BULTMANN EVANGELICAL COMPROMISE? Dr Frederik Mulder

[@nancycrayton2738]

How could he think Peter would be crucified for the sake of following Jesus if he didn't believe in the risen Lord?

[@stevem3439]

Would be interesting to have a key summary of some of Bultmann's points. I think he argued that when Jesus walked on water it was because there were stones placed at just the right spot.

[@SOLAplatform]

Good idea ... I'll work on it later

[@pierregiraud6832]

I really cannot understand how any Christian can pay the slightest attention to lunatics, whatever their titles, who reject the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed ? Because, this Creed is the only faith that has lasted for 2000 years and, as such, is presented as the regulatory exposition of the word of God of the Bible, in accordance with the Scriptures, according to the commonitorium of Saint Vincent de Lérins , leaning on Heb. 13/8-9, Jd.3 and Ac.5/33-42, among others. By the way, all the church theological history is only a precision of this text., according to the Bible. So, such guys, because they reject the common christian faith, are only gnostics who must imperatively be expelled from any Church, according to II Jn.7-11, for example.

[@metapolitikgedanken612]

I won't be that much bothered about some old creed. But that those theologians are rejecting scripture and the essence of the Christian Faith is a matter. What I find even more concerning that those guys like to recite a text and then change the meaning of their statements. E.g.:"I believe in the resurrection". Now they go and change what words like believing or resurrection means. What is more astonishing is that they essentially reject any faith in what was conventionally Christian, but still decide on to continue as appointed theologians where there job would be to teach pastors, preachers, teachers of tomorrow. That's really odd. You would think that they decide for themselves to leave that occupation, since they aren't even believing fundamentals of Christian Faith, not even in the broad sense.

[@pierregiraud6832]

@@metapolitikgedanken612 Rejecting the literal meaning of the creed is the very definition of Gnosticism

[@metapolitikgedanken612]

@@pierregiraud6832 The thing is. They will say the creed, claim that they believe it, but if you investigate the changed the meanings of terms and phrases. I recall a theology prof doing exactly this. Something like: "I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ"... But when you come to Jesus having died and raising from the dead, it suddenly isn't that simple for them. More something symbolic or 'he raised, because we believe in that..." etc. And there is plenty of that sort of theologians. They will agree with you on most statements, but do have ways to declare that they actually mean something else. It's a way to become a prof trustworthy to theology students... or to become a preacher, meaning a position of teaching and trust as to change the belief and content of beliefs slowly that way. When a parish tries to get rid of them, then they are 'unloving' of course. And most are afraid to do that. Looks intolerant, and how do you dare to 'touch God's anointed'? Once they moved the church more, they start moving other beliefs, creeds, teachings etc. as well. Now I'd understand to find something like this by exception. But there is a whole lot of them doing this. So one wonders what is motivating those people. I mean, if you don't believe those things, creeds, statements like the church or ministry professes why not simply move away from this. Why has a larger group of people have to believe the same things than you do?!

[@e_Rudhi_Dina_eshidhanii]

Buddhism is older, Hindu as well

[@pierregiraud6832]

@@e_Rudhi_Dina_eshidhanii The difference is that only Christianity matters, since it alone controls the world, managing the time of its markets.

[@trinocarrera3669]

Y'all want to go on believing in a literal worldwide flood, creation in 7 days, walking on water, manna from Heaven, then have at it.