/christian/ - christian

thomas_muntzer.jpg
[Hide] (140.4KB, 900x722)

>>27422 (OP) 
I suppose I see him on the opposite end of the spectrum from the early reformers, who wanted nothing to do with the "mystical," such as figures like Zwingli. But if the desire is to maintain the balance between Scripture and the mystical, why not just remain Catholic or Orthodox? And how does Munzter gauge what was truly divine revelation and not the words of the evil one?

>>27423
>And how does Munzter gauge what was truly divine revelation and not the words of the evil one
Jesus explicitly sided with the poor, maimed, diseased, and the victims of societal corruption by the capricious, greedy, and wicked. There is simply no ambiguity here. If Jesus did it, then it is right.

>>27425
But that doesn't answer the question of how one discerns the nature of divine revelation. How can a congregation hold together if members receive conflicting revelations? What are the standards to judge such a revelation? At least with Scripture, you have a standard, but if Munzter relied more on revelation than there becomes a problem. From my point of view it seems to open the door to the possibility of cult formation and demonic influence.

>>27426
If that is the case, then every Christian denomination is by definition from the get go "cult formation" and demonic. If the mere act of interpretation is already the devil, which is what you imply, then all we can do is be silent, isolate ourselves, and sit in a corner, and keep waiting another 2,000 years for Jesus to arrive.

This is cuckery. This is what "protestantism" became after Muntzer was murdered; just run away. The people were successfully cowed by the authorities into submission and then they were taught exactly what you are saying to keep them in line.

>>27428
Interpretation without a standard to act as a check and balance. For Apostolic denominations there is Holy Tradition and Scripture. For other Protestant denominations there is Scripture. For those that really on personal divine revelation, what standard do they use?

>>27429
>>27429
The Gospels? The only thing that matters is Jesus. How was Muntzer not acting in accordance with Christ? 

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Besides that, obsessing over text eternally is Jewish. We are not Jews. Any authentic Christianity must be apocalyptic.

>>27430
>How was Muntzer not acting in accordance with Christ? 
How does Muntzer know how to act in accordance with Christ without a standard to inform him of how Christ acted? And if someone's revelation contradicted Muntzer's revelation, whose was correct?

>>27431
Are you being willfully obtuse? The standard is the Gospels. 

You are implying that any interpretation without a "standard," which you yourself do not define, is Satanic. If the Gospels are not a standard, what is? Some arbitrary Church or ecclesiastical tradition? You think those men were not frauds and hypocrites looking after their own interests?

>>27432
And if two people have conflicting divine revelations over the interpretation of the Gospels, what then? All I am showing is that without a way to check divine revelation it becomes arbitrary. Probably just one of the reasons he upset the other reformers.

>>27433
Ok so what do we do then since obviously there have been conflicting interpretations? Live and let live?

>>27435
It's crucial to consider the reliance on divine revelation carefully. Most often, divine revelation should be a personal matter, as Christ has already provided the Church with all it needs to carry on. When personal divine revelation is made public, it can suggest that Christ's work was incomplete, which can lead to interpretational conflicts. This is where it can become problematic. However, when we place Scripture above revelation, we can form a consensus when a number of us agree on what a particular passage represents. This consensus helps to solidify a standard of interpretation, providing a common ground for understanding. With revelation, what is there to reveal that has not already been revealed in Scripture?  Revelation can help guide us privately after it has been carefully considered.

>>27436
So you are a Catholic.

>>27438
No, I am not Catholic. However, I think many of us, regardless of denomination, can agree that while revelation may have a place, it must be tested to ensure it aligns with what is already acknowledged, whether it be Scripture, Holy Tradition, or both, to ensure it isn't just noise from the evil one. If it passes those checks, it should be respected as a private revelation, not to be used in a way to shape doctrine. Those that used revelation in such a way to change doctrine include David Koresh, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, Sun Myung Moon, Lee Man-hee, Ellen G. White, Jim Jones etc.

When does the bible say to rabble rouse a bunch of peasants into mass murder, theft, rape, and vandalism?

Time_for_an_Inquistion.jpg
[Hide] (44.3KB, 500x500)

I sense a disturbance in this thread.