The fundamental problem with red-letter so-called Christianity...

[Ransom]

. . . is that the red-letter losers can't even reliably tell us which letters ought to be red. Case in point: John 3, where there is no way to tell where the words of Jesus to Nicodemus end, and John's interpretation of them begins.

Discuss.

 

[sword]

. . . is that the red-letter losers can't even reliably tell us which letters ought to be red. Case in point: John 3, where there is no way to tell where the words of Jesus to Nicodemus end, and John's interpretation of them begins.
Discuss.

I don't worry too much about which words are red and which are not. I say it's all good.

 

[T-Bone]

. . . is that the red-letter losers can't even reliably tell us which letters ought to be red. Case in point: John 3, where there is no way to tell where the words of Jesus to Nicodemus end, and John's interpretation of them begins.
Discuss.

I don't worry too much about what words are red and which are not. I say its all good.

Me too!

 

[Tim]

. . . is that the red-letter losers can't even reliably tell us which letters ought to be red. Case in point: John 3, where there is no way to tell where the words of Jesus to Nicodemus end, and John's interpretation of them begins.

Discuss.

On the reason for creating Red-Letter Christians, Tony Campolo said, "The purpose of this gathering was not to create a religious left movement to challenge the religious right, but to jump-start a religious movement that will transcend partisan politics."

Personally .... I think we have way too many man-made movements today and not enough people genuinely moving toward God in a life of daily faith and repentance. And I am not sure the Bible should direct politics, but hearts right for God with Biblical minds should direct politics. Big difference.

 

[Tatterdemalion]

Verse 14, 16, or 18 maybe? I dunno, I'm just listing the verses marked in bold.

 

[Ransom]

On the reason for creating Red-Letter Christians, Tony Campolo said, "The purpose of this gathering was not to create a religious left movement to challenge the religious right, but to jump-start a religious movement that will transcend partisan politics."

"P.S. Vote Democrat."

 

[wtyson]

. . . is that the red-letter losers can't even reliably tell us which letters ought to be red. Case in point: John 3, where there is no way to tell where the words of Jesus to Nicodemus end, and John's interpretation of them begins.
Discuss.

I don't worry too much about what words are red and which are not. I say its all good.

Me too!

ALL Scripture is given by inspiration...its all RED to me!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

. . . is that the red-letter losers can't even reliably tell us which letters ought to be red. Case in point: John 3, where there is no way to tell where the words of Jesus to Nicodemus end, and John's interpretation of them begins.

Discuss.

So you are saying there is not always a clear line of demarcation within text. So what? Besides, I struggle living what I KNOW is in the red. Should I ever conquer that (which I'm sure I won't), I will look more into the 'questionable' material.

"Red Letter" is more than simply taking red letters literally and ignoring the rest; it is modeling the life Jesus lived and taught and running other portions of spiritual literature, including the rest of the canon, through that grid. Pretty much the same way ancient Jews delved into the Ketuvim, using some as beneficial spiritual guidance but not prescribing inspiration to its entire text.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

. . . is that the red-letter losers can't even reliably tell us which letters ought to be red. Case in point: John 3, where there is no way to tell where the words of Jesus to Nicodemus end, and John's interpretation of them begins.

Discuss.

On the reason for creating Red-Letter Christians, Tony Campolo said, "The purpose of this gathering was not to create a religious left movement to challenge the religious right, but to jump-start a religious movement that will transcend partisan politics."

Personally .... I think we have way too many man-made movements today and not enough people genuinely moving toward God in a life of daily faith and repentance. And I am not sure the Bible should direct politics, but hearts right for God with Biblical minds should direct politics. Big difference.

Where are the churches of this movement? Where is the "Red Letter Church of God" denomination?

I don't follow Campolo. I have read one of his books, probably about 15 years ago, but he has no bearing on my life or what I believe. But in the quote you provided, I agree because the Religious Right has bought into the Republican lie that they are all about morals and are the saviors of this country. Campolo (IMHO) is pointing out that loving people is not about politics; both parties are right on some points and both parties are wrong on others. Our faith in action should not be determined by our politics and our political association should not dictate living out our belief system.

 

[Jim Jones]

Ugh.

Beliefs based on red letters?

Where do Jews pick and choose in Proverbs?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Ugh.

Beliefs based on red letters?

Where do Jews pick and choose in Proverbs?

Ketuvim, the name of the third section of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible),means simply ?Writings?, which hardly does justice to the variety of religious expression found there. There is poetry?of Temple ritual, private prayer, wisdom, national tragedy, even love. There is philosophical exploration?of the wisest path in life, of God?s goodness and justice. There are historical retellings and short stories. Ketuvim might better be translated as ?the anthology,? the canonical collection from the post-prophetic age.

Most of the individual books in Ketuvim were written or at least put in final form in Judea during the period of Persian and Hellenistic rule, from the fifth through the second centuries BCE. The Temple in Jerusalem, destroyed in the Babylonian conquest of 586, had been rebuilt around 515. The text of the Torah was standardized not long after, but there was no more prophecy after Malachi. Clues of language, literary style, and content have led scholars to see most of Ketuvim as ?Second Temple? works.

Unlike the Torah and the books of Prophets (Nevi?im), the works found in Ketuvim do not present themselves as the fruits of direct divine inspiration. (Daniel is the one exception.) What makes books like Psalms and Job so remarkable is their humanity, the ?I? who dares to voice questions and doubts about God in the face of danger or suffering. Ultimately, each of the Ketuvim affirms a hard-won commitment to God and covenant. Without divine miracles or national glory, there were only the words of Torah and Prophets to hold onto, proven reliable by Israel?s difficult history and carried forward by people of wisdom.

Ketuvim (Writings)

From how I understand it, they are considered as 'inspired' or 'inspirational' but not 'inspired' as 'God-breathed'.

 

[NorrinRadd]

. . . is that the red-letter losers can't even reliably tell us which letters ought to be red. Case in point: John 3, where there is no way to tell where the words of Jesus to Nicodemus end, and John's interpretation of them begins.

Discuss.

So you are saying there is not always a clear line of demarcation within text. So what? Besides, I struggle living what I KNOW is in the red. Should I ever conquer that (which I'm sure I won't), I will look more into the 'questionable' material.

"Red Letter" is more than simply taking red letters literally and ignoring the rest; it is modeling the life Jesus lived and taught and running other portions of spiritual literature, including the rest of the canon, through that grid. Pretty much the same way ancient Jews delved into the Ketuvim, using some as beneficial spiritual guidance but not prescribing inspiration to its entire text.

Yes, "Red Letter Christian" means more than just literally the particular words written in red.  But the problem embodied in Ransom's post still applies.  "Red Letter Christianity" prioritizes the Gospel accounts above the Epistles, because Jesus is above Peter, Paul, John, etc.  But Jesus didn't record His own words and deeds.  So really, it is prioritizing one group of humans -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- above others including Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and that same John.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

. . . is that the red-letter losers can't even reliably tell us which letters ought to be red. Case in point: John 3, where there is no way to tell where the words of Jesus to Nicodemus end, and John's interpretation of them begins.

Discuss.

So you are saying there is not always a clear line of demarcation within text. So what? Besides, I struggle living what I KNOW is in the red. Should I ever conquer that (which I'm sure I won't), I will look more into the 'questionable' material.

"Red Letter" is more than simply taking red letters literally and ignoring the rest; it is modeling the life Jesus lived and taught and running other portions of spiritual literature, including the rest of the canon, through that grid. Pretty much the same way ancient Jews delved into the Ketuvim, using some as beneficial spiritual guidance but not prescribing inspiration to its entire text.

Yes, "Red Letter Christian" means more than just literally the particular words written in red.  But the problem embodied in Ransom's post still applies.  "Red Letter Christianity" prioritizes the Gospel accounts above the Epistles, because Jesus is above Peter, Paul, John, etc.  But Jesus didn't record His own words and deeds.  So really, it is prioritizing one group of humans -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- above others including Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and that same John.

I do see where you are coming from. However, Jesus instructed that only HE was to be our Rabbi (teacher) and the Apostles were to make disciples of all nations through all generations, teaching to observe the things Jesus taught them while He walked the earth. Two of the for Gospel penmen were eyewitnesses, though they wrote down their accounts decades after He left the earth.

One of the points of Divine Inspiration is that of Preservation that goes along with it. In general, Protestants apply that to the 66-book canon. I believe God preserved what we needed to know through the Gospels, simply because Jesus and His teaching (according to His recorded words), is to be our ONLY 'spiritual' authority. That doesn't mean to toss out any spiritual thinking anybody ever gives, but rather to run it through the RL grid, IMHO.

Divine Inspiration of the 66-book canon takes a hit when it comes to this view of the life of Christ's disciple. It places the words of others as "Rabbi", against what Jesus taught. It implies the teachings of Jesus as we have record are insufficient to follow Christ, meaning failure on behalf of the Eleven to obey the Great Commission. It implies there are other portions of Scripture that disagree with red letters (such as capital punishment) so Jesus' teaching has to be de-emphasized or marginalized to allow a contradiction in the canon (which alone proves Divine Inspiration of a 66-book canon is a false premise). It implies lack of preservation by God when it comes to the teachings of Christ. So to go outside the supremacy of the RL portions is an implied admission Jesus and His recorded words are not enough, hence following Him and His recorded teachings alone (as He taught), makes one a heretic or an apostate.

IOW, preachers preach "Come! Follow Christ by marginalizing His teachings, listening to others who claim to have followed him and live as they all lived!"

I just don't buy it. And yeah, I realize there is always a human element involved and there is faith involved. But that is always the case whether that faith is about the Gospels, 66-book canon, 75-book canon, Book of Mormon, New World Translation, etc. The issue isn't about human element in the preservation process or even faith, but rather which material one has faith in.

So yes, RL prioritizes the teachings of Jesus. Why? BECAUSE IT IS RECORDED HE TAUGHT EXACTLY TO DO THAT.

"I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by the teachings of Paul, Peter and John Me."

 

[Ransom]

But Jesus didn't record His own words and deeds.  So really, it is prioritizing one group of humans -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- above others including Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and that same John.

I think that's the issue in a nutshell. We'll said.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

But Jesus didn't record His own words and deeds.  So really, it is prioritizing one group of humans -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- above others including Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and that same John.

I think that's the issue in a nutshell. We'll said.

Yeah, we shouldn't prioritize Jesus, Paul or John over L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith either.

 

[Ransom]

Yeah, we shouldn't prioritize Jesus, Paul or John over L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith either.

No one here is doing that. Stop lying.

 

[prophet]

. . . is that the red-letter losers can't even reliably tell us which letters ought to be red. Case in point: John 3, where there is no way to tell where the words of Jesus to Nicodemus end, and John's interpretation of them begins.

Discuss.

So you are saying there is not always a clear line of demarcation within text. So what? Besides, I struggle living what I KNOW is in the red. Should I ever conquer that (which I'm sure I won't), I will look more into the 'questionable' material.

"Red Letter" is more than simply taking red letters literally and ignoring the rest; it is modeling the life Jesus lived and taught and running other portions of spiritual literature, including the rest of the canon, through that grid. Pretty much the same way ancient Jews delved into the Ketuvim, using some as beneficial spiritual guidance but not prescribing inspiration to its entire text.

Yes, "Red Letter Christian" means more than just literally the particular words written in red.  But the problem embodied in Ransom's post still applies.  "Red Letter Christianity" prioritizes the Gospel accounts above the Epistles, because Jesus is above Peter, Paul, John, etc.  But Jesus didn't record His own words and deeds.  So really, it is prioritizing one group of humans -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- above others including Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and that same John.

This should be the end if the discussion...???

earnestly contend

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Yeah, we shouldn't prioritize Jesus, Paul or John over L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith either.

No one here is doing that. Stop lying.

I didn't say anybody here is. My point is, those who believe it, do so on the same point; they are believed to be voices of revelation outside the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Yeah, we shouldn't prioritize Jesus, Paul or John over L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith either.

No one here is doing that. Stop lying.

I didn't say anybody here is. My point is, those who believe it, do so on the same point; they are believed to be voices of revelation outside the teachings of Jesus.

That inane logic illustrates what keeps apostates apostate....

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Yeah, we shouldn't prioritize Jesus, Paul or John over L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith either.

No one here is doing that. Stop lying.

I didn't say anybody here is. My point is, those who believe it, do so on the same point; they are believed to be voices of revelation outside the teachings of Jesus.

That inane logic illustrates what keeps apostates apostate....

Yep. I got it. Follow Jesus but not too closely. To choose to do so makes one apostatize.