Religion Discussion

[Shinigami052]

If anyone with an openmind would be able to help me understand something, i'd appresheate it.

In my history class right now we're studing the rise of Christianity. In the Apostles' Creed is says:

"...He [Jesus Christ] suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He decended into hell. On the thrid day he rose again from the dead."

Why does it say he went to hell? Out of ANYONE I'd think Jesus would be the person who didn't go to hell.

[ChroniC588]

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/did_jesus_go_to_hell.htm

this site explains it pretty much where Jesus may have gone for those 3 days before easter.

still when Jesus was on the cross he said this to the thief dying next to him:

Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise (Luke 23.43)

Just based on that I would assume Jesus did not go to the Hell of fire and brimstone...but to a nice place, possibly heaven.:angeldevil:

[Hee_Haw]

Allow me to take a 'stab' at this (no real pun intended).

This little snippet from the Apostle's Creed has been a sticky point for people of faith for generations. From the third century AD, the whole concept of "hell" taken from several Scriptures, finds it's origins in two words taken (in this instance) from the Greek interlinear; allow me to use Matthew 12:40 as an example:

"...or just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Matthew 12:40, NASB

Here's that same Scripture, taken from the Greek Interlinear (as it is from the original Greek);

JUST JONAH WAS THREE DAYS THREE NIGHTS IN BELLY SEA MONSTER, so SON of MAN THREE DAYS THREE NIGHTS HEART EARTH.

Those two words on the tail end, translated as "heart" and "earth" have had some contention as to the intent of meaning and context to the whole.

The word kardia, taken from the Latin kar (meaning things ranging from "heart", to "inner" or "core" or "center" or "depth".

And the word ge, (pronounced like "ghay"), root word meaning simply, "earth" or "grounds" or "land as opposed to water" or "firmament".

Some scholars believed that the whole "center" "earth" or "center" "ground" meant anything from Sheol (sometimes thought to be the "bosom of Abraham"), or the Catholic "purgatory" (kind of the "waiting room" for the dead), or even the most intense Gehenna (which is the high-heat eternal torment place everyone calls "Hell".)

Other scholars, of which I tend to side with, simply imply that what they meant was that Jesus, matter-of-factly, died on the cross, and was subsequently BURIED. Placed in a rock tomb cut into the earth. Put in ground, for all intents and purposes.

There are eight Bible passages/ Scriptures that are pretty much the foundations for the Apostle's Creed (from the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer and Common Worship, and the Lutheran Church).
Pretty much the Methodists were among the first to reword "He descended into hell", into "He descended to the dead" as part of their Apostle's creed readings.

We (Foursquare), don't necessarily advocate the Apostle's Creed; it's not that we are against it, we just find that the personal profession of faith in Jesus is sufficient as the beginning of the pathway of salvation and a personal relationship with Christ.

I hope that lends a sliver of light to a vague and oftentimes confusing element, just some of many, regarding the Christian faith. It's important for me to know the origins of much of what's out there, mainly because it allows me to steer people toward what really should be the priorities of their individual journeys of faith.

[Shinigami052]

wow that's way more in depth than i expected. Heh maybe I'll post my paper up when I'm done so you can take a look at it and tell me what you think.

(I'm always apprehensive about getting into religious discussions with people as it sometimes causes them to get defensive and then upset. But I think you're open minded enough to realize that what I'm trying to do is not disprove your faith but better understand my own)

[Shinigami052]

Okay here is my paper...(it's horriable but whatever i'm done w/ it)


Religion is the worlds’ greatest double edged sword. On the one hand it guides people giving them a set of morals, values, traditions and understandings to live by. On the other hand, it has been the cause of countless wars, death, prosecution, lies, and thievery. We as human beings long for understanding and cohesion in our world. While religion offers us some answers it comes at a price. To understand the answers which religion offers to us, we should understand how they came about. Religious texts are a very influential part of religious guidance.

Religious writings are a guide book a sort of map for how one should practice a religion and in some cases how one should live. These texts sometimes also hold keys to our origins, the origins or the religion and sometimes our purpose in life and what is to happen to us in the afterlife. To gain a deeper understanding of these texts, it is important to analyze how they were created. I will examine the creation and standardization of one of the world’s largest religions, Christianity.

Orthodoxy (of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc. ) and heresy (opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system ) are relative terms. What may be orthodox and heresy to one group may be the opposite of another. I will use writings of various authors judged orthodox and those judged heretical to assess the way in which early Christianity developed. How was the initial diversity of Christianity transformed into a split between orthodoxy and heresy? What ideas and institutions came to be the most important determinants of orthodoxy?
There are a plethora of gospels written by many people during the rise of Christianity (a generation or two after the death of Jesus). The most well known gospels are those that made it into the Bible—gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John written between 65 and 100 A.D. Other gospels which were written around the same time were excluded from the Bible. Some of them are nothing more than rumored writings as there is no evidence of their existence while others are fragmented. But how did the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John become ratified into the Bible while others like the gospel of Marry Magdalene get passed over?

The decision to accept and make certain gospels orthodoxy was the work of a large number of people. With the spread and branching of the Christian religion, it became increasingly more important for the Christians to define what is orthodox and what is not.

If we examine the gospel of Luke and Matthew (two orthodox gospels) and compare it to the gospel of Mary Magdalene (a gospel that was not included in the bible) we can see many conflicting arguments while depicting the same general event.
In the following Gospel of Luke (written in the 80’s or 90’s C.E. ), He talks about the resurrection of Jesus.

“…but when they went in they did not find the body. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel…the men said to them. ‘Why do you seek the living among the dead? Remember how he told you…that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.’ And they remembered his words.”

This passage speaks of two men going to the tomb of Jesus and upon entering they found nothing. The stone had been rolled back and the tomb was empty. Two men stood next to them and reminded them of the promise that Jesus made that he shall be “delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.”4 Upon returning to Jerusalem to tell the disciples what they had seen, Luke tells us:

“As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them. But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit. And he said to them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hears? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself…’”4

According to the Gospel of Luke (written in the mid 80’s ), Jesus did in fact return and reveal himself to his disciples as was promised.
In the Gospel of Matthew, another Orthodox gospel, Matthew writes:

“…the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always…’”

These verses from the gospel of Matthew corroborate what is written in the Gospel of Luke. Jesus had returned in his human form to be amongst his disciples once again. He gave them direction and told them to not fear or question what they see before them for he told them he would return, and he did. These two orthodox gospels agree with each other while there are some non-orthodox gospels that contradict with what Matthew and Luke wrote. This contradiction could be one reason the gospels did not become orthodox.

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene has many contradicting and controversial passages. This wavering from the path of orthodoxy could be a reason it was not made orthodox. Marry writes:

“When the blessed one [Jesus] had said this, he greeted them all, saying, ‘Peace be with you. Receive my peace to yourselves. Beware that no one lead you astray, saying, 'Lo here!' or 'Lo there!' For the Son of Man is within you. Follow after him! Those who seek him will find him. Go then and preach the gospel of the kingdom. Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed for you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it.’”

In the passage, Mary tells us of a visit from Jesus after his death. He guides them to “preach the gospel of the kingdom.” He also tells them not to make any more rules than what he’s already said. Jesus tells them “…do not give a law like the lawgiver…” This may have come in conflict with the Christian’s abilities to make new rules or amend rules and teachings to that of Jesus. Mary also writes in her gospel of a vision she had:

“I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to him, ‘Lord, I saw you today in a vision.’ He answered and said to me, ‘Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of me. For where the mind is, there is the treasure.’ I said to him, ‘Lord, now does he who sees the vision see it (through) the soul (or) through the spirit?’ The Savior answered and said. ‘He does not see through the soul nor thorough the spirit, but the mind which [is] between the two…”7

This type of thinking could go against the orthodox thinking that those who saw Jesus saw him through the soul or spirit. According to Mary’s gospel, it is through the mind that the visions of Jesus are seen. This view of the mind being in control of the visions of Jesus could come in conflict and seem too much like Roman theology that their gods are human and not communicated to through the soul or spirit but through the mind in that they are appeased by doing rituals and the like. In another part of her gospel Marry is telling Peter, Andrew, Levi, and possibly others of a vision and a conversation she had during that vision with “the Savior”—Jesus.

“When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her. But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, ‘Say what you (wish to) say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ides.’ Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things. He questioned them about the Savior: ‘Did he really speak with a woman without our knowledge (and) not openly? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?’”7

The passage shows a lot about the dynamics of the relationship and acceptance between Mary and the others present. Andrew said that the ideas and teachings were strange. The Orthodox Christians surely would not want something that people could be considered strange in their orthodox gospels. Not only did Andrew find the teachings strange but Peter doubted the entire thing. He says with a tone of resentment and disbelief that the Savior (Jesus) would not speak to a woman over them (men). And why, also, would he talk to a woman and not them or to everyone. He finishes his statement by raising the thought that Jesus preferred Mary over them—an idea that would not sit well with the Orthodox Christians. Continuing the conversation, Mary writes:

“Then Mary wept and said to Peter, ‘My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?’ Levi answered and said to Peter, ‘Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worth, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect man and acquire him for ourselves as he commanded us, and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.’”7

In this passage we see Levi trying to defend Mary and her statement painting Peter as “hot-tempered” and that he treats women as enemies, two qualities quite unbecoming of a disciple of Jesus. Levi may have taken his argument too far when he said that Jesus loved Mary more than they for Jesus is said to love all men equally. Levi finishes by reminding Peter of what Jesus said—“ Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed for you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver…” Peter is depicted not as the Orthodox Christians would want him to be seen.

The Sophia of Jesus Christ (The Wisdom of Jesus Christ) is a text from the Nag Hammadi (Gnostic writings found in Egypt) that is a retelling of an appearance of Jesus, after his resurrection, to his followers. This is another non-orthodox writing—like that of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. In The Sophia of Jesus Christ there is more evidence of contradicting ideas that the Orthodox Christians would not want in the Bible. In it the Savior (Jesus) says:

“‘I want you to know that all men born on earth from the foundation of the world until now, being dust, while they have inquired about god, who he is and what he is like, have not found him. Now the wisest among them have speculated from the ordering of the world and (its) movement. But their speculation has not reached the truth. For it is said that the ordering is directed in three ways by all the philosophers, (and) hence they do not agree. For some of them say about the world that it is directed by itself. Others, that it is providence (that directs it). Others, that it is fate. But it is none of these. Again, of the three voices I have just mentioned, none is close to the truth, and (they are) from man. But I, who came from Infinite Light, I am here--for I know him (Light) --that I might speak to you about the precise nature of the truth. For whatever is from itself is a polluted life; it is self-made. Providence has no wisdom in it. And fate does not discern.
But to you it is given to know; and whoever is worthy of knowledge will receive (it), whoever has not been begotten by the sowing of unclean rubbing but by First Who Was Sent, for he is an immortal in the midst of mortal men.’"

In the passage, the author tells us of another meeting with Jesus and brings about yet another interpretation of what he said and what he tried to convey to his followers. He tells them that all men, despite the fact that they are created by god and inquire about god, do not know god and have not found him. He says that people have postulated that the world is controlled by itself, by providence, or by fate. Jesus tells them they are all wrong. He tells them that he knows the truth for he is from “infinite light”. He tells them that only those worth of the knowledge will receive it. This idea that only those worthy of the knowledge will know it goes against orthodox beliefs. Faced with all these different writings how was a decision made on what is to be considered orthodox and what is to be considered heresy?

In Irenaeus of Lyon’s wring Against Heresis he attempts to discredit the writings and ideas of the Gnostics. Irenaeus says:

“Saturnius was of Antioch…Like Menander, he taught that there is one Father, utterly unknown, who made Angels, Archangels, virtues, Powers; and that the world, and all things therein, was made by certain angels, seven in number. . .”

Irenaeus starts out by pointing out the Gnostic’s idea of creation. Gnostics believe that one Father, unknown made Angels, Archangels, virtues, and powers and that the world was created, not by the Father but by seven angels. This is a very different view from the Christian ideas set forth in Genesis. He continues on to say:

“The Savior he declared to be unborn, incorporeal and without form, asserting that he was seen as a man in appearance only. The god of the Jews, he affirms, was one of the Angels; and because all the Princes wished to destroy his Father, Christ came to destroy the God of the Jews, and to save them that believed on him, and these are they who have a spark of his life.”9

In the Gnostic believe, Irenaeus states, that the Savior (Jesus) is “…unborn, incorporeal and without form…seen as a man in appearance only.” This is very different from the orthodox view that Jesus was a man. Irenaeus continues on to say that the god of the Jews was an angel and the reason Christ came was to destroy the god of the Jews and to protect his father as opposed to the orthodox view that Christ came to save the followers from their sins. Irenaeus’ writing was a very strong attempt at discrediting the Gnostic beliefs. Irenaeus was not alone in his attempt to influence the Orthodox Christians in what would become orthodox and what would not.
The Muratorian Canon written by an unknown author in what is believed to be the 2nd century is a list of books that are to be “given special status” and would eventually be put into the Christian New Testament. The Canon talks of the letters that Paul wrote:

“For the Epistles of Paul…he wrote to not more than seven churches…He wrote besides these one to Philemon, one to Titus and two to Timothy. These were written in personal affection…And there are many others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church. For it is not fitting for gall to be mixed with honey.”

The author is suggesting that certain letters from Paul be kept while others may be kept by the church but should not be made available and read to the public. The Muratorian Canon is just one of the many documents that show the church trying to bring some type of continuity to their ideas.
The Apostles’ Creed was adapted from a letter of St. Ambrose of Milan written in 390 A.D. The Creed became the basis for which Orthodox Christians would compile the New Testament. It states:

“I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From whence he shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. “

The Apostles’ Creed eulogizes Jesus and sets forth a basis for the orthodox views of the church. With this creed, ideas contradicting it would be found to be herestic and not accepted by the church. This positive affirmation of what the church believed was a big step into solidifying their ideas and beliefs. Although they had this creed, there were still others who offered up the notion that their ideas were right.
To defend against these documents like the Prescription Against the Heretics, Tertullian writes:

“But if any of these [heresies] are bold enough to insert themselves into the Apostolic age, in order to seem to have been handed down from the Apostles because they existed under the Apostles, we can say: Let them then produce the origins of their churches; let them unroll the list of their bishops, and unbroken succession from the beginning so that that first bishop had as his precursor and the source of his authority one of the Apostles or one of the apostolic men who, though not an Apostle, continued with the Apostles. This is how the apostolic churches report their origins; thus the church of the Smyrnaeans relates that Polycarp was appointed by John, the Church of Rome that Clement was ordained by Peter…”

Tertullian sets out to offer anyone defending the Orthodoxy against the Gnostic heretics a solid argument. He tells them to question their origins. They may say they were around and under the Apostles but he tells them to challenge the claim by asking to see proof in the forum of a list of bishops. Tertullian knew the Gnostics could not provide such evidence and thus would eventually lead to the undermining of the Gnostic beliefs.

The Orthodox Christians used various techniques to come to an agreement on their ideas. Using letters to discredit the Gnostic ideas like the writings of Irenaeus and his Against Heresis. The church also developed the Apostles’ Creed to set the standard for the ideas of the church. They also employed writing of ways in which they are to counter Gnostic believers and their ideas. The church employed many different tactics to get their ideas ratified and standardized. These tactics caused some writings to be forced to be interpreted differently, causing tension in the Christian religion which eventually results in multiple splits of the religion into their own branches and forms. One might conclude that the fight for the church to bring unity to their ideas would be all for naught.

[ikeyballz]

nice paper. i dont agree with it all but its pretty good.. found a couple typos, if you want me to point it out..

Irenaeus starts out by pointing out the Gnostic’s idea of creation. Gnostics believe that one Father, unknown made Angels, Archangels, virtues, and powers and that the world was created, not by the Father but by seven angels. This is a very different view from the Christian ideas set forth in Genesis. He continues on to say:




btw, i found mike! hahaha :p




and mary's passage, arent wimmin not prophets?

hmm...not that im sexist or anything, from what i get from the bible.. women never really was a 'prophet' mary or anything else..

after all, jesus never told mary 'go spread the word' or anything, he told one of his dudes to take care of her...?


i like this passage:
On the other hand, it has been the cause of countless wars, death, prosecution, lies, and thievery.

its true, for the most part.. however not totally true..not all religions do go to war, etc etc. some are very pacifist and i think thats how it should be. pacifism is not weakness, but just realization that we shouldnt be killing people.. x_x. although some fkkers deserve it. (lol)

hey hee-haw, do you believe in hell? im j/w..

in the bible, they never ever say anything about eternal torment, or damnnation..they just say more of a 'firey lake' sort of words right?

[Shinigami052]

That was kinda the point of Mary's gospel. She "didn't make it" into the bible so to speak. They decided not to put her gospel in there even tho it is written and it does exist.

Thanks for finding my mistake and yes mike made a cameo in my paper.

on the war thing...it depends on how you define war. The way you (and most people) define war is killing, death and blood shed. Have you ever heard of the book called the Art of War? It's got nothing to do with killing but has everything to do with war.

[ChroniC588]

I am an avid fan of Machiavelli "The Prince".

Sun Tzu is cool too.

u guys talk about Mary Magdalene yet?

[Shinigami052]

What you see in my paper is the extent to which we've talking about Mary thus far.

[ikeyballz]

hmm, art of war eh? what is that about? O_o;; just curious.. idk, im not anti-war. i think there has to be in the world today....the good people do have to fight..or else the ****ed up guys are gonna own the world..and kill and rape and maim everyone.. :/

thats the sad part tho, if the good guys DONT fight, and DONT kill the ''bad'' guys...then its just too easy to be bad..sort of like if there wasnt a prison to hold criminals.............then you might as well be a criminal..and a lot of people would steal and kill and cheat...if they;'re not gonna get punished for it..


idk, thats how isee it anyhow....im talking blurbs now, i had few hours of sleep and been awake for too long ;p

[Shinigami052]

I believe (and don't quote me on this b/c i haven't actually read it) but it's about how to take down (insert entity here) by using espionage and internal tactics.

[ChroniC588]

Were talking Sun Tzu's art of war right?

The businessman's manual of success. :smoke2:

ur right on the money shin...Sun Tzu's book is all about winning battles w/ deception and not having to lift a single finger in battle.

And, the most famous quotation (chapter 1, paragraph 18):

All warfare is based on deception.

unfortunately every woman instinctively knows Sun Tzu's art of war by second nature...they live and breathe it everyday.:hypo:

[Shinigami052]

I've actually wanted to read The Art of War. I saw the movie (it kinda sucked).

[Shinigami052]

For those who care, I got a 92 (A/A-) on my paper.

[ArchangelX]

Yeaaah...good topic. Thanks Kyle, that was some good stuff. You, too, Shin.

believe it or not, I never made the connection on the Archangel/Mike thing until someone pointed it out to me like three years ago. It had already been my screenname for quite awhile. I picked it because of the Marvel Comic dude...not because of Michael the angel. I think some people get offended by it. :hihi:

[Shinigami052]

lol well thanks for the help on the paper guys. And thanks to Mike the Archangel for having these forums. HAHAHAHAHA

[KenTwo]

Were talking Sun Tzu's art of war right?

The businessman's manual of success. :smoke2:

ur right on the money shin...Sun Tzu's book is all about winning battles w/ deception and not having to lift a single finger in battle.



unfortunately every woman instinctively knows Sun Tzu's art of war by second nature...they live and breathe it everyday.:hypo:

I never come into this room. But, I've read the Art of War. Keep in mind that there are several translations of it (since I can't read Chinese) and each is a little different. You can also read the one by Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings.

[idiosyncratic]

there's also one more version coming out by idio. i just have no idea of when. :gapteeth: j/k

ah. so that's the background of that screenname. i think xmen's archangel is cool.
i also liked colossus. then i fell in love with his lil sister, especially when she came out older and was schooled in the 'black arts'. hehh heh.

man, i wish i kept my collection. it'd be worth a lot more than what i paid for it... 15 cent, 25 cent, 50 cent, and those really expensive $1.00 special editions. bahahahahaha.

alrighty, enough daydreaming and reminiscing...

religion?
kyle, thanks for sharing that tidbit!

[ChroniC588]

I never come into this room. But, I've read the Art of War. Keep in mind that there are several translations of it (since I can't read Chinese) and each is a little different. You can also read the one by Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings.

Musashi!
http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/7695/groupbannercopy3hd.jpg
Samurai Shamploo! Also coincidentally about Christianity.:punch: