What on earth does Meg Whitman have to do with the Witnesses?!

loeve,

What do you mean by, "I still think they spend an awful lot of time in the Old Covenant."? Don't most non mainstream Protestants? In any case, they seem to have a pretty unique relationship with the accepted canon. It's fascinating to me, as one raised Eastern Orthodox.

I suppose, given what the Gnostics believed, the followers of the Nazarene would scarcely recognize any modern denomination as their descendent. Maybe Unitarianism.

By "Old Covenant" I mean Old Testament, roughly in the spirit of Hebrews --

Hebrews 8:13 (King James Version)

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

JWs have daily or weekly readings that treat the Old Testament pretty much the same as the New, at least that's my impression after many discussions with them --

[www.watchtower.org]

The Orthodox Church has daily readings mostly from the New Testament (Covenant) don't they? I've studied Orthodoxy --

[www.goarch.org]

For a Christian denomination it seems to me JWs spend a lot of time reading the scripture of the pre-Jesus era. The Bible by volume is roughly 2/3 Old Testament and 1/3 New. My impression is they spend much of their time studying books that have long since "waxed old", great though they may be.

One non mainstream protestant denomination, Christian Scientists, accept Genesis up to 2:4 (basically just the first story of the book) and then pretty much skip over the rest of the Old Testament and pick it up at Matthew. I'm not that familiar with Gnostics and Nazarenes.

By the way, the Meg Whitman story has to do with work ethics, a subject JWs know something about.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2010 09:47AM by loeve.

Tumukha, this blog says it slightly differently, by an Eastern Orthodox I believe --

"Kind of a combination of posts here. I have always wondered why we never heard the OT in liturgy. I was told that it was read during daily vespers but, I never see them in our liturgical calendar. Am I missing something. The Old Testament still has some beautiful spirituality to it even if is now preempted by the New."

[community.beliefnet.com]

Loeve,
Christian science isn't considered orthodox christianity. I think they hold the works of the founder in greater esteem than the bible. I heard someone say 'grape nuts'? There isn't any grapes or nuts in grape nuts. In the same way, its not christian or science! I have read some from science and health and key to the scriptures, by Mary Baker eddy. I lost interest pretty quick. She sure took a lot of words to say basically nothing.

Mislu, true, Christian Science would not want to be confused with the Orthodox Church, Orthodoxy or orthodox Protestantism, though they do consider themselves Christian as do I, having read Science and Health and Key to the Scriptures, visited their local Church, spoken with the minister and considered joining. I used to get the Christian Science Monitor for first rate reporting and have got a vintage print of The First Church of Christ Scientists - Boston - hanging on the wall, so you can probably tell I really like them. They're inspired by faith healing as modeled in the New Testament, a practice fairly well regarded as helping many people. I love Mary Baker Eddy's take on Gen 1:1 to 2:4, as the first and only true creation account, the second account from 2:4 on the fall from grace. They believe we are actually all spiritual beings which isn't too far from mainstream Christianity, IMO.

Loeve,
There must be some difference to want to not be confused with anyone else. So have you experienced the benefits of believing in SC?

Mislu, it's more that a Christian Scientist would identify with the teachings of the Bible and Mary Baker Eddy, rather than the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, IMO as a non Christian Scientist. I wasn't identifying them properly by saying they were "non mainstream Protestants". They are not Protestants at all. My mistake.

I think faith healing works and seldom worry about aches and pains, cuts and bruises though I don't practice it quite like Mary Baker Eddy. I had an ear infection that got into my system and was given just a topical medication by a doctor who didn't listen to my symptoms, and then after toughing it out in a lot of pain and hardly able to get to my feet another doctor raised her eyebrows about my not using proper medication to fight the infection.

How about you? Oh, that's right - I remember about your experience earlier in the thread...

I am still working my way through Eddy's book; it's a distractingly novel approach to Scripture I thought I knew well. I've been reading it on and off for over a year.

Neighbors of mine are CS, and they are two of the kindest, sunniest, most well-adjusted, truly Christian people I know, so, there's something to it, methinks

Tam & loeve,
The main problem other Christians have with them is that its not NT christianity. For instance, Mary Baker Eddy has said that she wasn't concerned if Jesus even ever existed, let alone got resurrected. Apostle paul said that christian faith is vain if it never happened. Thats probably one of the main points.

Something interesting about that point of view is that it can't be falsified. (bakers statement) So, its not science, so why use the name? Its not christian because it contradicts the apostle Paul, so why use the name Christian?

The belief in the unreality of unpleasant things bears some likeness to some eastern mystical belief, but those aren't christian.

A novel approach indeed. Mary Baker Eddy believed in the Holy Spirit as the "key"? to understanding scripture, so when it says Jesus breathed his last Eddy feels free to believe it only appeared that way and that actually if he was walking and talking three days later it was because he never really died. I have to admit to always thinking the scene where Jesus appeared to the disciples and ate a piece of fish was, well, a little fishy, though have to say the parallel with the resurrection of Lazarus after 3 days in the tomb is too strong to ignore.

Pentacostal friends were telling me how flaws weren't part of the true person. So I might suffer from fits of whatever and they would say that's not really you but something else. One friend was seeing "demons" left and right for a while which made me a bit uncomfortable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2010 03:26PM by loeve.

Mislu,

Uh, don't get me started on the Apostle Paul . . .

Paul could go on quite a rant as in Romans, or be a really sweet love guy as in Corinthians. I had a same sex house mate for a while and the JWs came quoting Romans. I just listened, not feeling I have to explain my life to anyone.

Loeve,
The actual quote I am thinking of from Eddy Baker is as follows:

""If there had never existed such a person as the Galilean Prophet, it would make no difference to me." (The First Church of Christ Scientist and Miscellany, pp. 318, 319). "

So, she apparently would still advance C.S. if jesus never existed. That is in sharp contrast to Paul. Actually his statement concerning the resurrection comes from 1 Corinthians 15:17. I never really thought of Paul as ever being a sweet loving guy, anywhere. I Cor. 15 is as serious as anything else he said. I had to look it up, I don't have it committed to memory.

I will have to really think about what you said about the fishy story. Any time I read or hear anything about CS I usually have a difficult time understanding the point. The general christian tendancy towards homophobia can be seen to some extent in CS. Although its different, from what I understand.

Tamukha
Unfortunately, Paul and his writings are something which needs to be dealt with in many matters concerning the christain faith. He was probably the biggest promoter in the spread of christianity. Isn't a large part of the N.T. pauline letters? Usually correcting various 'churches' concerning doctrine and practices, most of the time he had nothing good to say. If you ever saw the documentary "from jesus to christ' you get the picture that he was actually very politically savy.

Mislu,

I recall being a girl and wondering what Paul's deal was, and, upon over hearing my mother on the phone describing the blind vehemence of "reformed smokers," going, "Oh."

Tamukha,
That was an interesting association. Just curious, could Paul have literally been a smoker that was 'reformed'? I watched part of a documentary about the middle ages last night. They were talking about the first King of France to convert to Christianity. I was suprised, they said he didn't really change in any way, just that his conversion gave a better focus and reason to fight and kill during wars. But it was important for the political future of France, because of the influence of the faith in the world at the time.

Mislu, I went back and read a few chapters in I Corinthians. Apostle Paul and Mary Baker Eddy have similar intensities and vocabularies but reach different conclusions. Paul's mission is to preach the Gospel and considers Jesus to have been the "first fruit" of those raised from the dead. What about Lazarus who was also raised after 3 days by Jesus himself? So "what will it be like?" Jesus was asked, for a man who had 7 wives and which wife will he get in heaven? Jesus answered it's not like that. So there are certain inconsistencies that need to be interpretted and so when Eddy says Lazarus and Jesus never really died or that whether a historical Jesus existed does not matter Eddy is doing what Paul suggests which is to scrutinize everything (I Cor 2:10) "For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God." Eddy believes in the Christ Spirit regardless.

I Cor 13 is Paul's "Way of Love" passage. "At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face... So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

Paul could be harsh, surprisingly so, but look at his background as a former persecuter of the church. Old habits die hard.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2010 11:57AM by loeve.

loeve,

Yeah, that's my point. It's like he's trying to out-Jesus Jesus!

Mislu,

Religion fitting a pre-established intent--unHEARD of!!![snark]

Well, Jesus left it to others to carry on saying even greater things would follow. I've always been most fond of John who is the only one to give an account of the raising of Lazarus, and that written in John's Gospel dated by some around 90 AD, well after Paul's letters of around 60 AD, so the story of Lazarus may have been unknown to Paul (all four Gospels were purhaps written after Paul's letters). Mary Baker Eddy might say it doesn't matter whether a story or factual, that what matters is its meaning.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/2010 01:53AM by loeve.

Loeve,
I found it significant, and now its perhaps my favorite christian scripture quote. All I can say is that 'the good news' is that there is a possibility that the religion can be proved false. That is actually a strong point, and a humbling point. I actually learned that from a fundementalist, who said he would immediately stop believing if they found the bones of a dead jesus. When I asked about how one would identify such remains positively his answer was quite a bit fuzzy. What I took from that is that he would be very skeptical that it was his actual remains.

The amazing thing is that the 'evidence' of the resurrection is the LACK of evidence. There are no bones. Its possible that he never existed, the could create a lack of evidence. Its possible that the bones were lost, or purposely destroyed, that would also create a lack of evidence. So, thats something to consider.

"Mary Baker Eddy might say it doesn't matter whether a story or factual, that what matters is its meaning."

That reminds me of Mormonism to some degree. They have that 'burning in the bossum' thing, which is a supernatural confirmation. I would say its a feeling, but they don't like to hear that. It makes them very immune to critical review of their own religion. So if evidence contradicts, or doesn't exist for their religion, it doesn't matter, because they have a 'testimony'. (a subjective confirmation that its true, despite the facts)

Mislu, those are good points about bones and evidence. I try to see things as they are. When in John 6 He tells his followers they must eat his flesh and drink his blood he did not qualify the statement and many left. Those who stayed, while not understanding they had faith there must be a meaning to it. It turned into the "unbloody sacrifice" we have in the church to this day, still not an easy concept.

I had a Mormon classmate out in Arizona, a gentle person who thought I was a quiet mover, a nice thing to say I thought.

The term "unbloody sacrifice" is not universal of course in the church. The LDS references John 6:35 --

"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

[institute.lds.org]

"The sacrament is an ordinance instituted to remind members of the Church of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God." (ibid)

Body and blood, bread/manna and water/wine - all words with meanings weaving back all through the scriptures.

-which reminds me, I should get outside and collect some manna (dandelions, clover, mushrooms)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2010 11:37AM by loeve.

Loeve,
Well, particular members of the LDS faith may seem "quiet mover"(I'm not sure I understand this)I was a 'nice' person when I was lds, and still am. But that has little to do with the foundations for belief, or review of the faith.

LDS members typically use water, and fuffy white bread, usually wonder bread during church services. So, its quite different from the original unleavened bread, and wine.

An interesting quote from LDS scripture.
"For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall aeat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my bglory—cremembering unto the Father my dbody which was laid down for you, and my eblood which was shed for the fremission of your sins. "
D&C 27:2

So in theory they could use hamburger and orange juice. However, the church does have particular policies of uniformity around the sacrament. They prefer the universal water, and fuffy white bread. No grape juice, no unleavened bread, nor any pre-cut bread. So, its a really a strange thing to say in scripture that you can use anything, if done with a particular mindset, but then require particulars.

Thats really curious, I was just thinking that I should start avoiding all grain products.

Wonder Bread for the Eucharist! It makes a kind of sense!

Tamukha,
It makes sense? In what way?

Mislu,

"Wonder," get it? The Eucharist is a wonder so it makes a kind of sense that they're use a bread that is a wonder(in the sense that it's not of this earth, IMO) in the ritual. Unless they chose it because it was readily available, ultra white, and cheap.

Tamukha,
Great pun, didn't think of that. Cute, but I think its because its 'white' and cheap and easily available. Some have suggested that its a purposeful distortion of the original christian ritual. "watered down" sacrament lacking the 'blood' of christ, by using water. Fluffy yeasted bread to indicate a tolerance to sin. There is some connection between yeast (the leaven) and sin.

Could there be something with the 'white' and skin color? There could be. LDS typically present a rather anglo jesus whenever there is a photo or painting. I used to keep a photo of a blondish, reddish haired jesus in my room. I read from this black webpage where they suggest that jesus was black, with some scriptural support. I was amazed. They showed the exact images i used to use, and labled them 'fake jesus 1' and 'fake jesus 2'. In the end I thought it was interesting, but I didn't feel good from the general spirit of the webpage.

A neopagan webpage says that anyone can make up anything about jesus. They says its so easy because they don't believe he ever even existed.

Mislu,

The Orthodox use what seems like a pretty high alcohol sweet red wine, kind of a Manischewitz, and these unleavened turban shaped open crumb loaves that taste of whatever incense was in the vicinity of the bakeshop at mixing! The combo is decidedly unlike anything one might encounter in daily life, and this gives the Eucharist an aura of real ancient ritual. I cannot imagine that I'd feel like I'm authentically partaking of Christ's corpus with Wonder Bread--Jesus shouldn't stick to the roof of your mouth! Or remind you of childhood bologna and mayo sammies!

P.S. I'm guessing Jesus was probably brown. I think those who think he was some Nordic type are confusing him with Max Von Sydow. You know, because of that movie.

Tamukha,
Thats interesting, never thought of the taste of incense getting into the bread. Something interesting. Yes, the whole wonder bread thing is kind of a joke to people not raised in the lds faith. Those that are probably have never seen anything different.

I didn't partake of a non-lds eucharist until I was in college. I thought that pilot bread and grape juice was kind of strange. But, I said I guess so 'unleavened bread' and 'wine'. It was a bit distracting in the service as the guy left both containers on the table. I saw 'welches' and the sailor boy during most of the service.

Having something special made just for the service seems way, way better. Thats what I thought the guy would do, as he made a big deal about technically making the sacrament out of unleavened bread, and wine. I visualized homeade brown bread, and real fermented wine in a fancy goblet. Not crackers and juice and plastic cups, but oh well.

Thats funny I had never heard of Max Von Sydow. Had to look that one up, he played ming in flash gordon also.