'The lord of hosts' is a common phrase used to identify God in the OT if I am not mistaken, though many translations do not use the phrase...
As for the name 'Lucifer' - I just have to speak up - because its a pet peeve of mine - but the name Lucifer was created through the Latin translation of Jerome. Before that time - there was no creature known as Lucifer. He was Satan, the devil - perhaps even Beelzebub - but Lucifer? He wasn't Lucifer until Jerome named him the morning star in Latin! I know this has nothing to do with the character of the devil - but like I said - I just had to speak up.
Who is right?
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
Satan is a word and a mythological creature created to explain evil in the world. That was the only way that the ancients could grasp that concept.
Demon posession is a concept used to explain mental illness. Of course they did not understand mental illness thousands of years ago. We know now that this illness is a problem within the brain.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Demon posession is a concept used to explain mental illness. Of course they did not understand mental illness thousands of years ago. We know now that this illness is a problem within the brain.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
Satan is a word and a mythological creature created to explain evil in the world. That was the only way that the ancients could grasp that concept.
This is an interesting thought - I mean - while I can see what you are saying - there is plenty of scripture that would disagree strongly with the idea that Satan is merely a device to explain evil. After all - Jesus said He saw Satan fall - didn't He?
Luke 10:18 He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
So either a) the Gospel of Luke is corrupt; b) Jesus was crazy; c) Jesus was aware of the conceptual problems of evil that created Satan and decided to use Satan to illustrate there was no evil in Heaven; d0 Jesus believed in Satan too - but was mistaken...
Also - doesn't this mean Satan could not have tempted Christ after the Baptism?
Demon posession is a concept used to explain mental illness. Of course they did not understand mental illness thousands of years ago. We know now that this illness is a problem within the brain.
Interesting thought here - but isn't it possible what we observe as mental illness is actually the side effects of demonic interference? Chemical imbalances and such - they always make me wonder - what causes them? Sure - we have our beliefs scientifically - but how would we know if it was or was not manipulated by demonic forces?
This is an interesting thought - I mean - while I can see what you are saying - there is plenty of scripture that would disagree strongly with the idea that Satan is merely a device to explain evil. After all - Jesus said He saw Satan fall - didn't He?
Luke 10:18 He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
So either a) the Gospel of Luke is corrupt; b) Jesus was crazy; c) Jesus was aware of the conceptual problems of evil that created Satan and decided to use Satan to illustrate there was no evil in Heaven; d0 Jesus believed in Satan too - but was mistaken...
Also - doesn't this mean Satan could not have tempted Christ after the Baptism?
Demon posession is a concept used to explain mental illness. Of course they did not understand mental illness thousands of years ago. We know now that this illness is a problem within the brain.
Interesting thought here - but isn't it possible what we observe as mental illness is actually the side effects of demonic interference? Chemical imbalances and such - they always make me wonder - what causes them? Sure - we have our beliefs scientifically - but how would we know if it was or was not manipulated by demonic forces?
Who is right?
Christofer wrote: This is an interesting thought - I mean - while I can see what you are saying - there is plenty of scripture that would disagree strongly with the idea that Satan is merely a device to explain evil. After all - Jesus said He saw Satan fall - didn't He?
Take a look through the Old Testament, read the occasions where God and Satan are mentioned together and ask yourself who comes across as the bad guy.
Then read through the “plenty of scripture†in the New Testament and its portrayal of Satan and re-consider possibility e) the writers of the New Testament used Satan as a scapegoat to deflect the problem of evil away from god and the church.
Interesting thought here - but isn't it possible what we observe as mental illness is actually the side effects of demonic interference? Chemical imbalances and such - they always make me wonder - what causes them? Sure - we have our beliefs scientifically - but how would we know if it was or was not manipulated by demonic forces?
You might as well ask if mental illness is the side effect of invisible aliens who shrink themselves to microscopic size and enter your head as part of a cunning plan to take over human bodies.
Although the exact cause of any particular mental illness may not be known, until some evidence for supernatural demons or invisible aliens being the cause of mental illness is produced - rather than a naturalistic explanation - then the Law of Parsimony should apply.
Take a look through the Old Testament, read the occasions where God and Satan are mentioned together and ask yourself who comes across as the bad guy.
Then read through the “plenty of scripture†in the New Testament and its portrayal of Satan and re-consider possibility e) the writers of the New Testament used Satan as a scapegoat to deflect the problem of evil away from god and the church.
Interesting thought here - but isn't it possible what we observe as mental illness is actually the side effects of demonic interference? Chemical imbalances and such - they always make me wonder - what causes them? Sure - we have our beliefs scientifically - but how would we know if it was or was not manipulated by demonic forces?
You might as well ask if mental illness is the side effect of invisible aliens who shrink themselves to microscopic size and enter your head as part of a cunning plan to take over human bodies.
Although the exact cause of any particular mental illness may not be known, until some evidence for supernatural demons or invisible aliens being the cause of mental illness is produced - rather than a naturalistic explanation - then the Law of Parsimony should apply.
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
Take a look through the Old Testament, read the occasions where God and Satan are mentioned together and ask yourself who comes across as the bad guy.
But that isn't the point of the question - the question is really - is Satan a fallen angel - or a metaphor for evil. In this light - the person of Satan is actually speaking in Job...
Then read through the “plenty of scripture†in the New Testament and its portrayal of Satan and re-consider possibility e) the writers of the New Testament used Satan as a scapegoat to deflect the problem of evil away from god and the church.
When speaking of the plenty of scriptures - I also meant books outside of the Bible - such as the book of Enoch - but with that said - if the books of the NT were actually written in the first century - then there really wasn't an organized church to deflect the problem of evil from - in addition - if it were all about deflecting evil from God - then I would say Jesus did that with His unconventional (in Jewish terms) teachings.
As for the Law of Parsimony, if it works for you - amen - I am just sharing something that has always come to mind when thinking about mental illnesses.
But that isn't the point of the question - the question is really - is Satan a fallen angel - or a metaphor for evil. In this light - the person of Satan is actually speaking in Job...
Then read through the “plenty of scripture†in the New Testament and its portrayal of Satan and re-consider possibility e) the writers of the New Testament used Satan as a scapegoat to deflect the problem of evil away from god and the church.
When speaking of the plenty of scriptures - I also meant books outside of the Bible - such as the book of Enoch - but with that said - if the books of the NT were actually written in the first century - then there really wasn't an organized church to deflect the problem of evil from - in addition - if it were all about deflecting evil from God - then I would say Jesus did that with His unconventional (in Jewish terms) teachings.
As for the Law of Parsimony, if it works for you - amen - I am just sharing something that has always come to mind when thinking about mental illnesses.
Who is right?
Christofer wrote:
In this light - the person of Satan is actually speaking in Job...
Can you clarify this please? In light of him being a fallen angel? Or a metaphor?
When speaking of the plenty of scriptures - I also meant books outside of the Bible - such as the book of Enoch - but with that said - if the books of the NT were actually written in the first century - then there really wasn't an organized church to deflect the problem of evil from –
Even assuming the writings of Paul and the authors of the synoptic gospels come down to us intact (and that’s a huge assumption) they were quite intelligent enough to recognize the problem of evil as formulated by Epicurus in 300 BCE and the difficulty this would pose selling an monotheistic religion. Hence the use of the Old Testament Satan as a fall guy.
in addition - if it were all about deflecting evil from God - then I would say Jesus did that with His unconventional (in Jewish terms) teachings.
How? Jesus’ teachings were mainly a reinterpretation of Jewish law, where did he actually deflect the problem of evil from God? And where did he deflect it to?
In this light - the person of Satan is actually speaking in Job...
Can you clarify this please? In light of him being a fallen angel? Or a metaphor?
When speaking of the plenty of scriptures - I also meant books outside of the Bible - such as the book of Enoch - but with that said - if the books of the NT were actually written in the first century - then there really wasn't an organized church to deflect the problem of evil from –
Even assuming the writings of Paul and the authors of the synoptic gospels come down to us intact (and that’s a huge assumption) they were quite intelligent enough to recognize the problem of evil as formulated by Epicurus in 300 BCE and the difficulty this would pose selling an monotheistic religion. Hence the use of the Old Testament Satan as a fall guy.
in addition - if it were all about deflecting evil from God - then I would say Jesus did that with His unconventional (in Jewish terms) teachings.
How? Jesus’ teachings were mainly a reinterpretation of Jewish law, where did he actually deflect the problem of evil from God? And where did he deflect it to?
Who is right?
Hi folks;
So many twists and turns to address, where to begin?
In the book of Job, it is illustrated that Satan/Lucifer/the Devil/the Serpent, etc, etc;
-can inspire men to commit a raid upon Job's holding and abscound with them and commit murder.
-can stir up meteorolgical events (a tornado?).
-can afflict Job with a skin disease (boils).
In one of the gospels, we hear Jesus explain that a woman who had a flow of blood for 18 years was "bound by (Satan)" those years.
What I hear from some of you is the arguements of the so called "higher critics" of time past, who wanted to appear scholastic to their atheistic counterparts, forsaking simple faith and belief.
Jesus said, "except you become as a little child, you cannot see the kingdom". (my paraphrase.)
Because of this parallel universe (if you like) world which exists in the same space we are in, which we cannot perceive with our five senses of the flesh, does not mean it isn't there and we are all truly in a fishbowl.
The scripture makes it clear that the "natural man" is dead spiritually and that these things are foolishness to him. Just as you skeptics have enunciated.
The scripture also say, that no man can come to Christ, except the Father "draw" him. So, if you be one of those who took part in the rebellion, you may not be offered redeption in this "flesh" age, but will have your chance during the next shorter one.
As I said before, the website "theseason.org" has detailed studies on every one of this subtopics, and for additional study, I would recommend "mt.net/~watcher" and "rense.com" for current events (ufo's and such).
In Revelation it says that the "dragon" (Satan/the serpent/the Devil) was thrown out of heaven and cast to the earth- and woe to the inhabitors of the earth, for the Devil has come down to you-etc, etc. You think he is coming in a balloon? Some type of interdimensional vehicle is my thinking, given the recorded behaviour of the many UFO sitings. He through his many years of spiritual (mental) manipulations has prepared this world for his appearing. Don't you think it strange that so many "space themed" stories of popular media are so loved by so many? Star Trek anyone? The "FORCE!? Every conceivable theory except the truth.
If I wanted to distract several billion or so persons from finding the one right path, I'd throw a couple hundred decoys out there, and I'd make sure they looked desirable.
There is more to say than can be posted in several days. Take the time and search the scriptures, for in them you can find the truth.
Agape.
downag;)
So many twists and turns to address, where to begin?
In the book of Job, it is illustrated that Satan/Lucifer/the Devil/the Serpent, etc, etc;
-can inspire men to commit a raid upon Job's holding and abscound with them and commit murder.
-can stir up meteorolgical events (a tornado?).
-can afflict Job with a skin disease (boils).
In one of the gospels, we hear Jesus explain that a woman who had a flow of blood for 18 years was "bound by (Satan)" those years.
What I hear from some of you is the arguements of the so called "higher critics" of time past, who wanted to appear scholastic to their atheistic counterparts, forsaking simple faith and belief.
Jesus said, "except you become as a little child, you cannot see the kingdom". (my paraphrase.)
Because of this parallel universe (if you like) world which exists in the same space we are in, which we cannot perceive with our five senses of the flesh, does not mean it isn't there and we are all truly in a fishbowl.
The scripture makes it clear that the "natural man" is dead spiritually and that these things are foolishness to him. Just as you skeptics have enunciated.
The scripture also say, that no man can come to Christ, except the Father "draw" him. So, if you be one of those who took part in the rebellion, you may not be offered redeption in this "flesh" age, but will have your chance during the next shorter one.
As I said before, the website "theseason.org" has detailed studies on every one of this subtopics, and for additional study, I would recommend "mt.net/~watcher" and "rense.com" for current events (ufo's and such).
In Revelation it says that the "dragon" (Satan/the serpent/the Devil) was thrown out of heaven and cast to the earth- and woe to the inhabitors of the earth, for the Devil has come down to you-etc, etc. You think he is coming in a balloon? Some type of interdimensional vehicle is my thinking, given the recorded behaviour of the many UFO sitings. He through his many years of spiritual (mental) manipulations has prepared this world for his appearing. Don't you think it strange that so many "space themed" stories of popular media are so loved by so many? Star Trek anyone? The "FORCE!? Every conceivable theory except the truth.
If I wanted to distract several billion or so persons from finding the one right path, I'd throw a couple hundred decoys out there, and I'd make sure they looked desirable.
There is more to say than can be posted in several days. Take the time and search the scriptures, for in them you can find the truth.
Agape.
downag;)
Who is right?
Jesus as a human being was mistaken.
When we take the sacred writings in a literal sense we encounter all kinds of problem. The Bible is a religious book. It is not history though it contains some history, but not much.
Satan was a concept borrowed by the Hebrews to explain evil.
What we need saved from is our own blind stupidity. Sin is an estrangement from God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
When we take the sacred writings in a literal sense we encounter all kinds of problem. The Bible is a religious book. It is not history though it contains some history, but not much.
Satan was a concept borrowed by the Hebrews to explain evil.
What we need saved from is our own blind stupidity. Sin is an estrangement from God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Who is right?
Ted, time will certainly tell who is right.
As for you statement about Jesus being mistaken, dream on. He was the son of the living God YHVH and is the fulfillment of all OT prophesy regarding the appearing of the MESSIAH. Some of which has yet to take place.
As for Satan, one of his greatest achievements was to get "man" to discount his existence!
As for you statement about Jesus being mistaken, dream on. He was the son of the living God YHVH and is the fulfillment of all OT prophesy regarding the appearing of the MESSIAH. Some of which has yet to take place.
As for Satan, one of his greatest achievements was to get "man" to discount his existence!
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
While I am in complete agreement with downag -I can say that I respect what Ted is saying too. If Satan IS real - then he has certainly convinced many that he isn't real.
Perhaps the bigger issue is that whether a person believes Satan is a truly fallen angel or just a metaphor - does the concept change people's perception of sin?
Seems to me that sin is still sin whether or not Satan is real or not.
I would like to ask what Ted means by this however...
Satan was a concept borrowed by the Hebrews to explain evil.
Who did the Hebrews borrow the concept from?
Perhaps the bigger issue is that whether a person believes Satan is a truly fallen angel or just a metaphor - does the concept change people's perception of sin?
Seems to me that sin is still sin whether or not Satan is real or not.
I would like to ask what Ted means by this however...
Satan was a concept borrowed by the Hebrews to explain evil.
Who did the Hebrews borrow the concept from?
Who is right?
downag wrote: As for you statement about Jesus being mistaken, dream on. He was the son of the living God YHVH and is the fulfillment of all OT prophesy regarding the appearing of the MESSIAH. Some of which has yet to take place.
I love O.T 'prophesy'. Any particular one in mind?
I love O.T 'prophesy'. Any particular one in mind?
Who is right?
Seems to me that sin is still sin whether or not Satan is real or not.
Christofer. A straight question, I'd appreciate a straight answer -
Do you believe Satan is real?
Christofer. A straight question, I'd appreciate a straight answer -
Do you believe Satan is real?
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
hi memebias -
I personally do believe in a fallen angel who is personified as the 'devil' in our reality.
I personally do believe in a fallen angel who is personified as the 'devil' in our reality.
Who is right?
Christofer wrote: hi memebias -
I personally do believe in a fallen angel who is personified as the 'devil' in our reality.
Right, thanks for the unambiguous answer. Now, Christofer, how exactly did Satan become the arch enemy of God - a fallen angel? Can you find anywhere in the O.T. a reference to his fall?
I personally do believe in a fallen angel who is personified as the 'devil' in our reality.
Right, thanks for the unambiguous answer. Now, Christofer, how exactly did Satan become the arch enemy of God - a fallen angel? Can you find anywhere in the O.T. a reference to his fall?
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
Well - before I answer that - let me say that I put Jesus first. He is my teacher and master - not the books of the Jewish religion. With that being said, what Jesus said trumps all else. I know that may sound narrow minded - and maybe it is - but if I am truly devoted to Christ - than that's how it has to be.
As for the OT - some believe Isaiah 14:12-17 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 are veiled references to Satan, but it's irrelevant to me, as Jesus is the one I follow.
Other than those two passages - I know of no others that have been related to Satan's fall - though I am sure there are other verses out there...
As for the OT - some believe Isaiah 14:12-17 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 are veiled references to Satan, but it's irrelevant to me, as Jesus is the one I follow.
Other than those two passages - I know of no others that have been related to Satan's fall - though I am sure there are other verses out there...
Who is right?
Christofer wrote: Well - before I answer that - let me say that I put Jesus first. He is my teacher and master - not the books of the Jewish religion. With that being said, what Jesus said trumps all else.
Does this mean all the sayings which were attributed to Jesus, but in fact were taken from "the books of the Jewish religion", reworded by the authors of the gospels, and put in to the mouth of Jesus, do not apply to real christians? Even the "Do unto others..." passage?
"In everything do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law and the prophets."
Matthew 7:12
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man: this is the whole law, the rest is commentary."
Hillel (b. 75BC)
I know that may sound narrow minded - and maybe it is - but if I am truly devoted to Christ - than that's how it has to be.
You don't need to apologize for narrow mindedness, Jesus would have approved:
"The harsh reproaches that Jesus directed at the Pharisees because they persisted in their error, his fateful predictions for all those who did not accept his gospel, his specific demands on the apostles for unconditional obedience - all these clearly reveal a man who was so convinced he was the fount of sole truth that he would admit no other."
Life of Jesus
Marcello Craveri
As for the OT - some believe Isaiah 14:12-17 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 are veiled references to Satan, but it's irrelevant to me, as Jesus is the one I follow.
Other than those two passages - I know of no others that have been related to Satan's fall - though I am sure there are other verses out there...
The vagueness of these verses in Isaiah and Ezekiel, and their need to be reinterpreted to breaking point to become references to Satan is a pretty good indication how poor the idea of Satan as a fallen angel is.
Does this mean all the sayings which were attributed to Jesus, but in fact were taken from "the books of the Jewish religion", reworded by the authors of the gospels, and put in to the mouth of Jesus, do not apply to real christians? Even the "Do unto others..." passage?
"In everything do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law and the prophets."
Matthew 7:12
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man: this is the whole law, the rest is commentary."
Hillel (b. 75BC)
I know that may sound narrow minded - and maybe it is - but if I am truly devoted to Christ - than that's how it has to be.
You don't need to apologize for narrow mindedness, Jesus would have approved:
"The harsh reproaches that Jesus directed at the Pharisees because they persisted in their error, his fateful predictions for all those who did not accept his gospel, his specific demands on the apostles for unconditional obedience - all these clearly reveal a man who was so convinced he was the fount of sole truth that he would admit no other."
Life of Jesus
Marcello Craveri
As for the OT - some believe Isaiah 14:12-17 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 are veiled references to Satan, but it's irrelevant to me, as Jesus is the one I follow.
Other than those two passages - I know of no others that have been related to Satan's fall - though I am sure there are other verses out there...
The vagueness of these verses in Isaiah and Ezekiel, and their need to be reinterpreted to breaking point to become references to Satan is a pretty good indication how poor the idea of Satan as a fallen angel is.
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
Does this mean all the sayings which were attributed to Jesus, but in fact were taken from "the books of the Jewish religion", reworded by the authors of the gospels, and put in to the mouth of Jesus, do not apply to real christians?
Not as I see it - I view the Jewish scriptures as suspect - thus - they do have some truth - but they also contain a lot of falsehoods. Where Jesus seemingly quotes them - then I believe there is truth - but where Jesus contradicts the Jewish writings - there is the falsehood. While the sermon on the Mount (that starts in Mt 5) is thought to be an expansion of Jewish beliefs and laws - I believe it Jesus was giving corrections.
Eye for an eye became turn the other cheek - swear no false oath became swear not at all - murder became a kin to anger and hatred - adultery became a matter of lustful thoughts - etc.
Ironically - I suppose - I don't find the NT to be infallible either - but I do trust the truth revealed through the Holy Spirit both in the Bible and in our lives.
Not as I see it - I view the Jewish scriptures as suspect - thus - they do have some truth - but they also contain a lot of falsehoods. Where Jesus seemingly quotes them - then I believe there is truth - but where Jesus contradicts the Jewish writings - there is the falsehood. While the sermon on the Mount (that starts in Mt 5) is thought to be an expansion of Jewish beliefs and laws - I believe it Jesus was giving corrections.
Eye for an eye became turn the other cheek - swear no false oath became swear not at all - murder became a kin to anger and hatred - adultery became a matter of lustful thoughts - etc.
Ironically - I suppose - I don't find the NT to be infallible either - but I do trust the truth revealed through the Holy Spirit both in the Bible and in our lives.
Who is right?
Not as I see it - I view the Jewish scriptures as suspect - thus - they do have some truth - but they also contain a lot of falsehoods. Where Jesus seemingly quotes them - then I believe there is truth - but where Jesus contradicts the Jewish writings - there is the falsehood.
When Jesus amends or ignores Jewish rabbinical scripture he is contradicting his own teachings - Matt. 5:17; Matt. 23:2-3; John 7:19; Mark 1:44 Luke 16:17.
Ironically - I suppose - I don't find the NT to be infallible either - but I do trust the truth revealed through the Holy Spirit both in the Bible and in our lives.
This is called ‘Salad Bar’ Christianity. The “truth revealed through the Holy Spirit†lets a Christian ignore the contradictions and absurdities in the bible and to pick ‘n mix passages out of the bible that fit their own personal conception of what Christianity should be.
When Jesus amends or ignores Jewish rabbinical scripture he is contradicting his own teachings - Matt. 5:17; Matt. 23:2-3; John 7:19; Mark 1:44 Luke 16:17.
Ironically - I suppose - I don't find the NT to be infallible either - but I do trust the truth revealed through the Holy Spirit both in the Bible and in our lives.
This is called ‘Salad Bar’ Christianity. The “truth revealed through the Holy Spirit†lets a Christian ignore the contradictions and absurdities in the bible and to pick ‘n mix passages out of the bible that fit their own personal conception of what Christianity should be.
Who is right?
Christofer wrote: If you believe in Jesus and follow Him as best as you can - striving to be more like Him all the time - then it is certainly a good life to live!
There's a couple of very good points here:
1. Follow jesus the best you can. he doesn't expect you to be able to be exacttly like him, we're all imperfect, but be nice and courteous, be helpful and friendly. Be uderstanding and kind, and you are on the right track.
2. I asked my very Christian frined, 'What if you were a bad person most of your life, but found God at the end and asked for givenenss right before you died, would you still go to Heaven?" He told me "Yes, if you truly believe and ask for forgiveness, God will forgive...even at the last minute." So I asked, "But what if the guy was a terrible person like a child molester?" He told me, "That doesn't matter, if he really believes in his heart, that changes everything, and God forgives all sins, not just the little ones."
Smart guy.
There's a couple of very good points here:
1. Follow jesus the best you can. he doesn't expect you to be able to be exacttly like him, we're all imperfect, but be nice and courteous, be helpful and friendly. Be uderstanding and kind, and you are on the right track.
2. I asked my very Christian frined, 'What if you were a bad person most of your life, but found God at the end and asked for givenenss right before you died, would you still go to Heaven?" He told me "Yes, if you truly believe and ask for forgiveness, God will forgive...even at the last minute." So I asked, "But what if the guy was a terrible person like a child molester?" He told me, "That doesn't matter, if he really believes in his heart, that changes everything, and God forgives all sins, not just the little ones."
Smart guy.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Who is right?
Christofer wrote: If you believe in Jesus and follow Him as best as you can - striving to be more like Him all the time - then it is certainly a good life to live!
There's a couple of very good points here:
1. Follow Jesus the best you can. he doesn't expect you to be able to be exacttly like him, we're all imperfect, but be nice and courteous, be helpful and friendly. Be uderstanding and kind, and you are on the right track.
2. I asked my very Christian frined, 'What if you were a bad person most of your life, but found God at the end and asked for givenenss right before you died, would you still go to Heaven?" He told me "Yes, if you truly believe and ask for forgiveness, God will forgive...even at the last minute." So I asked, "But what if the guy was a terrible person like a child molester?" He told me, "That doesn't matter, if he really believes in his heart, that changes everything, and God forgives all sins, not just the little ones."
Smart guy.
There's a couple of very good points here:
1. Follow Jesus the best you can. he doesn't expect you to be able to be exacttly like him, we're all imperfect, but be nice and courteous, be helpful and friendly. Be uderstanding and kind, and you are on the right track.
2. I asked my very Christian frined, 'What if you were a bad person most of your life, but found God at the end and asked for givenenss right before you died, would you still go to Heaven?" He told me "Yes, if you truly believe and ask for forgiveness, God will forgive...even at the last minute." So I asked, "But what if the guy was a terrible person like a child molester?" He told me, "That doesn't matter, if he really believes in his heart, that changes everything, and God forgives all sins, not just the little ones."
Smart guy.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Who is right?
To dismiss the OT is to dismiss the very foundation of the Judaio-Christian faith. We also have to remember that Jesus was, himself, a Jew.
To call it mix and match to suit your own preference is hardly an accurate description of what happens.
Of course the Bible has contradictions. However if one accepts that the OT is midrashic gets rid of the problems that face the reader. The OT is made up of myth, legend, folk talel, poetry, short story, fiction, theology, philosophy. It does contain some historical truth but for the most part is not to be read literally and takes a great deal of thought ininterpretation. Just because something is not historically accurate does not take away from the truths that it teaches. Even the Jews do not take the whole of the OT or Jewish sacred scriptures literally. They understand how it was written.
The Bible is after all a very human book written by its authors to explain their experiences of the Divine. It becomes for Christians the "Word of God" by virtue of the fact that God speaks to us through the Bible not by virtue of its authorship.
However, if anyone wishes to call it mix and match they are entitled to their opinion, an opinion not held by everyone.
Shalom
Ted:-6
To call it mix and match to suit your own preference is hardly an accurate description of what happens.
Of course the Bible has contradictions. However if one accepts that the OT is midrashic gets rid of the problems that face the reader. The OT is made up of myth, legend, folk talel, poetry, short story, fiction, theology, philosophy. It does contain some historical truth but for the most part is not to be read literally and takes a great deal of thought ininterpretation. Just because something is not historically accurate does not take away from the truths that it teaches. Even the Jews do not take the whole of the OT or Jewish sacred scriptures literally. They understand how it was written.
The Bible is after all a very human book written by its authors to explain their experiences of the Divine. It becomes for Christians the "Word of God" by virtue of the fact that God speaks to us through the Bible not by virtue of its authorship.
However, if anyone wishes to call it mix and match they are entitled to their opinion, an opinion not held by everyone.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
When Jesus amends or ignores Jewish rabbinical scripture he is contradicting his own teachings - Matt. 5:17; Matt. 23:2-3; John 7:19; Mark 1:44 Luke 16:17.
With concern to Mt 5:17, Luke 16:17, I believe you are assuming that we have the proper Jewish traditions and laws that He was referring to. I make no such assumption. Instead - I believe what we have recorded as Jewish law is corrupted - as testified by the things Jesus taught.
When looking at Mt 23:2-3, John 7:19, and Mark 1:44 - I believe you need to read those verses in context - and I believe when you do - they do not contradict with what Jesus was teaching - but I didn't want to swamp this thread with scripture for a debate - lol. I figure everyone likes the shortest possible posts.
This is called ‘Salad Bar’ Christianity. The “truth revealed through the Holy Spirit†lets a Christian ignore the contradictions and absurdities in the bible and to pick ‘n mix passages out of the bible that fit their own personal conception of what Christianity should be.
I suppose you are right to an extent here, but I do not ignore the contradictions and absurdities - they just don't sway my faith in Christ. I am not one who argues the Bible is infallible, so the contradictions are not so critical to me. In fact - I think that Christians arguing that the Bible is perfect actually hurt the Great Commission by trying to force intelligent people to swallow an impossible snare of dogma. My faith doesn't rest on writings - but on truth known through living with the Holy Spirit. I know that may sound insane to non-believers - but I am only trying to follow my Lord Jesus - and I am not concerned with how I am perceived by others, ya know?
With concern to Mt 5:17, Luke 16:17, I believe you are assuming that we have the proper Jewish traditions and laws that He was referring to. I make no such assumption. Instead - I believe what we have recorded as Jewish law is corrupted - as testified by the things Jesus taught.
When looking at Mt 23:2-3, John 7:19, and Mark 1:44 - I believe you need to read those verses in context - and I believe when you do - they do not contradict with what Jesus was teaching - but I didn't want to swamp this thread with scripture for a debate - lol. I figure everyone likes the shortest possible posts.
This is called ‘Salad Bar’ Christianity. The “truth revealed through the Holy Spirit†lets a Christian ignore the contradictions and absurdities in the bible and to pick ‘n mix passages out of the bible that fit their own personal conception of what Christianity should be.
I suppose you are right to an extent here, but I do not ignore the contradictions and absurdities - they just don't sway my faith in Christ. I am not one who argues the Bible is infallible, so the contradictions are not so critical to me. In fact - I think that Christians arguing that the Bible is perfect actually hurt the Great Commission by trying to force intelligent people to swallow an impossible snare of dogma. My faith doesn't rest on writings - but on truth known through living with the Holy Spirit. I know that may sound insane to non-believers - but I am only trying to follow my Lord Jesus - and I am not concerned with how I am perceived by others, ya know?
Who is right?
Christofer:-6
Well put. Sounds fine to me. You are correct it is not the book that we believe in but the Risen Lord whom the book testifies to.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Well put. Sounds fine to me. You are correct it is not the book that we believe in but the Risen Lord whom the book testifies to.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Who is right?
Ted wrote: Christofer:-6
Well put. Sounds fine to me. You are correct it is not the book that we believe in but the Risen Lord whom the book testifies to.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That's the best I've ever heard it explained, Ted. Just listening to you makes me a better Christian.
Well put. Sounds fine to me. You are correct it is not the book that we believe in but the Risen Lord whom the book testifies to.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That's the best I've ever heard it explained, Ted. Just listening to you makes me a better Christian.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Who is right?
Someone said there were contradictions in the Bible.
Let's start a new thread about this!
I disagree, but say rather, that there are contradictions perceived by men that are easily refuted.
I got my regular computer back online with my huge Bible resource program, so watch out.
d:-5
Let's start a new thread about this!
I disagree, but say rather, that there are contradictions perceived by men that are easily refuted.
I got my regular computer back online with my huge Bible resource program, so watch out.
d:-5
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
Start the thread and I will join you happily in that discussion, downag!
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
Who is right?
Raven wrote: All three worship the same God. Only the messiah issue is different. They all come from the same patriarch, Abraham.
So who is right? Or can we all be?All three can be right if they listen to their Daddy, Abraham. He trusted God- that's faith. That's all God wants. The problems come when we start to doubt God is wise or strong enough to do His own work in our lives and in our world, and we roll up our sleeves and start doing "for God" what we cannot do, and only God can do, and He never asked us to do (battle sin), and NOT doing what God can't do and we can do and and God wants us to do (seek Him).
So who is right? Or can we all be?All three can be right if they listen to their Daddy, Abraham. He trusted God- that's faith. That's all God wants. The problems come when we start to doubt God is wise or strong enough to do His own work in our lives and in our world, and we roll up our sleeves and start doing "for God" what we cannot do, and only God can do, and He never asked us to do (battle sin), and NOT doing what God can't do and we can do and and God wants us to do (seek Him).
Look what the cat dragged in.
Who is right?
Christofer:-6
I cannot go alone with one point in your post. I missed it last time I read it. I cannot agree with the idea that the OT is corrumpted. The Massoretes were very meticulous in their attempts to maintain the OT in its original form.
However, perhaps what you are looking for is the defferences in the culture of the day as well as the fact that Jesus came to fulfill the law which He claimed was done.
Having fulilled the law we are no longer subject to the law as such but live under the grace of God. (Galations 3:22ff ) esp 25 "But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith."
It also seems to me that this has wider implications for all nations.
Also Galations 5:18. "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not jubject to the law.
Galations is excellent in discussion of the law.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I cannot go alone with one point in your post. I missed it last time I read it. I cannot agree with the idea that the OT is corrumpted. The Massoretes were very meticulous in their attempts to maintain the OT in its original form.
However, perhaps what you are looking for is the defferences in the culture of the day as well as the fact that Jesus came to fulfill the law which He claimed was done.
Having fulilled the law we are no longer subject to the law as such but live under the grace of God. (Galations 3:22ff ) esp 25 "But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith."
It also seems to me that this has wider implications for all nations.
Also Galations 5:18. "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not jubject to the law.
Galations is excellent in discussion of the law.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Who is right?
Jives:-6
I cannot claim to own that thinking as such. It comes from Han Kung's book "On Being a Christian". I failed to give that name. IT was an oversight. That was and is my thinking but Hans Kung gave me the wording to express it. It is not a direct quote but a paraphrase.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I cannot claim to own that thinking as such. It comes from Han Kung's book "On Being a Christian". I failed to give that name. IT was an oversight. That was and is my thinking but Hans Kung gave me the wording to express it. It is not a direct quote but a paraphrase.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
Ted - you may be right - it's just my opinion - I mean - Jesus did not teach the Law as it is known - did He? Therefore -the Law we know about that differs seems to me to be corrupt when held up to the truth of Jesus. I could be wrong, who knows -
Galatians rocks - I agree!
Galatians rocks - I agree!
Who is right?
Folks, I am handicapped by not having my other computer with my copy and paste e-sword helps.
In the OT the prophets speaks that God will write his law upon our hearts. I believe this refers to the effect of having the indwelling of his Holy Spirit upon conversion to Christ. So a person being led by the spirit keeps the law faithfully as his guide in life. Not the letter necessarily, but the "spirit" of it.
d:-5
In the OT the prophets speaks that God will write his law upon our hearts. I believe this refers to the effect of having the indwelling of his Holy Spirit upon conversion to Christ. So a person being led by the spirit keeps the law faithfully as his guide in life. Not the letter necessarily, but the "spirit" of it.
d:-5
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
I've often wondered if the influence of the Holy Spirit was our conscience - written on our hearts - I tend to agree with your take on it.
Who is right?
downag:-6
Not only is the law written in our hearts but it is written in the hearts of every man woman and child on planet earth. Fortunately there are no absolutes save one. That being the "Word of God' the person Jesus Christ.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Not only is the law written in our hearts but it is written in the hearts of every man woman and child on planet earth. Fortunately there are no absolutes save one. That being the "Word of God' the person Jesus Christ.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
great point Ted!
Who is right?
Ted, if what you said was true, then all would convert to Christianity. Paul wrote that the Gentiles do things naturally the things of the law and are a law unto themselves. The problem is that the natural man receives not the things of God, for they are foolishness to him. The Bible says that the other peoples worship "devils". The true word of God proceded West from the middle east first. The East is full of another way, not God's way. There is only one way to approach God. That is through the name of his annointed and trusting that his sacrifice paid for your sin and God raised him from the dead, demonstrating that he was satisfied.
There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved!
d
There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved!
d
Who is right?
downag wrote: There is only one way to approach God. That is through the name of his annointed and trusting that his sacrifice paid for your sin and God raised him from the dead, demonstrating that he was satisfied.
There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved!If I find that to be true when I stand to be judged, I shall scream blue murder and reject any part in the Kingdom to come. If there is no natural justice in the hereafter, I refuse now and for all time to have anything to do with redemption.
There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved!If I find that to be true when I stand to be judged, I shall scream blue murder and reject any part in the Kingdom to come. If there is no natural justice in the hereafter, I refuse now and for all time to have anything to do with redemption.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Who is right?
Eph. 2:8 For by grace are ys saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
The idea of natural justice is new to me. What do you mean? If you mean about earning your way into heaven/fellowship with the Father, HOW? By keeping the Torah? (Law). All of them? Or do you discount the whole Bible scenario and believe something someone else made up?
Another verse comes to mind. "There is a way which seems right unto a man, but its end is the way of death".
The Bible says there are none good, no not one. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
You seem to not understand that there is the millinium to go after this life and age when it says that at the judgement, the books are opened and they are judged according to their works. So work it right during that time andon judgement day be found worthy to enter eternity. To forgo grace by not accepting Jesus is ludicrous to me, though.
d:-5
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
The idea of natural justice is new to me. What do you mean? If you mean about earning your way into heaven/fellowship with the Father, HOW? By keeping the Torah? (Law). All of them? Or do you discount the whole Bible scenario and believe something someone else made up?
Another verse comes to mind. "There is a way which seems right unto a man, but its end is the way of death".
The Bible says there are none good, no not one. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
You seem to not understand that there is the millinium to go after this life and age when it says that at the judgement, the books are opened and they are judged according to their works. So work it right during that time andon judgement day be found worthy to enter eternity. To forgo grace by not accepting Jesus is ludicrous to me, though.
d:-5
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
if what you said was true, then all would convert to Christianity
Forgive me bro - but I believe a HUGE reason so many are rejecting Jesus (today) is because the religion has become so corrupted. Jesus wants His follows to be one - as He and the Father are one - but with thousands of denominations, I think we have let Him down.
John 17
20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
If Christianity was purely Bible based - without traditions and beliefs assimilated from pagans - I think there would be many more of us following the Son of God today. As it stands - it is hard to witness to an educated unbeliever without having to sort through the mess that we (mankind) have made of the Gospel.
Forgive me bro - but I believe a HUGE reason so many are rejecting Jesus (today) is because the religion has become so corrupted. Jesus wants His follows to be one - as He and the Father are one - but with thousands of denominations, I think we have let Him down.
John 17
20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
If Christianity was purely Bible based - without traditions and beliefs assimilated from pagans - I think there would be many more of us following the Son of God today. As it stands - it is hard to witness to an educated unbeliever without having to sort through the mess that we (mankind) have made of the Gospel.
Who is right?
downag:-6
I simply cannot agree with you. That is a literalist interpretation and that was never the intent of the writers to begin with. I'm sure Paul would be appalled to think that folks take what he said as sacred scripture.
You are espousing the theology of redemption which does not work in this time or place. The theology of the Cross is what Jesus was and is about. The theology of redemption has caused untold pain in this world leading to all kinds of crimes against humanity: Christian triumphalism, the lust for power, the denigration of the very world that "God so loved . . ." that God found so "very good".
The ancient writers were writing for another time and place, another culture, another context.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I simply cannot agree with you. That is a literalist interpretation and that was never the intent of the writers to begin with. I'm sure Paul would be appalled to think that folks take what he said as sacred scripture.
You are espousing the theology of redemption which does not work in this time or place. The theology of the Cross is what Jesus was and is about. The theology of redemption has caused untold pain in this world leading to all kinds of crimes against humanity: Christian triumphalism, the lust for power, the denigration of the very world that "God so loved . . ." that God found so "very good".
The ancient writers were writing for another time and place, another culture, another context.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
I agree with Ted here - I think Paul and the Apostles might be a little surprised at how Christians have declared their letters to be sacred, but more significantly - Christians have declared their writings infallible -we do know that Paul did intend for his letters to be read in more than one church when he wrote them at times...
Colossians 4:16
After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.
1 Thessalonians 5:27 I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.
...But thats hardly an endorsement for deification of their words...
Colossians 4:16
After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.
1 Thessalonians 5:27 I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.
...But thats hardly an endorsement for deification of their words...
Who is right?
Time will tell!
d:-5
d:-5
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
indeed - in the end it will all be clear - I guess we should be thankful that salvation rests on the Son of God - and not all the things people have built up around Him. :rolleyes:
Who is right?
Ted wrote: downag:-6
I simply cannot agree with you. That is a literalist interpretation and that was never the intent of the writers to begin with. I'm sure Paul would be appalled to think that folks take what he said as sacred scripture.
You are espousing the theology of redemption which does not work in this time or place. The theology of the Cross is what Jesus was and is about. The theology of redemption has caused untold pain in this world leading to all kinds of crimes against humanity: Christian triumphalism, the lust for power, the denigration of the very world that "God so loved . . ." that God found so "very good".
The ancient writers were writing for another time and place, another culture, another context.
Shalom
Ted:-6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ted, I agree, the "church" has done that which it should not have, but-
-to say that what the writers of the epistles et-al were only writing regarding their times and that their words are not under the inspiration of God so that we have "better" (more light) knowledge than before is a mistake (IMHO).
One should not disregard the agency of the Devil and his fingers being in a lot of what "christiandom" has done.
It has been said, that the "word of God" is pregnant, meaning new things are/can be/will be realised as things progress, either in time for all or the growing of the believer, individually.
Several times, I recall, that a prophet was told that the words were to be "sealed up" unto the end, etc.
To think that God wasn't able to get to us, the words he wanted us to understand is a huge error. I believe he will ultimately be found completely vindicated and his words (all of them) found true (OT and NT)!
As for the other cultures that don't have the Bible, this will be shown to be totally for their benefit.
Ted, I do not believe "hell" is for all eternity. Hell is a place for seperation from God which is the torment described, until the final judgement, when I believe most will be welcomed back into the fold, because they have chosen so.
Remember, in Revelation, it tells of a lake of fire, not an ocean. Where the descruction of Satan is described, Gods says he will cause a fire to come from the "midst" of him, and he shall be no more. Extend that. Gather those around him who remain loyal to him and refuse to repent and return to our Father and they share Satan's fate. It may appear from a distance to be a "lake" of fire, all that small horde experiencing spontaneous combustion.
Every one of them chosing their fate.
d:-5
I simply cannot agree with you. That is a literalist interpretation and that was never the intent of the writers to begin with. I'm sure Paul would be appalled to think that folks take what he said as sacred scripture.
You are espousing the theology of redemption which does not work in this time or place. The theology of the Cross is what Jesus was and is about. The theology of redemption has caused untold pain in this world leading to all kinds of crimes against humanity: Christian triumphalism, the lust for power, the denigration of the very world that "God so loved . . ." that God found so "very good".
The ancient writers were writing for another time and place, another culture, another context.
Shalom
Ted:-6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ted, I agree, the "church" has done that which it should not have, but-
-to say that what the writers of the epistles et-al were only writing regarding their times and that their words are not under the inspiration of God so that we have "better" (more light) knowledge than before is a mistake (IMHO).
One should not disregard the agency of the Devil and his fingers being in a lot of what "christiandom" has done.
It has been said, that the "word of God" is pregnant, meaning new things are/can be/will be realised as things progress, either in time for all or the growing of the believer, individually.
Several times, I recall, that a prophet was told that the words were to be "sealed up" unto the end, etc.
To think that God wasn't able to get to us, the words he wanted us to understand is a huge error. I believe he will ultimately be found completely vindicated and his words (all of them) found true (OT and NT)!
As for the other cultures that don't have the Bible, this will be shown to be totally for their benefit.
Ted, I do not believe "hell" is for all eternity. Hell is a place for seperation from God which is the torment described, until the final judgement, when I believe most will be welcomed back into the fold, because they have chosen so.
Remember, in Revelation, it tells of a lake of fire, not an ocean. Where the descruction of Satan is described, Gods says he will cause a fire to come from the "midst" of him, and he shall be no more. Extend that. Gather those around him who remain loyal to him and refuse to repent and return to our Father and they share Satan's fate. It may appear from a distance to be a "lake" of fire, all that small horde experiencing spontaneous combustion.
Every one of them chosing their fate.
d:-5
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
It has been said, that the "word of God" is pregnant, meaning new things are/can be/will be realised as things progress, either in time for all or the growing of the believer, individually.
I don't know how many times I have read the Bible now, but I can say that everytime I read it I learn something new. Verses always seem to 'grow' in meaning as our relationship with Christ improves. Is this what you mean by 'pregnant'?
I don't know how many times I have read the Bible now, but I can say that everytime I read it I learn something new. Verses always seem to 'grow' in meaning as our relationship with Christ improves. Is this what you mean by 'pregnant'?
Who is right?
downag:-6
The great mistake that many make is in taking the Bible literally. This does not deny its source in God as inspiration. What the Bible is, is man's written expression of his experiences of the Bible. There is nowhere that the Bible claims to be inerrant. The Bible does say that it contains all that is necessary for salvation.
There is no support, whatsoever, for inerrancy in either history or archaeology. The folks that wrote the Book, the Jews do not take it literally. They know its source and how it came to be. It was written in a style called midrash and it is to be interpreted that way. That was the ancient style of writing religious documents. Without this understanding one can make the Bible support anything including war crimes and anti-semitism. (Num. 31 and The Gospel of John).
The original autographs were long gone by the time the KJV was compiled. The scholars were using copies of copies of copies with several versions of each book. Within those copies there were some 400,000 variants of the NT alone. We have no idea if we have anything close to what the authors were saying.
The Bible becomes, for Christians, the Word of God because God speaks to us through the Bible not because God dictated it. It is not the Word of God by virtue of its authorship. The danger that many Christians face is one of making a "Paper Pope" (T. Harpur) out of the Bible. This becomes a form of idolatry as well as a form of "graven image". (D. Hall)
B. Anderson, Biblical scholar, clearly points out in his book "Understanding the Old Testament" that the prophets were talking about their own era and not some time in the distant future. As for the book of Revelation D. Hall says that to take it literally is to engage in a wilful lust for power and self-centered fanticizing. It was written to the churces in the Roman Empire and was about John's own era. There is a question of whom this John of Patmos was. It is highly uncertain as to who he was.
This is very hard for the fundamentalist/literalist to accept because of man's desire to have absolute certainty about his future. It seems to me that this displays a complete lack of trust in God.
The "Word of God" is not a book but the "word made flesh" one Jesus of Nazareth. (B. Ehrman, "Misquoting Jesus)
The literalist approach is an out and out denial of the reality that surrounds us. With the midrashic and metaphorical approach none of the contradictions matter. They become irrelavent. We no longer need to do creative dancing or writing to explain them away.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The great mistake that many make is in taking the Bible literally. This does not deny its source in God as inspiration. What the Bible is, is man's written expression of his experiences of the Bible. There is nowhere that the Bible claims to be inerrant. The Bible does say that it contains all that is necessary for salvation.
There is no support, whatsoever, for inerrancy in either history or archaeology. The folks that wrote the Book, the Jews do not take it literally. They know its source and how it came to be. It was written in a style called midrash and it is to be interpreted that way. That was the ancient style of writing religious documents. Without this understanding one can make the Bible support anything including war crimes and anti-semitism. (Num. 31 and The Gospel of John).
The original autographs were long gone by the time the KJV was compiled. The scholars were using copies of copies of copies with several versions of each book. Within those copies there were some 400,000 variants of the NT alone. We have no idea if we have anything close to what the authors were saying.
The Bible becomes, for Christians, the Word of God because God speaks to us through the Bible not because God dictated it. It is not the Word of God by virtue of its authorship. The danger that many Christians face is one of making a "Paper Pope" (T. Harpur) out of the Bible. This becomes a form of idolatry as well as a form of "graven image". (D. Hall)
B. Anderson, Biblical scholar, clearly points out in his book "Understanding the Old Testament" that the prophets were talking about their own era and not some time in the distant future. As for the book of Revelation D. Hall says that to take it literally is to engage in a wilful lust for power and self-centered fanticizing. It was written to the churces in the Roman Empire and was about John's own era. There is a question of whom this John of Patmos was. It is highly uncertain as to who he was.
This is very hard for the fundamentalist/literalist to accept because of man's desire to have absolute certainty about his future. It seems to me that this displays a complete lack of trust in God.
The "Word of God" is not a book but the "word made flesh" one Jesus of Nazareth. (B. Ehrman, "Misquoting Jesus)
The literalist approach is an out and out denial of the reality that surrounds us. With the midrashic and metaphorical approach none of the contradictions matter. They become irrelavent. We no longer need to do creative dancing or writing to explain them away.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Who is right?
Ted, Ted, Ted;
How many times I have heard this argurment. But then we have the prophesies regarding the Messiah which came to pass exactly as the prophets fortold.
Yeshua was born in Bethlehem. He was a Nazarite. When Yeshua spoke "from" the cross, he began, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?........" and he finished with, "It is finished."
Look at Psalm 22. It begins, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and it ends, ".........that the Lord has done this." (It is finished?). In Psalm 22 is describing the events of what Yeshua was subjected too, including the wagering over his garments. Clearly, the prophets "saw" into the future! And Yeshua recited the whole thing, I believe, it just wasn't all recorded. No wonder, some standing there that day, said, "truly, this is the son of God" (Did that person know Psalm 22?)
How we are illuminated is what the problem is. Some more, some less, some not at all.
As the scripture says, we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, powers, the "rulers of the ""darkness" of this world", against spiritual wickedness in high places".
Someone can indeed be home, but the lights are not on. They inside walk in darkness.
I do not advocate complete literal interpretation. Nor exclusively figurative. Knowing which method to apply where? Now there is where the Holy Spirit is of emense help.
d:-5
How many times I have heard this argurment. But then we have the prophesies regarding the Messiah which came to pass exactly as the prophets fortold.
Yeshua was born in Bethlehem. He was a Nazarite. When Yeshua spoke "from" the cross, he began, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?........" and he finished with, "It is finished."
Look at Psalm 22. It begins, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and it ends, ".........that the Lord has done this." (It is finished?). In Psalm 22 is describing the events of what Yeshua was subjected too, including the wagering over his garments. Clearly, the prophets "saw" into the future! And Yeshua recited the whole thing, I believe, it just wasn't all recorded. No wonder, some standing there that day, said, "truly, this is the son of God" (Did that person know Psalm 22?)
How we are illuminated is what the problem is. Some more, some less, some not at all.
As the scripture says, we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, powers, the "rulers of the ""darkness" of this world", against spiritual wickedness in high places".
Someone can indeed be home, but the lights are not on. They inside walk in darkness.
I do not advocate complete literal interpretation. Nor exclusively figurative. Knowing which method to apply where? Now there is where the Holy Spirit is of emense help.
d:-5
Who is right?
How many times I have heard this argurment. But then we have the prophesies regarding the Messiah which came to pass exactly as the prophets fortold.
Come on Downag. Let's have the prophesies, with verses, and without adding, subtracting, or ignoring bits you don't think fit.
Once you've listed these 'exact' prophesies, I'll start a new thread and we'll go through them one by one.
Come on Downag. Let's have the prophesies, with verses, and without adding, subtracting, or ignoring bits you don't think fit.
Once you've listed these 'exact' prophesies, I'll start a new thread and we'll go through them one by one.
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
Within those copies there were some 400,000 variants of the NT alone. We have no idea if we have anything close to what the authors were saying.
I would say it is unfair to say we have 'no idea' - as even with all the variants, the basics remain the same - don't they? I mean there is no variant that blatantly refutes that Jesus is the Messiah - or the Son of God - etc... Granted there are disputed parts of scripture - like the end of Mark (was it really in the originals?) - or the story about the stoning of the adulteress in John (why wasn't it in all the manuscripts?) - or the problem with 1 John 5:7-8 (not in found in the old greek?)... but none of these issues change the basics - right? I believe we are close to what they wrote, however, interpretation and centuries of poor teaching from the 'church' has it really confused at several points.
For me - the only way I have ever felt I was letting the Holy Spirit lead my Bible reading was when I put down the companion study books and teachings of modern ministers and simply read it directly and straight forward. In reading like this - I found several issues that can only lead me to believe the Word of God is in the Bible - but the Bible is not the Word of God itself. It only testifies to the Word, who is Jesus Christ.
As for a great example of how the Jews read the Old Testament differently than Christians - have you ever wondered why they have never believed their Messiah would be born of a virgin? (I know the answer - but I think its better to let people find out for themselves).
I would say it is unfair to say we have 'no idea' - as even with all the variants, the basics remain the same - don't they? I mean there is no variant that blatantly refutes that Jesus is the Messiah - or the Son of God - etc... Granted there are disputed parts of scripture - like the end of Mark (was it really in the originals?) - or the story about the stoning of the adulteress in John (why wasn't it in all the manuscripts?) - or the problem with 1 John 5:7-8 (not in found in the old greek?)... but none of these issues change the basics - right? I believe we are close to what they wrote, however, interpretation and centuries of poor teaching from the 'church' has it really confused at several points.
For me - the only way I have ever felt I was letting the Holy Spirit lead my Bible reading was when I put down the companion study books and teachings of modern ministers and simply read it directly and straight forward. In reading like this - I found several issues that can only lead me to believe the Word of God is in the Bible - but the Bible is not the Word of God itself. It only testifies to the Word, who is Jesus Christ.
As for a great example of how the Jews read the Old Testament differently than Christians - have you ever wondered why they have never believed their Messiah would be born of a virgin? (I know the answer - but I think its better to let people find out for themselves).
Who is right?
downag:-6
If you've read it or heard it all before then the following will not surprise you. Of course Jesus, apparently, fulfilled all the prophesies. That is the nature of midrash. That is how it was written. After their experiences of Jesus they came to believe that he was indeed the Messiah.
At that point they then went into the ancient writings and drew from them the prophesies they thought fit and wrote the story that way. This is the nature of midrash. It is neither dishonest or an attempt to deceive. It proclaims what they believed to be the truth about this Jesus.
You are correct in stating that we rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance. So we do. We must also face the reality of the world around us. Of course the recourse to saying that we are being deceived or led astray by "principalities and powers" is simply a good cop out.
Christofer:-6
You may choose to believe what you will about the scriptures. We do not have the autographs. What we have are copies of copies of copies etc. 400 000 variants are nothing to sneeze at. Though I think in the end the general message is there.
Even at that we must be careful. None of the words put into Jesus mouth by John can be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are what the early church had come to believe about him. In fact about 85% of the words attributed to Jesus cannot be traced back to the historical person. This again is the nature of midrash. It does not change the fact that the scriptures still present truths about him, because we believe they do.
A good deal of what is in the NT is what the early church had come to believe about Jesus. None of this denies the profound experience of the Easter event.
Shalom
Ted:-6
If you've read it or heard it all before then the following will not surprise you. Of course Jesus, apparently, fulfilled all the prophesies. That is the nature of midrash. That is how it was written. After their experiences of Jesus they came to believe that he was indeed the Messiah.
At that point they then went into the ancient writings and drew from them the prophesies they thought fit and wrote the story that way. This is the nature of midrash. It is neither dishonest or an attempt to deceive. It proclaims what they believed to be the truth about this Jesus.
You are correct in stating that we rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance. So we do. We must also face the reality of the world around us. Of course the recourse to saying that we are being deceived or led astray by "principalities and powers" is simply a good cop out.
Christofer:-6
You may choose to believe what you will about the scriptures. We do not have the autographs. What we have are copies of copies of copies etc. 400 000 variants are nothing to sneeze at. Though I think in the end the general message is there.
Even at that we must be careful. None of the words put into Jesus mouth by John can be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are what the early church had come to believe about him. In fact about 85% of the words attributed to Jesus cannot be traced back to the historical person. This again is the nature of midrash. It does not change the fact that the scriptures still present truths about him, because we believe they do.
A good deal of what is in the NT is what the early church had come to believe about Jesus. None of this denies the profound experience of the Easter event.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
Ted - I have to say - I enjoy talking with you.
Even at that we must be careful. None of the words put into Jesus mouth by John can be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are what the early church had come to believe about him. In fact about 85% of the words attributed to Jesus cannot be traced back to the historical person.
What makes something attributed to the 'historical' Jesus? What is the foundation of the 'historical' standard? I am a little confused about how we can surely determine that.
Even at that we must be careful. None of the words put into Jesus mouth by John can be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are what the early church had come to believe about him. In fact about 85% of the words attributed to Jesus cannot be traced back to the historical person.
What makes something attributed to the 'historical' Jesus? What is the foundation of the 'historical' standard? I am a little confused about how we can surely determine that.