It should be noted that churches did not yet exist during the ministry of Jesus.
Well, Christian churches didn’t, obviously, but the whole “permanent structure house of worship” thing had been around for a while.
Both of those cites are where a crowd came to hear him preach. Again, he was holding a church service as he defined it. He wasn’t praying in public.
Has anybody mentioned yet that the whole “Jesus said not to pray in public” thing is pretty much an incredible hijack.
It doesn’t really matter what a bunch of religious zealots decided upon 2000 years ago. Christians pray. In public. All the fucking time. Get used to it. The debate on whether they should or not is pretty much settled by the fact that they do – unless you think the Pope is considering a huge rules change or something.
Pretty true. The words of the person that the religion purports to worship and is named after don’t really matter. That Jesus, it’s always about him with that guy. What an egotistical ass.
Where, exactly, did Jesus offer his definition of a church service?
Again, where did he define a church service?
Heck, as Theophane said, Christian churches did not yet exist at that time. Now, Bryan Ekers points out that there were such things as permanent houses of worship, but Jesus wasn’t speaking in any such structure.
He prayed, and it was in public. Sounds like public prayer to me. Even if we grant that it was within a church service, it’s still a public prayer.
The closest I can find is Matthew 18:20, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,”
No mention of a building required. If you find one where he believes that the physical structure is the foundation of a church I’m all ears. I don’t think it’s gonna happen though.
Again, where did he define a church service? Your quote doesn’t mention a service, much less a church.
With all due respect, if that’s the closest you can get, then I think that you’ve fallen considerably short of your goal.
If I had claimed that a building was required, then your objection would be relevant. Since nobody here made any such claim though, I think we can safely disregard that objection.
Do you know why He is called a suffering servant? Because He served people rather than have people serve Him. Obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Nothing about that is egotistical.
Supply Side Jesus is the egotist.
Is he rising in the east?
He’s a star in the same manner as Snooki is a star.
And I have provided a cite where it shows he was not speaking about praying in church. If you couldn’t pray in church there would be no church at all and he clearly didn’t advocate that. He spoke of the habit of stopping your everyday activity to pray.
Talk to the guy who I was offering my sarcastic response to. You do realize I was being sarcastic right? He said it didn’t matter what " a bunch of religious zealots decided upon 2000 years ago." when we were specifically discussing words attributed directly to Jesus. Jesus thus didn’t matter to modern day christianity.
Now, reread my reply keeping that in mind.
First, you’re still dodging the question. Where, exactly, did Jesus define a church service? Without substantiating this claim, your whole argument falls apart.
Second, the commentary that you cited only asserts that Jesus was not condemning prayer in synagogues. This is not the same as saying that prayer within a church service is exempted from this rule. Church services, as you know, are not typically held in synagogues.
But even if we grant your claim that Jesus was excepting prayers within church services, the point remains that the Sermon on the Mount was no such thing. You keep insisting that it falls within Jesus’s definition of a church service, yet you haven’t been able to point out where this definition is offered. The only verse you cited makes no mention of either churches or services, much less offering anything close to a definition thereof.
I think it’s pretty clear that you’re just pulling arguments out of thin air.
You know, you’re right. You win the thread. I’m not up to playing semantic games this morning. It’s too fine a day for such silliness.
I’m sorry, but Jesus **does **matter to modern-day Christianity.
It’s hard to detect sarcasm here on the 'Net without emoticons. Sometimes even with them.
Excellent choice, trying to answer nitpicky questions like that never works out.
So in a modern context, the words of Jesus are fungible to Christians. That is what I meant when I said Tebow (and modern Christians like him) practice Xtianity Lite, in that they may pick and choose which scriptures they are bound by. Modern Christianity has been reduced to little more than, “Be nice to nice people”.
If only.
Bill Maher is annoying, but less annoying than Tim Tebow.
I venture that the actual beliefs of the historical Jesus (well, Joshua bar-Joseph, or Yeshua bar-Yussef, or whatever) do not, really. They’ve been subjected to so many layers of interpretation, translation and convenient editing that even establishing what his exact beliefs were is difficult enough, let alone applying them in a modern context.