The concept was invented by Martin Luther who most definitely wasn't a person in power.
He didn't invent it. He helped further develop it and popularize it through the printing press.
But I'm really taking about the contemporary implementation of it which Luther would absolutely certainly not approve of.
Look there’s a lot to criticize about the church and bible, but this is not true. The most basic ones are “non come to the father except through me” and “depart from me I never knew you.” Besides loving each other, Having a personal relationship with the divine was the whole thing.
Mathew 6:1-6
Jesus was not a fan of public worship for the sake of public approval.
He is all about a personal relationship, not one you trumpet out to the world.
The public officials who use it as an excuse to garner sympathy are doing the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches. Any "followers" who view such peacocking as a good sign are nothing but ignorant fools being led by same old in-group vs out-group tribalism, which again is specifically taught against in the Bible.
Pretty toxic group of comments up in here.
I'm not a Christian but I'm interested in it (not as a faith to join but as a phenomenon to understand). I'm not coming to this conversation with much baggage.
Looking at what people are citing about Paul and that link to a list of scriptures about relationship with Christ someone posted, I have to say I agree with OP the bible doesn't really talk about a personal relationship with Jesus being something modern worshippers should seek. The scripture that comes closest IMO is John 15
4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
Like if someone I love dies I might say that they live on in my heart (abide in me) but I probably wouldn't say that I still have a relationship with them.
It seems that the bible does not say: "speak to me in prayer and I'll reply in your heart so you can know me, and we'll have a relationship, and that's the most important thing". But I'm not a scholar
So I think the top half of the meme is fairly accurate, but I don't think the bottom half is adequately established. To me it seems that the idea of a personal relationship with a living god was propagated/emphasized by apologists/prosyletizers trying to differentiate Christianity™ from other religions. Bad actors probably do abuse the idea too though.
is this not apologia?
I'm not an apologist if that's what you mean. I'm trying to gain an unbiased understanding of christianity and the origins of christian('s) beliefs. Not because I think christianity is true (I don't think christianity is true) but because I think it's an important force in society, and it's sometimes pretty reasonable and other times quite unhinged.
I thought I'd share my thoughts because I'm relatively impartial to a debate about the primacy of a personal relationship with Jesus. Like it doesn't affect my identity at all if Paul says something that's contradicted by John, or totally incompatible with the teachings of a particular denominations.
and it’s sometimes pretty reasonable
that sounds like apologia to me. *shrug
I would say that specific verse you are citing it's actually specifically calling people to community in the church. The vine is wrapped around the tree, tangled among the branches. If a branch grows to far away from the main tree that's holding the vine, that's when the branch is cut off.
I think the branches are branches of the vine, I don't think there is a tree involved. Yeah the text is pretty clear it's talking about branches of the vine. Not tree branches.
I think this is one of those faith vs works things. Like it's saying if you abide in Jesus you'll do good deeds.
No no...
This is a ancient grape cultivation metaphor. They didn't have grape farms like we do today, with rows of grapevines strung on wires.
They would grow bushes and let the vines grow up through the branches of the bush. Tthe bushes would hold the vines.
In this metaphor the bush a the church and the branches are the people. (Or individual diocese or parishes depending on the interpretation.) But the bush is the Church. And the vine is Jesus abiding in the bush.
Jesus is the vine. You ain't Jesus. You gotta be something else in the metaphor.
Where is your position coming from? Like it seems like you're coming to this verse having already decided what it means.
Your explanation about the tree/bush doesn't seem compatible with John 15:1-2. It doesn't make sense to prune the branches if they're just support structure, it won't make them bear more fruit. It could be a fruit tree/bush that's being used for support but then verse 5 doesn't make sense.
I think the metaphor only makes sense if the branches are branches of the vine. Like the part labelled shoot or cane on this diagram and the "vine" means the central connective part of the plant, (ie the scion, arm or cordon on the above diagram). The vine (Jesus) nourishes the branches (Christians) and enables them to grow fruit (good acts).
This is a concept as old as the Gnostics and expressed most vividly within the concept of the Holy Spirit.
If anything was invented, it was the Catholic Clergy as spiritual interlocutor. The entire Catholic/Protestant schism is predicated on reformers in the early Protestant sects denying Papal Infallibility, the sacrament of Confession, and the need for a singular Apostolic Church to officiate over the blessing of Communion.
And the Thirty Years War that followed was an attempt by the church to reassert control through military force, when dogmatic religious assertions failed to sway the public any longer.
Seems to me like their willingness to employ military force to assert their position should have disqualified them immediately from any association with Jesus or Jesus-related religious practices.
Have you read the Old Testament?
Matthew 10:34-36
Matthew 26:52
Matthew 420:69 lmao gottem
Certainly the notion of individualizing Christianity is as old as Christianity itself, but I would argue that the contemporary version of it is really pretty recent. Go back 50 years ago and even most US Baptist churches wouldn't recognize the contemporary version of it.
The concept that we have today really developed in the 80s and 90s.
Go back 50 years ago and even most US Baptist churches wouldn’t recognize the contemporary version of it.
I'd strongly disagree. The 70s era Evangelical movement has enormous amounts in common with the modern movement. Largely as a result of Televangelism and the political entanglement between conservative politicians and the church.
The Billy Graham Crusade would fit in just fine in the modern American church
Go back 100 and you'll find more space. But then you're seeing all sorts of differences socio-economically.
I'm recalling that the Anabaptists had some pretty strong ideas about a personal relationship with Jesus. But, nobody really liked where they went with it.
The idea of Adult Baptism could really only occur during the Enlightenment, when people felt the ability to reason their way to their religious beliefs was more important than adhering to a mystical tradition
Jesus did say "be perfect, even as I am" but he didn't say "pick up my cross and follow me".
He said "pick up your cross and follow me".
So there's a little bit of room for variation and individuality.
I'm pretty sure Paul claimed to have a personal relationship with Jesus. But what is this odd and specific talking point? Why does it matter what is in the bible, it is all made up nonsense anyway.
I'm curious. Why are you here? If you think it's all made up nonsense, why did you feel the need to comment on it in an intentionally insulting way?
Did that make you feel bigger?
I think it's an honest sentiment that believing in small falsehoods and fantasies paves the way and sets the mind up for larger and more damaging falsehoods because the psychological constructs to withhold disbelief in the face of evidence are established and present at that point.
Religion uses these in a form of mass indoctrination and political establishments operate off of these same mechanisms. It's a fairly modern thing and not universal that the religion and the state are fully separated things.
That being said, there is sufficient historical evidence to presume Jesus existed. They're mentioned in Roman records, other events and places in the gospels also line up, more or less, with the events presented as contemporary in the gospels.
When we live in a world where it's exceedingly challenging to get people to believe in an objective reality, it's very difficult to justify a practice which intentionally trains and indoctrinates it's members into a state of perpetual disbelief: faith.
So if a given religion wants to justify it's existence in the context of a world constantly manufacturing deception, it needs to be generating a preposterously large amount of good to justify itself.
I mean some of his contemporaries did have a personal relationship with him so technically, the concept is in the Bible
why do i need to see this hideous creature just to read your nice message?
Heath Ledger is and always will be a legend. Not an idol or icon, but a legend.
For many, exactly because he successfully portrayed the pictured Joker as such a, "hideous creature".
i get it, people like the joker. what i dont get is why hes still the face of countless memes years later. i wish i could install an extension that would block photos of him to be honest.
I don't really see this image that often, must be a way to avoid it if you don't like to see it.
I agree it's a nice message
please share with me the way
I limit my social media to no more than 2 hours a day usually?
Maybe it's just luck, I am lost, I do not know the way
well i appreciate you regardless. cheers.
When logic and concern are distinctly missing from most of the world, do you really question why so many give in to chaos and want to tear down those same systems that are resisting all efforts to improve them?
It's obvious that politely asking charlatans and greedy fools to change gets you nothing. That leaves only few avenues left.
A place for the finest of dank christian memes to simmer.
This community isn't inherently religious, but don't be an ass to religious people. There's a fine line between poking fun at religion and being an ass to someone because of (or lack of) religious beliefs. Don't cross that line.
Other than that, just follow the lemmy.blahaj.zone instance rules.
If this flag offends you, I'll help you pack:
