Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

(...and are fundamentalists Christians?)

Did Jesus understand scripture literally? Did he intend for His own words to be taken literally? Being a Christian, surely means following the teachings and example of Christ. Can somebody be a Christian if they do not do this?

Common man, Jesus never said that stuff. The bible was made up to provide a means to control people. Jesus would be lynched in broad daylight by todays Christains.Rebiu 23:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)


No kidding, gee do you think? Do you think the Son Of God had a fundamental understanding of the WORD OF GOD? That is what fundamental means. Nobody on the planet would have a better fundamental understanding than Christ. So as a Christian, you'd probably try to conform towards that same fundamental understanding that Christ has. Hence the term fundamentalism. Fundamental Christians believe the literal truth of the bible as revealed by the Christ, the Son of God, to His disciples. Sometimes speaking in parables or allegorical references to the Old Testament, or the Prophets, as well as future events yet to happen.--Roopilots6 19:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

"That is what fundamental means."
You're mistaken. What is meant by Fundamentalism (as it is being used here, in the sense of fundamentalist Christianity, and of other fundamentalist religions too), is the practise of interpreting every word in sacred texts as literal truth., feel free to check the definition elsewhere too. (See the "NO" section below for a couple examples of how Christ did not literally interpret Scripture, and did not intend his own words to taken literally.)
I'm not disagreeing with your statement that nobody had a better fundamental understanding of Christianity than Christ, by the way. It's His religion, after all; who could understand it better? --Jeremiah4-22 19:34, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
You would be mistaken to try and use those definitions that include phrases such as militant, extreme conservatives, or intolerance of other views. Gee, I could hardly tell the persons that wrote those definitions don't like fundamental Christians. I still stand by my definition of what FUNDAMENTAL means. You can also read my response to those having a misunderstanding on how to understand scripture literally so as to keep it fundamental. Sort of like conserving the original intent. Kind of what's at the core of being Conservative. Being a conservationalist about religious traditions and preserving God's Word found in the scripture of the Bible. Do you agree with that definition as extreme conservatism?--Roopilots6 18:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
"a misunderstanding on how to understand scripture literally so as to keep it fundamental"
You seem to have trouble with words. You think you're a fundamentalist, but you don't even know what the word means. And "literally" means, without interpretation or embellishment: this is how a fundamentalist reads the Bible. There is no "Sort of like", no "Kind of what's at the core of"; you simply do as it says.
By the way, that's a dictionary (several dictionaries in fact) that you're looking at there, not a liberal organisation with an anti-Christian agenda. Fundamentalist religions do tend to be characterised by militancy, extreme conservatism, and intolerance of other views; the definitions merely reflect the reality of the situation. If you find those traits unattractive, perhaps you need to think about modifying your beliefs. --Jeremiah4-22 19:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Not with words, but with people that try to insert their own special meanings into them. Which is the primary reason for isn't it. Maybe you should try looking at the conservapedia definition? Here is one suggestion on why some people prefer calling some Christians Fundamentalists:
It should give you some clarification on my point of view.--Roopilots6 17:16, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Hal Lindsey (amongst other strange ideas) thinks that the Jews are God's chosen people, an odd attitude for a supposed Christian to hold, and one that surely offers little hope of salvation to those who have accepted Jesus. [1] --Jeremiah4-22 09:08, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Hal Lindsey has an excellent fundamental understanding of the Old and New Testament of the Bible. The Hebrew people are His by Covenant, as Judah is only one of their tribes. Because that is what the Old and New Testament says of it. The Christian Church is the grafted on olive branch. The whole tree and root is Israel's Hebrew tribes. To those who believe in replacement theology, amongst other things, I wouldn't bother looking for your place on that tree though. One of the problems here is the application of prejudiced stereotypes to a word in order to give it a negative connotation. It is typical that all I have to do is identify myself as a Christian as well as back it up and some one will be calling me a "Fundamentalist". It is used identically the way a Nazis would have called someone a "Jew". I would suggest to everyone not to use it in this ignorant and derogatory manner. Savy?--Roopilots6 20:59, 2 May 2007 (EDT)


  • There are numerous examples of Christ making non-literal interpretations of existing Scripture:

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. John 8:3-7 (KJV)

  • And of many of His own teachings being allegorical, non-literal, and declared by Him to be so:

And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? Matthew 13:3-10 (KJV)


Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: Matthew 13:31-34 (KJV)

  • And of his own words clearly not being intended to be literally interpretated:

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. John 6:53-55 (KJV)

If Christ himself does not take scripture literally, and makes clear that his own teachings are not be taken literally, how can it be Christian to read the Bible literally? --Jeremiah4-22 13:36, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

How is it that most Christians, and especially the fundamentalist type can understand what it means to read the Bible literally? Most know when an allegory or parable is being used, and yet are able to still discern fundamental truths from them? Literal, as in a literary sense that is being described by the original writer. Instead of liberally interpreting everything metaphorically in order for it to conform to some politically correct world view. Usually hundreds of years after the original event. But trying to explain the fundamentals to someone that wants it to conform to their own liberally interpreted metaphor is for the most part, a waste of time.--Roopilots6 19:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
In Christ's own words,
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. Matthew 13:10-13 (KJV)
(Which is to say, (paraphrased roughly): Those who get it - get it completely; and those who don't get it - never shall.) --Jeremiah4-22 20:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Right, so that only those people that already have the same fundamental understanding of God's Word as Christ would be able to understand such parables. To those that reinterpret meanings will no longer be able to understand Christ's parables. Which, at that time many religious leaders had already begun to create their own meanings into God's Word.--Roopilots6 18:21, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
"only those people that already have the same fundamental understanding of God's Word as Christ"
I can't see that being very many people at all... just Jesus himself in fact. Are you sure this is what He had in mind? --Jeremiah4-22 19:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
No? Why not Jeremiah4-22? What about His disciples?--Roopilots6 20:18, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Christ is God the Son, so surely his understanding of God's Word is perfect (and does not need to depend upon a literal interpretation of scripture). Whereas His disciples are only human; I must suspect that though their intentions are good, even with His teaching, their degree of understanding is likely to fall short of perfection. --Jeremiah4-22 21:21, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Quite clearly, Jeremiah is correct on this point; neither His disciples nor even His Apostles shared His understanding; to suggest that they did borders on blasphemy. Peter would not have denied Him if he shared Christ's understanding; Thomas would never for an instant have doubted His resurrection. BenP 15:56, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
  • No, not if "fundamentalist" means "Bible literalist." The Ten Commandments includes "the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work." In Luke 2:23-27, "And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?" The Pharisees are interpreting the Bible literally. Jesus replies "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath," and gives reasons for honoring the spirit, rather than the exact letter of the Ten Commandments. Dpbsmith 10:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
It is only plain to see that somehow fundamental and literal no longer have their original meaning to some people. I can see how not knowing the purpose of the "Law" in relation to the Temple sacrifice will cause misunderstandings. Jesus is referring to how corrupted the Pharisees had become with their legalisms and religion for religion sake mentality. They were no longer fundamentalists. That is why Jesus is teaching them the fundamentals of His Word. If you are going to challenge Christians who have a fundamental understanding and know what is being literally said in His Word, keep trying. In the end, you just might learn some fundamentals about the Bible.--Roopilots6 20:18, 3 May 2007 (EDT)


Christ WAS the word and the word WAS Christ...need i say more? --Wally 20:16, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, Wally, You Need To Say More. Sounds Like You've Got It All Boiled Down In Your Mind. I Don't Think That The Bible Is As Simple As Your View Of It. For Example ~ Where Does Homosexuality Fit In YOUR Scheme Of Things? And, What Did Jesus Have To Say About Homosexuality? ~ To Name Just ONE Issue

I am confused, can someone give a fundamentalist/conservative interpretation of Matthew 25:31-46 (The Sheep and the Goats) and compare it and contrast it with current conservative political stands on those issues, please? Are the Christian Right mostly Sheep or Goats if you read these scriptures literally as "The Word"?