? It's not like a huge shared event rocked the entire world three years ago or anything like that, I guess. Obviously my personal questions about magic and Gods' earthly influences are not the ones I am asking you to answer, here, but they have been hammering at my door for the last couple years and why I am keen to understand your thoughts. edit: Tias: if you have anything you would like to share on this topic I would love to hear it. LITERALLY A BIRD fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jun 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
Literally a Bird, Give this book a read, it’s Dynamics of Faith https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai...oECAMQFQ&adurl= It’s unfortunately not one I have seen a digital version of online.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
Thank you, I will!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
Hey, thank you for those very detailed replies, I'm enjoying Something Awful so far. There was another question that came to mind to me over the workday, which was also passingly referenced in Jesus Christ Superstar: why was it that Jesus came to us as a man during the Roman Empire? Was there something symbolic about Rome, or was it entirely by coincidence? Like, could he have been just as likely to have appeared to us in ancient Egypt, or during one of the dynasties of China? Also, branching off from that one, what was Jesus doing before his human life? Was he still very much part of the God of the Old Testament, or did the aspect of God the Son come into existence as part of the virgin birth? Basically, did God the Father create the Son at a certain point in time, or was he always there?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
two fish posted:Hey, thank you for those very detailed replies, I'm enjoying Something Awful so far. "In the fullness of time." Jesus came when he did because God deemed it to be the right time. We are not privy to his reasoning. The Son was in existence as part of the Trinity from the beginning, whatever that was. Whatever the Father is made of, the Son is made of the same stuff. Tertullian wrote that the relationship between the Father and the Son is as spring and a stream. They are made of the same substance (flowing water), yet are distinct entities - a spring is not a stream, even if they are connected. The stream necessarily comes into existence from the spring, as the water has to go somewhere, yet the spring is a higher sort of hierarchy, as it must come first. The Son became a human being when he was born of Mary in Bethlehem. He remained The Son of the Trinity, but added a new form. He was fully God and fully human simultaneously. The term is "hypostatic union," meaning it is foundational, at the very essence of his being.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 00:58
|
|
|
two fish posted:Hey, thank you for those very detailed replies, I'm enjoying Something Awful so far. Oh!! I didn't even notice that you are new to the site! Welcome, new friend
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 01:02
|
|
|
welcome to the pig balls website
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 01:08
|
|
|
two fish posted:Was he still very much part of the God of the Old Testament, or did the aspect of God the Son come into existence as part of the virgin birth? Basically, did God the Father create the Son at a certain point in time, or was he always there? pretty much every time in history you hear about a group being violently suppressed by the church it was because of this question, it's kinda the plane on a treadmill of early christianity
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 01:08
|
|
|
two fish posted:why was it that Jesus came to us as a man during the Roman Empire? Was there something symbolic about Rome, or was it entirely by coincidence? Like, could he have been just as likely to have appeared to us in ancient Egypt, or during one of the dynasties of China? The Roman empire was an existential threat to the nation of Israel at the time. They were an occupying force, and would eventually spell the end of the second temple era. If the Jesus story is a continuation of the Yahweh story then it makes sense for Jesus to arrive at a time of great crisis for the people of Israel. quote:Also, branching off from that one, what was Jesus doing before his human life? Was he still very much part of the God of the Old Testament, or did the aspect of God the Son come into existence as part of the virgin birth? Basically, did God the Father create the Son at a certain point in time, or was he always there? Jesus was always a part of God. Some say he was the logos/word of God from the Genesis creation story. From a strictly trinitarian view Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all uncreated and equal parts of (or representations of) the same God.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 01:14
|
|
|
two fish posted:Was there something symbolic about Rome, or was it entirely by coincidence? There is symbolic meaning to Rome. Rome at the time rules the world as it is understood (so it is not really the whole world, but is as far as people living under it’s influence are concerned is). And one person ruled Rome. At the same time the idea of one monotheistic God had developed in a new way in the synthesis of Greek and Jewish thought.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
two fish posted:There was another question that came to mind to me over the workday, which was also passingly referenced in Jesus Christ Superstar: why was it that Jesus came to us as a man during the Roman Empire? Was there something symbolic about Rome, or was it entirely by coincidence? Like, could he have been just as likely to have appeared to us in ancient Egypt, or during one of the dynasties of China? quote:Also, branching off from that one, what was Jesus doing before his human life? Was he still very much part of the God of the Old Testament, or did the aspect of God the Son come into existence as part of the virgin birth? Basically, did God the Father create the Son at a certain point in time, or was he always there? (It's also inaccurate to describe a person of the Trinity as "part" of God. Each one is God, and all three of them together are God.) Keromaru5 fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Jun 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 01:44
|
|