Hi All

[Spockrates]

Actually there is no need for polemics or apologetics.  Real Men (tm) don't need any of that shit ;-)  Let your yea be yea or your ney be ney.  Particularly if you are horsing around ... Mr Ed.

Yes, Spockrates ... your pizza example is perfect.  I am not saying that Paul had a transporter or video screen that allowed him to be "with" the Corinthians in some other way.  But then to many people, the idea of being with someone, except in the same room, is unintelligible.  They don't see things mind first, but body first.  Of course, in another language, we wouldn't have such ambiguities about "with" ... though we would with other words that are perfectly clear in English.  In exegesis there are at least 4 levels of interpretation ... the elementary school level is the literal ... and most people are content with their milk, cookies and noon-time nap.  The levels are Denotational, Connotational, Situational and Metaphorical.  Of course some people just can't do metaphor and its counterpart ... analogical thinking.  They must color inside the lines, or they will develop cooties ;-)

Yes. With this clarification, then it seems that when Paul said,

For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this.
(1 Corinthians 5:3)

he was speaking of pizza more than location. He was saying he and the Corinthians were in agreement. In the case for which he wrote the letter, they were in agreement that the man who was sleeping with his father's wife should be asked to leave their church.

Is this, then what Jesus meant when he said, "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am with them"? That is, is what makes a person a Christian the fact that she agrees with Christ about wrong and right?

[aitm]

so when jebus says that "indeed, there are those here who will still be alive when.. I return" means that or like most who recognize that this is patently false, you will surmise that a "generation" in THIS case means a hundred million billion trillion years if need be…whereas elsewhere in the babble a "generation" earns exactly one generation of approximately 16 to 30 years.

[Baruch]

Spokrates - See, you are not slow ... but can apply something to a different circumstance.  Americans are egomaniacs.  They think that a Christian spirit is more like ... me and my fishing buddy Jeebus ;-)  As long as you can escape solipsism, then yes, that is also what Jesus (the fictional character of the Gospels) meant ... or rather that is Paul (a historical figure) meant.  But unless both parties have the "holy spirit" ... which in Hebrew and Greek is feminine ... then they cannot come together in agape in the way it is imagined.  In that way the Christian and Jewish views coincide ... because Shekhinah is also feminine.  But such a spirit might be incubated alone (as Jesus describes proper prayer), it cannot be birthed except thru sharing with real people of like mind.  Of course before Descartes, nobody used "mind", they used "spirit".  Descartes birthed that modern secular view, and had to dodge the Inquisition because of it.

Aitm - thou kibitzing knave ;-)  If Jeebus is talking eternally, not temporally, then what he said was tautological.  Alas we only have the poor efforts of the early Church Fathers as Cliff's Notes to the hellenistic dramatic novellas that are the Gospels.  Think of these as Buck Rodgers shows from the 1930s, with sparklers out the back of the toy spaceships to indicate thrusting rocket engines.  Often if you get into the actual Judeo-Greek, the meaning is quite different than the Church influenced translation.

[aitm]

Aitm - thou kibitzing knave ;-)  If Jeebus is talking eternally, not temporally, then what he said was tautological. 

No. I will not allow it. If we allow some sentences to mean "anything that doesn't disprove it" then we might as well claim a rock is a tree and fish is a camel turd if it makes the sentence help "prove" the babbles accuracy.  You may splay and gavel about if you wish, but I will not.

[Baruch]

I love your way with words.  If words are like matter, and matter is all the same, in some sense being mere rearrangements of atoms, as words are mere rearrangements of letters ... then Newspeak is our mother tongue ... because then all words, in a certain sense, are the same.  Welcome to 1984, Winston Smith.  But the play is reversed ... I am Yorick, at the cemetery holding the exhumed skull of Hamlet ... as my soliloquy begins ...

[Spockrates]

so when jebus says that "indeed, there are those here who will still be alive when.. I return" means that or like most who recognize that this is patently false, you will surmise that a "generation" in THIS case means a hundred million billion trillion years if need be…whereas elsewhere in the babble a "generation" earns exactly one generation of approximately 16 to 30 years.

I don't believe Jesus did say that, but please let me know what passage of the Bible proves me wrong.

:P

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NIV&quicksearch=Return&begin=47&end=73

Edit: I did find these words of Jesus:

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

(John 24)

But as the author says, the notion that Christians who knew Jesus would still be alive when he returned was just a rumor with no basis in fact.

[Spockrates]

Spokrates - See, you are not slow ... but can apply something to a different circumstance.  Americans are egomaniacs.  They think that a Christian spirit is more like ... me and my fishing buddy Jeebus ;-)  As long as you can escape solipsism, then yes, that is also what Jesus (the fictional character of the Gospels) meant ... or rather that is Paul (a historical figure) meant.  But unless both parties have the "holy spirit" ... which in Hebrew and Greek is feminine ... then they cannot come together in agape in the way it is imagined.  In that way the Christian and Jewish views coincide ... because Shekhinah is also feminine.  But such a spirit might be incubated alone (as Jesus describes proper prayer), it cannot be birthed except thru sharing with real people of like mind.  Of course before Descartes, nobody used "mind", they used "spirit".  Descartes birthed that modern secular view, and had to dodge the Inquisition because of it.

Aitm - thou kibitzing knave ;-)  If Jeebus is talking eternally, not temporally, then what he said was tautological.  Alas we only have the poor efforts of the early Church Fathers as Cliff's Notes to the hellenistic dramatic novellas that are the Gospels.  Think of these as Buck Rodgers shows from the 1930s, with sparklers out the back of the toy spaceships to indicate thrusting rocket engines.  Often if you get into the actual Judeo-Greek, the meaning is quite different than the Church influenced translation.

Yes, and so it seems Christians are those who are in agreement. But now I ask myself, "What are we saying?"  For this passage comes to mind:

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

(Galatians 2)

Since Paul disagreed with Peter about such an important issue (is Christianity a reformation of Judaism or a new religion for both Jewish and non-Jewish people) does this mean one of the two was not a Christian?  If it does not mean this, then it seems the simple question still remains unanswered, and please forgive me for asking you once again:

What is a Christian?

[Baruch]

What is a Christian?  Depends on who you ask.  Why do you suppose there is only one answer to this question, or any other question?

Now I can give contemporary evidence from Messianic Judaism.  There are two groups now, as there were (at least two) groups 2000 years ago.  Josephus says that there were 23 kinds of Jews in his day, and he wasn't even counting Gentiles who leaned Jewish.  These two groups today ... Messianic Judaism got its restart after 1500 years of silence, because of the fall of Jerusalem's old city, to the Israelis, in 1967.  This sparked several messianic movements, including the Jewish settlers on the West Bank.  In the West, some of this fervor manifested in Jews who were unable to be atheist or agnostic (as most Jews are), but were also not connected to modern Israel in a secular way (the modern state is secular), nor were they connected to one of the rabbinic groups.

There has been a strain of Judaism throughout history, that was anti-rabbinic ... the Karaiites ... who are Biblical, not Talmudic.  Perhaps out of those tendencies, modern Messianic Judaism was born.  Most Jews simply call these Christians, because in Jewish dogma today, you can be anything; a Muslim, an atheist, a Buddhist and still be a Jew ... except if you are Christian.  Out of the mists of the collective unconscious, the same problems arise.  Some Messianic Jews are Torah law following, and others are not.  And among either formation, you find a second division ... what to do with G-d Fearers (Gentiles).  Can they attend worship?  Can they be first class members of the congregation, or are they second class members.  And if they are second class members, then can that status be changed, and how can it be changed.  These same forces were at work 2000 years ago.

So if you wanted to associate with a Jewish messianic group, and you weren't Jewish by parentage ... some would say you couldn't attend.  Others would say you could attend, but you couldn't be a full member.  Yet others (the Pauline) would say you could attend and have full membership.  After the many Jewish-Roman wars, only one or two Christian (this didn't initially imply Gentile) group remained ... the pacifist, pro-Roman, Pauline groups (and other gnostic groups like the Johannine, if in fact they were different).  Initially the Pauline/Johannine communities were gnostic in theology ... but this changed over time as non-Christian gnostics challenged them ... these other gnostics being anti-Semitic, world-denying, sometimes pagan/sometimes Abrahamic, but pacifist as well.  But it was illegal to have any religion, other than one that is licensed ... same as it is in China today.  So these illicit religions were harassed for 200 more years.  It wasn't enough to be pacifist.  Rome demanded your sole allegiance ... both to the Emperor cult and to militarism.  America is the incarnation of Rome today, but latitudinarian in regards to religion (except you must follow the civic religion/patriotism).

Now we are talking scholarship, which is usually just informed speculation.  A physicist measures an electric current with a voltmeter ... but it isn't possible to measure the value of a Shakespeare play with a voltmeter (unless it is a way of measuring the acoustic applause).

[aitm]

I don't believe Jesus did say that, but please let me know what passage of the Bible proves me wrong.

Sigh! Anther christer who proclaims to "know" that babble but has yet, apparently to actually read it.
since you proclaim that words only mean what they mean to those who understand that what they really mean is whatever they mean to those who need them to mean whatever they want them to mean…..easy enough…

see Matt chapter 10 to 25, many references, do the reading yourself.

see Mark chap 13 I believe and Luke 21 or 22. perhaps a half dozen keepers unless your a liar about it.

I am sure you can make up some illusion that they actually meant "when the moon is stood upon my mankind and metal tubes fly about filled with humans will the son of man return to grant the believers great flocks of rams"…..gotta love the OT, ,a great flock of rams is the reward…woo-hoo!

[Spockrates]

Sigh! Anther christer who proclaims to "know" that babble but has yet, apparently to actually read it.
since you proclaim that words only mean what they mean to those who understand that what they really mean is whatever they mean to those who need them to mean whatever they want them to mean…..easy enough…

see Matt chapter 10 to 25, many references, do the reading yourself.

see Mark chap 13 I believe and Luke 21 or 22. perhaps a half dozen keepers unless your a liar about it.

I am sure you can make up some illusion that they actually meant "when the moon is stood upon my mankind and metal tubes fly about filled with humans will the son of man return to grant the believers great flocks of rams"…..gotta love the OT, ,a great flock of rams is the reward…woo-hoo!

Sorry I don't see it. Any specific verse you have in mind?

[Spockrates]

What is a Christian?  Depends on who you ask.  Why do you suppose there is only one answer to this question, or any other question?

Now I can give contemporary evidence from Messianic Judaism.  There are two groups now, as there were (at least two) groups 2000 years ago.  Josephus says that there were 23 kinds of Jews in his day, and he wasn't even counting Gentiles who leaned Jewish.  These two groups today ... Messianic Judaism got its restart after 1500 years of silence, because of the fall of Jerusalem's old city, to the Israelis, in 1967.  This sparked several messianic movements, including the Jewish settlers on the West Bank.  In the West, some of this fervor manifested in Jews who were unable to be atheist or agnostic (as most Jews are), but were also not connected to modern Israel in a secular way (the modern state is secular), nor were they connected to one of the rabbinic groups.

There has been a strain of Judaism throughout history, that was anti-rabbinic ... the Karaiites ... who are Biblical, not Talmudic.  Perhaps out of those tendencies, modern Messianic Judaism was born.  Most Jews simply call these Christians, because in Jewish dogma today, you can be anything; a Muslim, an atheist, a Buddhist and still be a Jew ... except if you are Christian.  Out of the mists of the collective unconscious, the same problems arise.  Some Messianic Jews are Torah law following, and others are not.  And among either formation, you find a second division ... what to do with G-d Fearers (Gentiles).  Can they attend worship?  Can they be first class members of the congregation, or are they second class members.  And if they are second class members, then can that status be changed, and how can it be changed.  These same forces were at work 2000 years ago.

So if you wanted to associate with a Jewish messianic group, and you weren't Jewish by parentage ... some would say you couldn't attend.  Others would say you could attend, but you couldn't be a full member.  Yet others (the Pauline) would say you could attend and have full membership.  After the many Jewish-Roman wars, only one or two Christian (this didn't initially imply Gentile) group remained ... the pacifist, pro-Roman, Pauline groups (and other gnostic groups like the Johannine, if in fact they were different).  Initially the Pauline/Johannine communities were gnostic in theology ... but this changed over time as non-Christian gnostics challenged them ... these other gnostics being anti-Semitic, world-denying, sometimes pagan/sometimes Abrahamic, but pacifist as well.  But it was illegal to have any religion, other than one that is licensed ... same as it is in China today.  So these illicit religions were harassed for 200 more years.  It wasn't enough to be pacifist.  Rome demanded your sole allegiance ... both to the Emperor cult and to militarism.  America is the incarnation of Rome today, but latitudinarian in regards to religion (except you must follow the civic religion/patriotism).

Now we are talking scholarship, which is usually just informed speculation.  A physicist measures an electric current with a voltmeter ... but it isn't possible to measure the value of a Shakespeare play with a voltmeter (unless it is a way of measuring the acoustic applause).

OK, no problem. It was good talking with you.

:)

[aitm]

Sorry I don't see it.

yeah, like thats a surprise.

[Spockrates]

yeah, like thats a surprise.

Let's say you have a favorite book, which you've been reading for years. You've spent time not just reading it, but trying to figure out what the authors mean to convey on each page. If someone quotes a few words of a sentence from that book, you can usually quote the rest of the sentence, or at least find the chapter from where the sentence came.

Now someone who hasn't spent much time reading your favorite book tells you one of the authors wrote something in the book that you know she didn't write. You ask where in the book, and the person gives you a few different chapters. You read them and don't find anything like what the person said was written and politely let him know. He accuses you of being insincere.

How would you respond?

[Baruch]

Aitm is a cute doggy, just don't get upset at the barking ;-)

It was nice talking with you too.  You can post on the regular strings too, if you like.  I think you have met the minimum posting requirement.

[aitm]

Let's say you have a favorite book, which you've been reading for years. You've spent time not just reading it, but trying to figure out what the authors mean to convey on each page. If someone quotes a few words of a sentence from that book, you can usually quote the rest of the sentence, or at least find the chapter from where the sentence came.

Now someone who hasn't spent much time reading your favorite book tells you one of the authors wrote something in the book that you know she didn't write. You ask where in the book, and the person gives you a few different chapters. You read them and don't find anything like what the person said was written and politely let him know. He accuses you of being insincere.

How would you respond?

As a person who has obviously read the book several more times than you, and as this particular quote in Matthew Mark and Luke are very well known and a point of contention for quite awhile, I would say the same thing we atheist always say: It is well known the average atheist knows the babble far better than the pretender christian.

To you I would say, stop pasting your babble search quotes and maybe, you know, really read the piece of shit for the first time. Front to back and no skipping and no asking Siri what she thinks it means.