Jesus teaching the NT twelve

[papa]

With all the time Jesus supposedly spent with the Palestinian apostles (his three year ministry, and 40 days after his resurrection), why didn't Peter have a clue about the most basic ordinances of the gospel?

Surely at some point Jesus would have explained gentiles and baptism, gentiles and circumcision, eating of foods consecrated to idols, leadership organization, and other elementary concepts that were points of controversy in the primitive church?

If you had an exalted Son of God among you for forty days, I would think you would listen well, and perhaps ask some questions?

Interested to hear your thots...

[miss taken]

Good question. Maybe, because Jesus wasn't interested in orthodoxy!!!!!!!!!

To all intents and purposes, he went about teaching an inner change, to love people, and riled against current orthodoxy and the attendant hypocracy that went with it. (If the NT accurately describes his work and sayings).

I would have to give it a lot of careful thought to answer more deeply than that...

Mary

[papa]

miss taken:

"Good question. Maybe, because Jesus wasn't interested in orthodoxy!!!!!!!!!"

thanks Mary, yeah that's what I was thinking too. I've been a believer in the NT since small kid time, and then as a convert to TSCTC I swallowed the teaching that Jesus established his church and priesthood among the disciples. But then I thot, if so, then why did the OT (original twelve) have such problems with elementary doctrine and admin issues? No make sense.

Maybe Jesus didn't even start a church, maybe it was all the apostle's biz? I know, such heresy, but then I think the OT is an example of a similar phenomenon-priests building an orthodoxy, as you so put it so well, and engineering a (Judaic) church almost whole cloth. Then there's the example I am beginning to understand of Joseph Smith doing the same thing, and pulling it off! The current Morg leadership is a great example of the same thing, imo-they are making things up as they go, and engaged in revisionism in doctrine and scripture and organization-so I see the possibility that our highly-revered OT (apostles of early church) may have been similar fallible humans, intent on forming a church, whatever it took. And getting it wrong in many ways.

Such heresy! For me as a Christian, the idea calls into question the validity of the entire Judeo-Christian Biblical canon and tradition. I've wondered about this for decades, but only since I left the SCTC could I accept that this might be true, cuz I was invested in the current priesthood thing. Now that I've returned to yoga, a different perspective on human frailty and the power of will to shape consensus reality, allows the possibility that all religion is myth and imagination applied across societies.

Most importantly, I am open to all possibilities. 'Course, that's the kind of thinking that led me out of the SCTC heh. (I mean no offense to any Christians on the board, and I still don't know where the truth lies on this issue). The yoga tradition I follow proclaims Jesus as a realized master, but is (to my limited understanding anyway) ambiguous about the nature of atonement. And that is the heart of the question for me. My Christian programming recoils from even considering any teaching that doesn't encompass Christ's atonement. But I have to look at all possibilities, now that Morg is off the table. I prolly shouldn't even care, but I can't help myself! :duh

PostMo life is cool that way...

[aether]

Such heresy! For me as a Christian, the idea calls into question the validity of the entire Judeo-Christian Biblical canon and tradition.

Well.. heresy maybe but also just common sense. After all.. we have none of Jesus' words written down. Everything was told by others. The whole new testament is the product of the apostles, isn't it? How can we really know how much Jesus contributed to orthodoxy?


My Christian programming recoils from even considering any teaching that doesn't encompass Christ's atonement.

Hey Papa... would you do me a favor and take a look at my Atonement for Our Sins thread? I can't seem to find an honest Christian's point of view on it as of yet, and you seem like you could give some input. ^_^ Please?

[papa]

aether says:

"Well.. heresy maybe but also just common sense. After all.. we have none of Jesus' words written down. Everything was told by others. The whole new testament is the product of the apostles, isn't it? How can we really know how much Jesus contributed to orthodoxy?"

Yeah, I am realizing more about how the NT came to be as I continue to study. We really don't have anything from the hand of Jesus. I have become skeptical of the NT authorship and texts, as I have seen how the SCTC manipulates scripture and history for PR purposes. But I see that even the earliest NT texts available, in Aramaic, are still the products of unknown human writers with their own imperfect agendas. I hesitate to invest my life in the teachings found in ancient records authored by men, who may be no more spiritual or worthy to stand than, for example, Sidney Rigdon.

Thankfully I have had precious spiritual experiences, but now that I have left the SCTC, I am reexamining everything. I will find new testimony of ever greater truth.

I posted on your thread, hope there's some value there... :cool: