DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Ħ on June 21, 2011, 03:40:56 PM
-
So most of you probably think of me as a really stubborn Jesus fanboy. So maybe it is surprising to see that I have some doubts and am open to sharing them and discussing them.
I admit that I have never felt "on fire" for Jesus. I cringe whenever I hear someone say "I felt God telling me to go to so-and-so university, to go speak to a stranger at a gas station, to move to Nashville, etc." Basically, I have never loved God/Jesus the way I love my family and friends, or the way I percieve others to love God. I mean, I'll say I love God, and I'll tell myself that I love God, but if I really am honest with it, I am sort of apathetic about it.
Maybe this is for the better, because it enables me to make a more rational decision than if my emotions anchored me into a corner (which I see in many cases where a person's religious/political/personal values are challenged). When it comes to determining truth, the worst thing I can be is afraid to change my mind.
Recently, I have decided to take the quest for truth a little more seriously. Before, it was just a hobby, and being a "Christian" was just another adjective to add to my Facebook profile. It was just another team to support with little other reason than that I thought it was cool. My Christian status was comparable to that of a Laker fan, or a Team Edward fan. In my case, I was happy to be on Team Christian, as it instantly provided me with a means to connect with new people, and it gave me a sense of belonging. But things like comfort and belonging are in no way truth-determining factors.
As I am growing as a thinker and a person, I have grown increasingly aware of the power of C.S. Lewis's famous quote: "Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, is of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." Replace "Christianity" with "Truth", and you have the basis of where I'm coming from. I don't want to die and learn that Allah is the one true God and that Islam is the truth, when I never even bothered to seek it out. Or Hinduism, Bahá'í Faith, Atheism, whatever. I don't want to be lazy here, and I'm willing to put a lot of work into it. I am pretty fresh on this journey, and I am about halfway through The God Delusion, but I plan to expand on as many belief systems as I can.
All that said, I still think that Christianity holds the truth. I think that there is more than ample evidence for Jesus' resurrection from the dead, which is extremely improbable if there is no supernatural force. Since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, performed miracles, and predicted the events that would surround his death and resurrection, I am extremely inclined to believe that if there is a door to the supernatural, Jesus is it. He's the only link I can think of.
However, in spite of historical evidence, scientific evidence steps in and blows a huge chunk of Christianity out of the water: the Old Testament. We have great reason to believe that the Earth is billions of years old, and not 6000. We have great reason to believe that all life stemmed from a single common ancestor, as opposed to each individual species being uniquely designed.
Not to mention, we have many contradictions throughout the Bible, which invalidate the Bible's claim to perfection. We have no evidence for the existence of Abraham or Moses, or much of Israel's history outside of the Bible. There are all sorts of issues you can uncover just by performing simple searches on the internet, or reading the Bible at face value without resorting to tricky interpretation when two passages don't match up.
Yet Jesus' resurrection still hits me square in the face. Do I go against my own judgment and say "Well, even though I have every reason to distrust the Old Testament and much of the New Testament, I'm going to just believe the resurrected man anyway"? Is that what Christians are called to do?
So....I guess that's where I'm "at". Advice/questions/comments from believers, Christians, atheists, agnostics, and anyone else are welcome. This is a big task for me, and I'm worried sick that I'm going to die and learn that I believed something false and have to pay for it. To be honest, I'm not really scared about being wrong about theism, since death would be the same in a godless world whether I know the truth or not. But I still want to be as honest and objective as I can, and if atheism holds the truth, then I hope I come to it.
-
My initial reaction: God hates Lakers fans.
-
My initial reaction: God hates Lakers fans.
That was not the post I was expecting from you, bosk. :lol
-
Good post Ħ
I'm curious about one thing, what do you see as the evidence for Jesus' resurrection from the dead? Thanks
-
My initial reaction: God hates Lakers fans.
That was not the post I was expecting from you, bosk. :lol
:biggrin: Well, you post some really deep stuff that is probably better for when we can just chat than just random Internet posting.
-
My initial reaction: God hates Lakers fans.
That was not the post I was expecting from you, bosk. :lol
:biggrin: Well, you post some really deep stuff that is probably better for when we can just chat than just random Internet posting.
Unless you take back your comment about the Lakers, you can consider this relationship over. :loser:
-
My initial reaction: God hates Lakers fans.
>:(
-
Good post Ħ
I'm curious about one thing, what do you see as the evidence for Jesus' resurrection from the dead? Thanks
Basically stems from reliable historical records for his certain death on the cross, the empty tomb, and his post-resurrection appearances. This isn't exactly what the thread is about but I think we've discussed it in a lot more detail in p/r.
-
I have grown increasingly aware of the power of C.S. Lewis's famous quote: "Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, is of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."
That statement, and Pascal's Wager, I find personally very worrisome, because it belittles the damage of living one's life under erroneous assumptions and acting on them.
The human mind is the ultimate measure for a lot of aspects in life, and treating it so deferential ("Pfft, what's the damage if I fooled myself for my whole life?!") puts people, IMHO, into a nasty mindset.
rumborak
-
"On Fire for Jesus", when adoration and immolation are one in the same.
-
My initial reaction: God hates Lakers fans.
That was not the post I was expecting from you, bosk. :lol
:biggrin: Well, you post some really deep stuff that is probably better for when we can just chat than just random Internet posting.
Unless you take back your comment about the Lakers, you can consider this relationship over. :loser:
Well, but really: www.godhateslakerfans.com
But seriously, as I have discovered is usually the case with you, you ask deep questions. I think a lot of the things you are questioning or having difficulty with can actually be answered. For instance, the "contradictions" you mention. In my years of study, I can only really think of a sum total of ONE contradiction I have never really heard an adequate explanation for, and it isn't in the Old Testament. But in any case, I think this is probably a good topic for SS, dontcha think?
-
...or much of Israel's history outside of the Bible.
K.A. Kitchen makes this argument his bitch in this book (https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802849601).
Get a copy - or I'd be glad to get one for you.
-
...or much of Israel's history outside of the Bible.
K.A. Kitchen makes this argument his bitch in this book (https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802849601).
Get a copy - or I'd be glad to get one for you.
So do others. But if that's the book I recall, he really does a good job. I need to get a copy of that myself.
-
...or much of Israel's history outside of the Bible.
K.A. Kitchen makes this argument his bitch in this book (https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802849601).
Get a copy - or I'd be glad to get one for you.
So do others. But if that's the book I recall, he really does a good job. I need to get a copy of that myself.
Professors of Egyptology ftw.
-
I love your spirit, H. I went through a very similar time frame in my early days (though I still find myself going thru similar periods on a smaller scale). And it was because I went through the period of challenging what I believed that I am able to be as convicted as I am now. The thing that really pushed me over the edge was the fulfillment of messianic prophecies. I strongly encourage you to continue your pursuit of truth and be prayerful about it along the way.
-
Kinda of a side note, but it is truly amazing how two people can read the same information and arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions.
rumborak
-
Those are very good questions Brother. I mostly suggest talking to Hef about it, since he seems to have made sense out of a similar mindset.
But my personal opinion would simply be to not make your faith rely on an infallible bible. If you truly believe in jesus, don't let the old testament get in your way. It's not an all or nothing deal, despite what others try to say. Your faith is what speaks to you, if the jewish bible doesn't speak to you, then don't become jewish, if Jesus speaks to you in that way, then find solace in that.
-
I am about halfway through The God Delusion,
If you want to read real Atheist literature, that is a really poor place to start. I suggest reading the works of Nietzsche or Freud over the modern morons of Atheism.
-
I have grown increasingly aware of the power of C.S. Lewis's famous quote: "Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, is of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."
That statement, and Pascal's Wager, I find personally very worrisome, because it belittles the damage of living one's life under erroneous assumptions and acting on them.
The human mind is the ultimate measure for a lot of aspects in life, and treating it so deferential ("Pfft, what's the damage if I fooled myself for my whole life?!") puts people, IMHO, into a nasty mindset.
rumborak
Can you simplify that a little more? I am not sure what you are saying.
"On Fire for Jesus", when adoration and immolation are one in the same.
Yep, exactly what I'm afraid of becoming.
But seriously, as I have discovered is usually the case with you, you ask deep questions. I think a lot of the things you are questioning or having difficulty with can actually be answered. For instance, the "contradictions" you mention. In my years of study, I can only really think of a sum total of ONE contradiction I have never really heard an adequate explanation for, and it isn't in the Old Testament. But in any case, I think this is probably a good topic for SS, dontcha think?
Thanks. On SS, do you want to discuss contradictions or this process I'm going through? And out of interest, what's the contradiction you have trouble with?
...or much of Israel's history outside of the Bible.
K.A. Kitchen makes this argument his bitch in this book (https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802849601).
Get a copy - or I'd be glad to get one for you.
Haha, thanks, I'll be sure to put it on the list. :tup
I love your spirit, H. I went through a very similar time frame in my early days (though I still find myself going thru similar periods on a smaller scale). And it was because I went through the period of challenging what I believed that I am able to be as convicted as I am now. The thing that really pushed me over the edge was the fulfillment of messianic prophecies. I strongly encourage you to continue your pursuit of truth and be prayerful about it along the way.
Thanks, A. I have a question for you (and others as well): do you ever reach a point where you "finalize" what you believe the truth to be? Or is it a process? For example, do you remain agnostic until one day, after you've read 100 pro-theist books and 100 pro-atheist books, then you sit down, put the books on the opposite sides of the scale, and say "Theism is the winner!", or is it a thing where you recalibrate your beliefs after each book you read?
Kinda of a side note, but it is truly amazing how two people can read the same information and arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions.
Yeah. I don't know, but I suspect that if you took two people and fed them the same information (assuming they had no background information) and they came to different conclusions, it would be a difference in how they read it and organized the information.
Those are very good questions Brother. I mostly suggest talking to Hef about it, since he seems to have made sense out of a similar mindset.
But my personal opinion would simply be to not make your faith rely on an infallible bible. If you truly believe in jesus, don't let the old testament get in your way. It's not an all or nothing deal, despite what others try to say. Your faith is what speaks to you, if the jewish bible doesn't speak to you, then don't become jewish, if Jesus speaks to you in that way, then find solace in that.
Thanks Adami. He does seem to have an honest mind and heart when it comes to deciding what to believe. He usually posts in the mornings, so I'll look forward to his input if he sees this thread.
I am a little afraid of being hypocritical by not being all-or-nothing, though, since I don't want to develop the habit of "picking and choosing" what parts of the Bible to believe. Part of me says that if Jesus is definitively the Son of God and therefore perfect, then it would be wise for me to believe him in all matters historical and scientific, no matter how much other evidence is against it, such as his allusions to Adam, Eve, and the flood. But part of me says that I ought not be so stubborn with an all-or-nothing mentality.
I am about halfway through The God Delusion,
If you want to read real Atheist literature, that is a really poor place to start. I suggest reading the works of Nietzsche or Freud over the modern morons of Atheism.
Yeah, I know now. But I'm already pretty far so I'm just going to wrap it up. At least I started somewhere.
-
Become a Buddhist.
-
Or better yet, a Daoist. No religion, just a philosophy, and a rather groovy one at that.
-
Thanks, A. I have a question for you (and others as well): do you ever reach a point where you "finalize" what you believe the truth to be? Or is it a process? For example, do you remain agnostic until one day, after you've read 100 pro-theist books and 100 pro-atheist books, then you sit down, put the books on the opposite sides of the scale, and say "Theism is the winner!", or is it a thing where you recalibrate your beliefs after each book you read?
I would say no, and that it is a process. I believe wholeheartedly that I will meet my creator soon. Until I have met him, though, I will still seek to be sure. I think there is an aspect in Prov 30 where agur declares that he is stupid and knows nothing about God. the minute that we think we have something figured out is the same minute that we just lost sight of it.
-
Regardless of where your belief system has been or where it is going, much respect BrotherH for your candid honesty in the OP. Genuine honesty is disturbingly rare among people of all faiths and non-faiths.
As for your questions, I think a lot of them are legitimate. But there are Christians who do not necessarily hold to all of those beliefs (i.e. strict biblical inerrancy, etc). And there are plenty of devout, *orthodox* Christians who will tell you that those emotional experiences people are always making a big deal out of range from fairly inconsequential to complete bullshit. The list goes on.
But at any rate, your sincerely honest introspection and search for the "truth", whatever that may be, is seriously commendable IMO. If there's a God and he approves of a single thing we humans are capable of, it would probably be that (from the book of J, 7:15).
-J
-
So most of you probably think of me as a really stubborn Jesus fanboy. So maybe it is surprising to see that I have some doubts and am open to sharing them and discussing them.
I admit that I have never felt "on fire" for Jesus. I cringe whenever I hear someone say "I felt God telling me to go to so-and-so university, to go speak to a stranger at a gas station, to move to Nashville, etc." Basically, I have never loved God/Jesus the way I love my family and friends, or the way I percieve others to love God. I mean, I'll say I love God, and I'll tell myself that I love God, but if I really am honest with it, I am sort of apathetic about it.
Maybe this is for the better, because it enables me to make a more rational decision than if my emotions anchored me into a corner (which I see in many cases where a person's religious/political/personal values are challenged). When it comes to determining truth, the worst thing I can be is afraid to change my mind.
Recently, I have decided to take the quest for truth a little more seriously. Before, it was just a hobby, and being a "Christian" was just another adjective to add to my Facebook profile. It was just another team to support with little other reason than that I thought it was cool. My Christian status was comparable to that of a Laker fan, or a Team Edward fan. In my case, I was happy to be on Team Christian, as it instantly provided me with a means to connect with new people, and it gave me a sense of belonging. But things like comfort and belonging are in no way truth-determining factors.
As I am growing as a thinker and a person, I have grown increasingly aware of the power of C.S. Lewis's famous quote: "Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, is of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." Replace "Christianity" with "Truth", and you have the basis of where I'm coming from. I don't want to die and learn that Allah is the one true God and that Islam is the truth, when I never even bothered to seek it out. Or Hinduism, Bahá'í Faith, Atheism, whatever. I don't want to be lazy here, and I'm willing to put a lot of work into it. I am pretty fresh on this journey, and I am about halfway through The God Delusion, but I plan to expand on as many belief systems as I can.
All that said, I still think that Christianity holds the truth. I think that there is more than ample evidence for Jesus' resurrection from the dead, which is extremely improbable if there is no supernatural force. Since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, performed miracles, and predicted the events that would surround his death and resurrection, I am extremely inclined to believe that if there is a door to the supernatural, Jesus is it. He's the only link I can think of.
What evidence? Four books not written by the people they're ascribed to and apocryphal books written much later? Most scholars seem to agree that Jesus existed and was divisive but the supernatural stuff they're question because there isn't enough reliable evidence.
However, in spite of historical evidence, scientific evidence steps in and blows a huge chunk of Christianity out of the water: the Old Testament. We have great reason to believe that the Earth is billions of years old, and not 6000. We have great reason to believe that all life stemmed from a single common ancestor, as opposed to each individual species being uniquely designed.
Not to mention, we have many contradictions throughout the Bible, which invalidate the Bible's claim to perfection. We have no evidence for the existence of Abraham or Moses, or much of Israel's history outside of the Bible. There are all sorts of issues you can uncover just by performing simple searches on the internet, or reading the Bible at face value without resorting to tricky interpretation when two passages don't match up.
Yet Jesus' resurrection still hits me square in the face. Do I go against my own judgment and say "Well, even though I have every reason to distrust the Old Testament and much of the New Testament, I'm going to just believe the resurrected man anyway"? Is that what Christians are called to do?
I think so and you'll be under consistent pressure to say you believe whether you do or don't in my experience. tHat's not the pursuit of truth to my mind. It's like a logical consistency trap. People think you have to be consistent but the fact remains you don't - you're free to be agnostic or hopeful whenever you want.
So....I guess that's where I'm "at". Advice/questions/comments from believers, Christians, atheists, agnostics, and anyone else are welcome. This is a big task for me, and I'm worried sick that I'm going to die and learn that I believed something false and have to pay for it. To be honest, I'm not really scared about being wrong about theism, since death would be the same in a godless world whether I know the truth or not. But I still want to be as honest and objective as I can, and if atheism holds the truth, then I hope I come to it.
Bart Ehrman says that sections of books of the new testament are forgeries:
In his new book , Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, Professor Ehrman claims The Second Epistle of Peter - or 2 Peter - was forged.
'...scholars everywhere - except for our friends among the fundamentalists - will tell you that there is no way on God's green earth that Peter wrote the book.
'Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter,' he writes.
He then suggests scholars who say it was acceptable in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else, are wrong.
'If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you'll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles,' Professor Ehrman writes.
Many scholars think six of the 13 letters allegedly written by Paul were actually authored by somebody else claiming to be Paul, Professor Ehrman claims.
Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370206/Bart-D-Ehrman-Parts-Bibles-New-Testament-written-pretend-apostles.html#ixzz1Pzarlp5r
-
Why doesn't God change back all the languages he gave man at the Tower of Babel so the gospel could spread faster? :o
-
Best of luck to you in your search Ħ. I know exactly how you feel about the whole "on fire for Christ" thing. It's always seemed a bit phony to me, yet I somehow feel I'm missing out because I don't feel that way much of the time. There have been times in my life when I was certain that God exists and was beyond any doubt asking me or pushing me to do something. Then there are years on end where nothing really significant happens for me spiritually. I happen to be in one of those down points right now and they're always kind of difficult. But for me it's easy to think back on a year ago when I felt that my life was almost compltely out of my own hands and was simply following a path that God had layed out for me.
Anyway... I'm not a Biblical scholar, nor have I done anything more than a cursory exploration of other faiths, but I'm happy to chat over PM about this kind of stuff if you want to bounce something off someone.
-
H, Over the past few months I've really grown to like you. Please, for the love of God, don't go on fire for Jesus. People like that are so fake, annoying, and hazardously dangerous to themselves and those around them. I know people that are like that, and every day they become more and more self delusional, it's really a sad sight to see.
-
I have grown increasingly aware of the power of C.S. Lewis's famous quote: "Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, is of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."
That statement, and Pascal's Wager, I find personally very worrisome, because it belittles the damage of living one's life under erroneous assumptions and acting on them.
The human mind is the ultimate measure for a lot of aspects in life, and treating it so deferential ("Pfft, what's the damage if I fooled myself for my whole life?!") puts people, IMHO, into a nasty mindset.
rumborak
Can you simplify that a little more? I am not sure what you are saying.
Sorry for being convoluted :lol
What I was reacting to is that those statements always say that believing in XYZ when it isn't true, has no "cost" to it. Only the other way around, not believing when it *is* true is harmful since you wouldn't be going to heaven. I say there *is* cost to believing to XYZ when it isn't true, because a belief heavily influences your personality.
Let's say you come out on the side of complete biblical inerrancy. Well, look forward to leading a life of constantly battling, and being-at-odds with, objective truth (such as the Earth actually being millions of years old). The solution? Digging in your heels and declaring the rest of the world as deluded. And that kind of stance does a lot of damage to a person, IMHO. Which is why I don't like statements as CS Lewis' one and Pascal's Wager, both of which belittle the damage done to people by this effect.
rumborak
-
On SS, do you want to discuss contradictions or this process I'm going through?
I don't know. Either or both. I think your initial post is a good starting point.
And out of interest, what's the contradiction you have trouble with?
The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. I've never really heard a convincing explanation. One of the most popular, that one of them is actually Jesus' genealogy through Mary and not Joseph, is very appealing because it makes sense that that genealogy would have been provided. However, that one of them is through Mary isn't supported by the language. There are quite a few explanations I have heard (and one or two I've come up with myself) that are completely plausible, but none convincing enough for me to easily say, "Yes, that's what must be true."
-
The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. I've never really heard a convincing explanation. One of the most popular, that one of them is actually Jesus' genealogy through Mary and not Joseph, is very appealing because it makes sense that that genealogy would have been provided. However, that one of them is through Mary isn't supported by the language. There are quite a few explanations I have heard (and one or two I've come up with myself) that are completely plausible, but none convincing enough for me to easily say, "Yes, that's what must be true."
I always learned that Jesus' geneology is traced to Adam in Luke because Luke was writing for a Gentile audience (Adam is a Gentile) and Matthew traces Jesus to Abraham because he is writing for Jews (Abraham is the first Jew). Neither of them are true, but they both serve a purpose to make the targeted audience feel a connection to Jesus.
-
They both go through Abraham. That's not what I meant. I meant the fact that after you get to David in each of them, they each go in completely different directions after a couple of generations. Or at least they appear to.
-
Oh. I guess the answer is that it doesn't really matter. (At least I don't think so)
Quick Edit: To clarify that, I mean that I don't think the ultimate truth about Christianity rests on that issue.
-
Oh. I guess the answer is that it doesn't really matter. (At least I don't think so)
Quick Edit: To clarify that, I mean that I don't think the ultimate truth about Christianity rests on that issue.
For the most part, I agree.
-
They both go through Abraham. That's not what I meant. I meant the fact that after you get to David in each of them, they each go in completely different directions after a couple of generations. Or at least they appear to.
I think it's because neither one of them really knew, so they just made something up.
-
Realistically, how could anyone know? I doubt Joseph and Mary were keeping a genealogy, and if they didn't know, nobody could. Unless you are stipulating that either Luke or Matthew just "knew" this one day.
rumborak
-
Realistically, how could anyone know? I doubt Joseph and Mary were keeping a genealogy, and if they didn't know, nobody could.
Actually, it is pretty likely they did know, as it was VERY common (and in some cases, required) for Jews to keep track of their genealogy. Although I do believe that they didn't necessarily keep compete ones with ever single step, so it would not be uncommon for genealogies to contain gaps.
Unless you are stipulating that either Luke or Matthew just "knew" this one day.
Well, of course I am. Given that you know I believe the Holy Spirit dictated exactly what the writers were to write, you shouldn't be surprised that I would think Matthew and Luke knew, whether or not they got the information from Joseph or Mary (or their kids).
-
All that said, I still think that Christianity holds the truth. I think that there is more than ample evidence for Jesus' resurrection from the dead, which is extremely improbable if there is no supernatural force. Since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, performed miracles, and predicted the events that would surround his death and resurrection, I am extremely inclined to believe that if there is a door to the supernatural, Jesus is it. He's the only link I can think of.
I'm not sure that Jesus really claimed any such thing, or predicted any such things. We don't have any primary sources from him, but second- and third-generation accounts written by other people.
However, in spite of historical evidence, scientific evidence steps in and blows a huge chunk of Christianity out of the water: the Old Testament. We have great reason to believe that the Earth is billions of years old, and not 6000. We have great reason to believe that all life stemmed from a single common ancestor, as opposed to each individual species being uniquely designed.
Yes, exactly. Which all by itself is reason to throw out the claim that Scripture is inerrant, 100% literally true, and divinely inspired writing. It simply isn't, and there is no convincing reason to believe that it is.
Not to mention, we have many contradictions throughout the Bible, which invalidate the Bible's claim to perfection. We have no evidence for the existence of Abraham or Moses, or much of Israel's history outside of the Bible. There are all sorts of issues you can uncover just by performing simple searches on the internet, or reading the Bible at face value without resorting to tricky interpretation when two passages don't match up.
This is just more evidence that the claims of inerrancy hold no water.
Yet Jesus' resurrection still hits me square in the face. Do I go against my own judgment and say "Well, even though I have every reason to distrust the Old Testament and much of the New Testament, I'm going to just believe the resurrected man anyway"? Is that what Christians are called to do?
I wouldn't say that you have reason to "distrust" the OT and NT. You just have to realize that it is a collection of documents written by ordinary people just like you and me, and some things they got wrong...just like you and me.
-
Hef, I must say, I really admire your approach to Christianity and the Bible. Being able to admit those sort of imperfections isn't something I often witness. I do hope there are many more like you who can have a connection with God, without the absolute reliance on a text being completely divinely written.
-
Agreed.
-
Yea, hef, you're one of the more inspiring Christians I've ever encountered. You really keep your faith grounded in reality, but at the same time understand that it is a big part of your life, and you seem to have found a very nice balance. Kudos!
-
Well, thanks. I must say that my faith is a central focus in my life. It isn't just a philosophical position or an opinion, but is something very real. I feel the touch of the Spirit every day, and I have only arrived at my current position after years of study, prayer, and reflection. I know how hard it can be to give some of that stuff up, because I went through it. But I am more spiritually fulfilled now than I ever have been.
But I still can't get my Mom to give up the KJV. Go figure.
-
I think this is an interesting article about the Bible and one I tend to agree with more than not (there are a few things I take issue with in the article).
https://chronicle.com/article/The-Bible-Is-Dead-Long-Live/127099/
One issue I have with the American Evangelical Church is that it has created this atmosphere of being in love with Jesus (being on fire) like it's a romantic feeling. I have never found anywhere in the bible where Jesus calls us to feel our love for him. Rather he asks us to act out our love for him by putting our faith in him as a redeemer of sin and by being obedient to him. This is a love I can show I can do whether I feel like it or not.
I also don't like how the church has created this idea that the Bible is some magical book that was brought down from the heaven's on the wings of doves with an angelic chorus singing in the background. My perception is, just like anything else that has human involvement, the Bible is not a perfect text. the fact is, it was written by man, edited by man, and compiled by man, and i see plenty of room for errors. But at the same time i do think the text was inspired by God and that the theology it promotes is truth even if it gets it facts wrong here and there.
I think the fundamental question you are asking is how much proof do you require, or how much margin for error are you able to accept, for you to live a life of Christian faith. And faith takes a leap (Kierkegaard reference) because I don't believe anyone can 100% prove Christianity just as I believe it can't be 100% disproven. So, looking at all the evidence, or different ways God has revealed himself to you, is that enough for you to leap to faith and step out in a life of putting your weight down in the trustworthiness of God.
-
One issue I have with the American Evangelical Church is that it has created this atmosphere of being in love with Jesus (being on fire) like it's a romantic feeling. I have never found anywhere in the bible where Jesus calls us to feel our love for him. Rather he asks us to act out our love for him by putting our faith in him as a redeemer of sin and by being obedient to him. This is a love I can show I can do whether I feel like it or not.
While I have no doubt that it could easily fall out of balance, I thought immediately of this exhortation at the end of letter to Corinth: "If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!" The term love there is phileo which is a much more casual type of love (usually used of a friendship or courting-like relationship). "O Lord, come" is maranatha and implied the idea of a deep relationship.
-
H, Over the past few months I've really grown to like you. Please, for the love of God, don't go on fire for Jesus. People like that are so fake, annoying, and hazardously dangerous to themselves and those around them. I know people that are like that, and every day they become more and more self delusional, it's really a sad sight to see.
I hope I offend no one with this post. Not my intention at all.
For a few years, these were the types I surrounded myself with. I've met some genuinely good people in the process, and I am still "connected" to the gang via facebook, but the way they are as opposed to what they do gets at me. They will put a billion Jesus statuses a day but if you saw them in real life, you wouldn't think they were a Christian. Even bringing up topics in Christianity made you get weird looks.
I used to think the people at the Church in Christ here in town were boring and uninspired, but the opposite of that is, like Quad said, dangerous. That kind of stuff affected me and my learning spiritual self. I felt like I was surrounded by hypocrites with these "Jesus freaks." I don't really hang out with any of them except the ones who are grounded in reality.
I love those people as brothers/sisters in the faith, but dangit, it's not worth it to associate myself with them anymore.
-
I think that holds for both sides really. I have this friend who is "openly atheist" and goddamnit, he really gets on my nerves and makes me recoil at the association with atheism.
rumborak
-
I think that holds for both sides really. I have this friend who is "openly atheist" and goddamnit, he really gets on my nerves and makes me recoil at the association with atheism.
rumborak
Good point, it does indeed go both ways. There are clearly those on both sides of the spectrum that could use a reality check.
-
I think that holds for both sides really. I have this friend who is "openly atheist" and goddamnit, he really gets on my nerves and makes me recoil at the association with atheism.
rumborak
Oh I bet...it's the whole militant stance on it.
Yeah, I want people to know Jesus and I share the gospel with them, but it isn't the "in your face" way...I only do it when it seems appropriate to even talk about it.
-
Yeah, I have a militant Christian cousin. Always posting on facebook how Jesus is our savior. She killed so many with that sermon she posted a few days ago. I just don't know why so many Christians have to be so militant about there positions? Just last month a street street preacher wounded hundreds and killed many more there were bodies everywhere.
A couple of Jews disagreed with the preacher and now Kingston is nothing but a crater in the ground.
-
I think this is an interesting article about the Bible and one I tend to agree with more than not (there are a few things I take issue with in the article).
https://chronicle.com/article/The-Bible-Is-Dead-Long-Live/127099/
One issue I have with the American Evangelical Church is that it has created this atmosphere of being in love with Jesus (being on fire) like it's a romantic feeling. I have never found anywhere in the bible where Jesus calls us to feel our love for him. Rather he asks us to act out our love for him by putting our faith in him as a redeemer of sin and by being obedient to him. This is a love I can show I can do whether I feel like it or not.
I also don't like how the church has created this idea that the Bible is some magical book that was brought down from the heaven's on the wings of doves with an angelic chorus singing in the background. My perception is, just like anything else that has human involvement, the Bible is not a perfect text. the fact is, it was written by man, edited by man, and compiled by man, and i see plenty of room for errors. But at the same time i do think the text was inspired by God and that the theology it promotes is truth even if it gets it facts wrong here and there.
I think the fundamental question you are asking is how much proof do you require, or how much margin for error are you able to accept, for you to live a life of Christian faith. And faith takes a leap (Kierkegaard reference) because I don't believe anyone can 100% prove Christianity just as I believe it can't be 100% disproven. So, looking at all the evidence, or different ways God has revealed himself to you, is that enough for you to leap to faith and step out in a life of putting your weight down in the trustworthiness of God.
I was thinking as I read, "that's solid analysis for a newspaper." Then I seen that it's written by a professor of religion and not published in a newspaper. The faith reference is incorrect, but it's a good article.
-
We have great reason to believe that the Earth is billions of years old, and not 6000.
The Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6000 years old.
-
We have great reason to believe that the Earth is billions of years old, and not 6000.
The Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6000 years old.
What do you think of the genealogies in Genesis?
-
I don't accept the notion that the Earth only came into existence at the time of the genealogies, especially considering that everything else that exists on the Earth (water, animals, plants, etc) were created earlier in the story, hence the Earth already existed before those genealogies. And there's the fact that the length of time for the creation story is pretty loose since it was pretty allegorical.
-
Yeah, I have a militant Christian cousin. Always posting on facebook how Jesus is our savior. She killed so many with that sermon she posted a few days ago. I just don't know why so many Christians have to be so militant about there positions? Just last month a street street preacher wounded hundreds and killed many more there were bodies everywhere.
A couple of Jews disagreed with the preacher and now Kingston is nothing but a crater in the ground.
:tard
-
I don't accept the notion that the Earth only came into existence at the time of the genealogies, especially considering that everything else that exists on the Earth (water, animals, plants, etc) were created earlier in the story, hence the Earth already existed before those genealogies. And there's the fact that the length of time for the creation story is pretty loose since it was pretty allegorical.
So old earth creationism where the days of creation are representative of ages of time?
H, if every part of the body of Christ were an eye how could we walk? You are a precious part of Christianity. I sometimes feel as if I'm stuck between the idea of a reasoned out faith and being on fire for God, from my understanding of where I am all it causes me to do is rely so much more on the Grace of God, I don't know who I am sometimes but find solace in him. I want to encourage you to pray and think about it heavily.
-
So, I recently started an account at richarddawkins.net. I must say, I am not at all swayed or convinced by any of their arguments. But, of course, seeing as I'm in the minority, they think they are winning. I think that I overgeneralize people, but based on how they are responding, they are worse than I am. I even asked for their respect in keeping the mockery and ridicule (which is unfortunately common in Internet atheists, I've found) to a minimum, to which most replied that I deserve no respect seeing as I'm arguing for the resurrection. It's pretty annoying, but w/e.
If you want to see the topic I've been posting in, it's https://richarddawkins.net/articles/612104-dealing-with-william-lane-craig#page35. Same username as here. starting at page 35.
-
I think the likelihood of you having a constructive discussion there are slim to none.
You'd be better off just posting here.
-
I think the likelihood of you having a constructive discussion there are slim to none.
You'd be better off just posting here.
I think you're right. But...but...my pride is telling me I can't leave until all of them are convinced! ARGH.
-
So, I recently started an account at richarddawkins.net. I must say, I am not at all swayed or convinced by any of their arguments. But, of course, seeing as I'm in the minority, they think they are winning. I think that I overgeneralize people, but based on how they are responding, they are worse than I am. I even asked for their respect in keeping the mockery and ridicule (which is unfortunately common in Internet atheists, I've found) to a minimum, to which most replied that I deserve no respect seeing as I'm arguing for the resurrection. It's pretty annoying, but w/e.
If you want to see the topic I've been posting in, it's https://richarddawkins.net/articles/612104-dealing-with-william-lane-craig#page35. Same username as here. starting at page 35.
Sadly, the reaction you are getting there doesn't surprise me. Not that all etheists are jerks who don't respect others--that clearly isn't the case, and there are plenty of people who don't believe but who are respectful and articulate. But think about the fact that it is an Internet forum. And think about what kind of Internet forum it is. Yeah...
-
I think the likelihood of you having a constructive discussion there are slim to none.
You'd be better off just posting here.
I think you're right. But...but...my pride is telling me I can't leave until all of them are convinced! ARGH.
Think about the fact that, not only did Jesus convince only a MINORITY of people he spoke to, but even the people in his hometown who had known him his whole life tried to kill him.
-
I think the likelihood of you having a constructive discussion there are slim to none.
You'd be better off just posting here.
I think you're right. But...but...my pride is telling me I can't leave until all of them are convinced! ARGH.
That is one of the attitudes that actually turns people off of christianity. When you go in with the attitude "You're all wrong, I'm right and I won't leave till you all admit how wrong your lives have been", then non christians really don't like that.
-
I think the likelihood of you having a constructive discussion there are slim to none.
You'd be better off just posting here.
I think you're right. But...but...my pride is telling me I can't leave until all of them are convinced! ARGH.
That is one of the attitudes that actually turns people off of christianity. When you go in with the attitude "You're all wrong, I'm right and I won't leave till you all admit how wrong your lives have been", then non christians really don't like that.
Yeah, I know, it's something I'm trying to work on.
-
So, I recently started an account at richarddawkins.net. I must say, I am not at all swayed or convinced by any of their arguments. But, of course, seeing as I'm in the minority, they think they are winning. I think that I overgeneralize people, but based on how they are responding, they are worse than I am. I even asked for their respect in keeping the mockery and ridicule (which is unfortunately common in Internet atheists, I've found) to a minimum, to which most replied that I deserve no respect seeing as I'm arguing for the resurrection. It's pretty annoying, but w/e.
If you want to see the topic I've been posting in, it's https://richarddawkins.net/articles/612104-dealing-with-william-lane-craig#page35. Same username as here. starting at page 35.
Your making good arguments, dude, especially about dates for the Gospels. But it's probably a waste of time to labor in that thread, as others have mentioned.
-
Remember, it's a Richard Dawkins forum, so you're likely to be met with the same crude and condescending rhetoric from most of the members there as the man they follow.
-
I wouldn't say I've been "on fire" (whatever that means) for Jesus in a while.
Throughout the last 10 years of my life, I've been at lots of different places with my life with Christ.
I have been that guy out on campus doing open-air preaching (though not the "you're all going to hell" type preaching).
I have been the charismatic believer who had deeply emotional encounters with the Spirit that manifested in strange ways (i.e. slain in the Spirit), encounters which I still believe were real.
I have been the intellectual seminary student studying all the relevant sources, sometimes to the point of arrogance towards others not "in the know" (whether an atheist or the Christian in some country Georgia church), other times to the point of not knowing what to believe anymore.
I have also dealt with severe mental illness (bipolar disorder) that nearly destroyed my marriage and life, during which I found very little support from a lot of the Christian "community" I belonged to (though there were some very important individuals who stood by me).
Now I find myself preparing to become a high school teacher, as opposed to the pastor or biblical scholar I thought I'd be just a few years ago. I haven't attended church much at all the past 2 years because my current job in retail does not allow it. I rarely read my Bible and don't often pray unless I have a strong need to. I don't have any of the feelings of a "strong" or "on-fire" relationship with God. Yet, I certainly consider myself a Christian, still think it contains the most truth, and my wife and I are trying our best to raise our son with a knowledge of Jesus.
I still have certain convictions which are very strong, such as recently when a lot of Christians I know were celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden. My wife and I both are very much of a pacifistic bent, and the pro-militarism of our society disgusts me. Yet I have friends who are like: "how are you going to speak out on that issue when you post rap songs on the internet that have cursing and glorify drugs, murder, etc.?" While for the most part I feel like such friends are wrong and have a very restricted view of art, a part of me wonders if they have a point.
Sometimes I feel like the biggest hypocrite, but I remind myself that's it's still a relationship with Christ. Sometimes in a relationship, you're not particularly close to the other person. I wish I was closer to him (sometimes), but right now now I find myself kind of in this apathetic place.
Or perhaps it's not apathy at all but that I mentally connect being "on fire" for Christ to all those things -- zealous witnessing, charismatic fervor, legalistic attitudes on cursing, etc. -- that I just can't go back to. And maybe I just haven't fully become comfortable with this new way of being Christian that I am experiencing.
Anyway: thoughts of a dry brain in a dry season.
TL; DR.
-
Thanks for sharing contest. I have been learning that there is wisdom in pacing ourselves spiritually just as it is physically
-
I don't accept the notion that the Earth only came into existence at the time of the genealogies, especially considering that everything else that exists on the Earth (water, animals, plants, etc) were created earlier in the story, hence the Earth already existed before those genealogies. And there's the fact that the length of time for the creation story is pretty loose since it was pretty allegorical.
So old earth creationism where the days of creation are representative of ages of time?
I guess that's a close description of what I believe. Although, I wouldn't quite say each day really represents an age of time, since I think each day represents an amount of time that's not really defined (and it's not really necessary that each of those days truly represent the same amount of time either considering the allegorical nature I see in this particular story).
-
I've always found that the best way to be a Christian and express yourself in a Christian way and have an impact on others is (shocking, I know) to just do what Jesus said to do: love your neighbor, feed the hungry, comfort the weary, help the helpless. Get off your ass and go be useful to someone. Real Christianity isn't thinking but doing. The rest is just details.
Jesus was kind of on to something there.
-
Jesus was kind of on to something there.
Hef, I know you previously stated that you believed Jesus was the son of God, but do you believe that Jesus was God?
And do you believe that Jesus could be mistaken in any of his claims, such as acknowledging the existence of Adam and the flood, or even acknowledging the existence of hell?
-
Jesus was kind of on to something there.
Hef, I know you previously stated that you believed Jesus was the son of God, but do you believe that Jesus was God?
Kind of. It's complicated.
And do you believe that Jesus could be mistaken in any of his claims, such as acknowledging the existence of Adam and the flood, or even acknowledging the existence of hell?
When he was on earth, walking around and teaching? Yes. But IMO, I don't think that matters much, because we don't know for certain what he actually said about any of that, so for me it's kind of a hypothetical question.
-
Jesus was kind of on to something there.
Hef, I know you previously stated that you believed Jesus was the son of God, but do you believe that Jesus was God?
Kind of. It's complicated.
I have trouble seeing how the answer to that question could be anything other than "yes" or "no". Would you mind explaining?
And do you believe that Jesus could be mistaken in any of his claims, such as acknowledging the existence of Adam and the flood, or even acknowledging the existence of hell?
When he was on earth, walking around and teaching? Yes. But IMO, I don't think that matters much, because we don't know for certain what he actually said about any of that, so for me it's kind of a hypothetical question.
Well, I guess the natural follow-up question is, how do you decide what is God's teaching and what is man's teaching? For example, if we assume that 50% of Jesus' sayings in the Bible were accurate, and 50% were fabricated, how do you know what is an what isn't?
-
Jesus was kind of on to something there.
Hef, I know you previously stated that you believed Jesus was the son of God, but do you believe that Jesus was God?
Kind of. It's complicated.
I have trouble seeing how the answer to that question could be anything other than "yes" or "no". Would you mind explaining?
In the living Jesus now, I see the reflection of everything that God is. But I don't think Jesus was pre-existent, and I don't think that Jesus was of the divine substance at any point prior to his resurrection.
And do you believe that Jesus could be mistaken in any of his claims, such as acknowledging the existence of Adam and the flood, or even acknowledging the existence of hell?
When he was on earth, walking around and teaching? Yes. But IMO, I don't think that matters much, because we don't know for certain what he actually said about any of that, so for me it's kind of a hypothetical question.
Well, I guess the natural follow-up question is, how do you decide what is God's teaching and what is man's teaching? For example, if we assume that 50% of Jesus' sayings in the Bible were accurate, and 50% were fabricated, how do you know what is an what isn't?
That's not a simple answer, and there are volumes and volumes of scholarly research devoted to that very question.
-
I just finished The God Delusion. I basically got two things from it:
1. The argument from complexity of design. Dawkins assumes that a designer must be more complex than his design. The present universe is very improbable due to its complexity. If this universe was designed, then the designer must be even more improbable. Therefore, God probably does not exist.
There are two problems I have with it. First, Dawkins assumes (and admits he assumes) that God is subject to scientific principles and can be scientifically analyzed, just like everything else we know in the material world. That seems like a jump. Second, if Dawkins assumption is true, then all he has really shown is that a certain type of God is improbable: the God that created everything in a moment of time. He hasn't shown that a "progressive creationist" God is improbable, a type of God that created a universe with very simple principles from which emerges complexity.
2. A warning to being religious. From violence to indoctrination of children, there are a number of problems that can arise from any religion. I don't disagree with him. I don't think that these characteristics are at all relevant to determining the truth of them, but I do think that some religions are "worse" than atheism. I realize that in my journey, I need to be very careful in coming to whatever belief I end up coming to.
So, with that book out of the way, does anyone have any recommendations or ideas to where I should go next?
Here's my quick brainstorm:
- More New Atheism books, like God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens.
- A The God Delusion refutation, like The Dawkins Delusion.
- A theist book.
- A Christian book, such as Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.
- The Quran.
- A book by Bart Ehrman.
-
I just finished The God Delusion. I basically got two things from it:
1. The argument from complexity of design. Dawkins assumes that a designer must be more complex than his design. The present universe is very improbable due to its complexity. If this universe was designed, then the designer must be even more improbable. Therefore, God probably does not exist.
There are two problems I have with it. First, Dawkins assumes (and admits he assumes) that God is subject to scientific principles and can be scientifically analyzed, just like everything else we know in the material world. That seems like a jump. Second, if Dawkins assumption is true, then all he has really shown is that a certain type of God is improbable: the God that created everything in a moment of time. He hasn't shown that a "progressive creationist" God is improbable, a type of God that created a universe with very simple principles from which emerges complexity.
2. A warning to being religious. From violence to indoctrination of children, there are a number of problems that can arise from any religion. I don't disagree with him. I don't think that these characteristics are at all relevant to determining the truth of them, but I do think that some religions are "worse" than atheism. I realize that in my journey, I need to be very careful in coming to whatever belief I end up coming to.
So, with that book out of the way, does anyone have any recommendations or ideas to where I should go next?
Here's my quick brainstorm:
- More New Atheism books, like God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens.
- A The God Delusion refutation, like The Dawkins Delusion.
- A theist book.
- A Christian book, such as Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.
- The Quran.
- A book by Bart Ehrman.
Why read books about showing the dubiousness of religion? I am an atheist and never finished the God delusion. Not because I thought it was bad but I was already aware of much what he was saying. Just read about science. Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth, is a really good book.
Regarding point number one: If you maintain a deist position, no a god would not necessarily be more complex. However if you are maintaining the Christian belief it most certainly would need to be more complex. Also there is no such thing as super-nature, if it exists it is nature.
-
You speak as though those are immutable facts, but there are many, many knowledgable people who would disagree with a good amount of the things you said.
EDIT: To respond more directly to what you're saying:
- When in doubt, just read it.
- The Christian God does not "certainly" need to be more complex.
- I've seen no good reason to believe something can't be above nature.
-
If anyone can explain how something can exist outside of nature feel free. The term supernatural is a term for magic or a term for I don't know but something with intelligence must have done it. As far as the god complexity thing, I know many, many knowledgeable people that would agree. What is your point?
-
The term supernatural is a term for magic or a term for I don't know but something with intelligence must have done it.
No. "Supernatural" is a term for something above nature.
As far as the god complexity thing, I know many, many knowledgeable people that would agree. What is your point?
My point is that, to paraphrase something bosk1 said a while back, simply saying something is "most certainly" something else doesn't help your argument at all. It's just fluff. Why don't you tell me why the Christian God is "most certainly" too complex, rather than just saying it is so?
-
Brother, my only suggestion would be not to try to learn from extremists on any side of the debate. If an atheist wanted to learn about Christianity, would you tell them to check out The Westboro Baptist Church?
-
Brother, my only suggestion would be not to try to learn from extremists on any side of the debate. If an atheist wanted to learn about Christianity, would you tell them to check out The Westboro Baptist Church?
That is a good point.
Well, it's hard to know who is actually extremist until I actually check them out. I don't want their reputation to shoo me away. And as long as I keep in mind that their views are not the views of all members of their side, then I think that as long as I keep reading, then I'm on the right path.
-
Brother, my only suggestion would be not to try to learn from extremists on any side of the debate. If an atheist wanted to learn about Christianity, would you tell them to check out The Westboro Baptist Church?
That is a good point.
Well, it's hard to know who is actually extremist until I actually check them out. I don't want their reputation to shoo me away. And as long as I keep in mind that their views are not the views of all members of their side, then I think that as long as I keep reading, then I'm on the right path.
True, but there are lots of atheists here who can show you the way around them. But if you seek out the extremists, it will prove only that your goal is find reason to disagree with them, which would render your entire explained purpose moot and futile.
When I wanted to learn about Islam, I sought out moderate islamic scholars, I didn't chat up a terrorist cell.
-
Jesus was kind of on to something there.
Hef, I know you previously stated that you believed Jesus was the son of God, but do you believe that Jesus was God?
Kind of. It's complicated.
I have trouble seeing how the answer to that question could be anything other than "yes" or "no". Would you mind explaining?
In the living Jesus now, I see the reflection of everything that God is. But I don't think Jesus was pre-existent, and I don't think that Jesus was of the divine substance at any point prior to his resurrection.
What is your interpretation, then, of the Christ hymn? Not trying to stir things up; I'm just interested.
@ H: this is an article by N.T. Wright (one of the world's foremost Jesus scholars) on the issue of Jesus and the identity of God. I think it's really illuminating:
https://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_JIG.htm
-
What is your interpretation, then, of the Christ hymn? Not trying to stir things up; I'm just interested.
What do you mean by "the Christ hymn"? Are you talking about the kenosis hymn quoted by Paul?
-
What is your interpretation, then, of the Christ hymn? Not trying to stir things up; I'm just interested.
What do you mean by "the Christ hymn"? Are you talking about the kenosis hymn quoted by Paul?
Yes, and I should have just called it Phil. 2:5-11. My bad.
-
My suggestions:
- More New Atheism books, like God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. lol, why?
- A The God Delusion refutation, like The Dawkins Delusion. What's so great about Christianity? - puts bitches (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris) in their designated places. D'Souza's treatment of the problem of evil, Christianity's crimes (Salem witch trials, etc.) is fantastic. Chapters on science are a little weak, but still a worthy read.
- A theist book. - Anything by Alvin Plantiga.
- A Christian book, such as Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig. - Craig Bolmberg's The historical reliability of the Gospels
- The Quran. - Sounds lovely
- A book by Bart Ehrman. - Misquoting Jesus is really good. He inadvertently debunks a lot of bad arguments against the text's reliability.
-
My serious recommendation for the best books to understand atheism: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy.
-
What is your interpretation, then, of the Christ hymn? Not trying to stir things up; I'm just interested.
What do you mean by "the Christ hymn"? Are you talking about the kenosis hymn quoted by Paul?
Yes, and I should have just called it Phil. 2:5-11. My bad.
OK. For the convenience of everyone I will go ahead and post it here (from the NET). Note that the hymn proper is doesn't include verse 5, but rather consists of 6-11.
2:6 who though he existed in the form of God
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,
2:7 but emptied himself
by taking on the form of a slave,
by looking like other men,
and by sharing in human nature.
2:8 He humbled himself,
by becoming obedient to the point of death
– even death on a cross!
2:9 As a result God exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
2:10 so that at the name of Jesus
every knee will bow
– in heaven and on earth and under the earth –
2:11 and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord
to the glory of God the Father.
First of all, about the text as we have it: I agree with you that it is a hymn, as do many other scholars, but this is not a universal opinion among scholars: not all see this passage as having the necessary qualities of a hymn. But I do. Furthermore, I think the hymn predates Paul. I think this is one of the older pieces of writing in Christian history, and Paul uses it as an example. I do not think this hymn is original with Paul.
The hymn can easily be broken down into two sections of three verses each: The Condescension (or Self-Humbling) of Christ (verses 6-8) and the Exaltation of Christ (verses 9-11). The term kenosis comes from verse 7 ("he emptied himself"), and is the key of the theology of the hymn.
Speaking of the theology of the hymn, it seems to be that, rather than clinging to his Godness, Christ humbled himself to become human and suffer death on the cross. Therefore, God responded to this act of humility and obedience by exalting Christ above all other creation.
Clearly, the author of the hymn believed that Jesus was equivalent with God well before the events of his life on earth. But that doesn't mean that Paul necessarily agreed (although he certainly may have), because that isn't the point Paul is making here. His point is that Jesus humbled himself for the sake of others, and he is giving this example as a means of exhorting the Phillipians to do the same thing (see 2:1-4). Rather than seeking their own good, Christians should work for the good of others. The kenosis hymn isn't the only example of this that Paul uses in this letter; he claims that he himself is willing to be sacrificed for them (2:17), that Timothy seeks the interests of others rather than himself (2:19-24), and that the Phillipians' own Epaphroditus had risked everything for the sake of others (2:25-31). Paul intends for the Phillipians to follow these worthy examples, living together in self-sacrificing love.
Do I agree with Paul's point here? Yes, I most certainly do. I think self-sacrificing love is the heart of Jesus's teachings. But do I agree with the divine origins of Christ as testified in the kenosis hymn? No, I don't. I think that a divine origin is something that was attributed to Jesus fairly early after his death and resurrection. I also don't think that Paul's inclusion of the hymn necessarily means that he believes in any such thing (although again, he certainly could have). I think he is using it in its complete form because as such, it would be something that his Phillipian audience would already knew and used in their own worship. I realize that is only one possible explanation, but is the one that seems most likely to me.
But assuming that Paul DID believe in such divine origins for Jesus, I still don't agree. Mostly because there is no record in the Synoptic Gospels of Jesus ever telling anyone any such thing while he was on this earth. I believe that all such divine statuses for Jesus are post-crucifixion attributions by his fervent followers, nothing more.
But hey, that's just my $0.02.
EDIT: @GP: especially God's Final Message To His Creation.
EDIT 2: BrotherH, I would suggest The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright.
-
My serious recommendation for the best books to understand atheism: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy.
QFT
My first post in this forum, and it probably bears some background. I was a Christian for 25 years, a pastor and theology teacher for 10 of those. I've left Christianity behind over the course of the last 5 years (or rather, it has left me behind) because of some of the very doubts and issues the OP mentioned. Over the course of those 25 years I taught myself to read Hebrew and Greek well enough that I was able to discard English versions of the Bible, and spent most of my full-time job as a pastor studying Old Testament and 1st century Jewish culture and language.
I eventually came to the conclusion, after 25 years of heart-felt searching, that the historicity of the Bible was questionable at best - though I have a great deal of respect for it as a piece of literature. It is brilliantly assembled and worth the many hours I spent with it. I also found the theology to be psychologically damaging to myself and others over the course of those years, based on hundreds of hours of counseling with individuals who, at their foundation, were suffering from the long term effects of cognitive dissonance over many of the contradictory messages of Biblical theology.
I was able to sift though all of this by trying to remove the idea of God from the equation of my life. Trying to interpret and view my experiences through the lens of the Bible, and trying to reconcile them with it's teachings and doctrines, was very confusing and frustrating. However, when I simply considered that there may be no God at all, suddenly the cause and effect of almost every puzzling experience became clear and made total sense.
And oddly enough, my questions and misgivings did indeed begin with my initial read of The Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy, where Adams sticks his thumb right into the middle of so many issues that had been niggling away in the back of my brain for years. :P
-
My suggestions:
- More New Atheism books, like God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. lol, why?
- A The God Delusion refutation, like The Dawkins Delusion. What's so great about Christianity? - puts bitches (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris) in their designated places. D'Souza's treatment of the problem of evil, Christianity's crimes (Salem witch trials, etc.) is fantastic. Chapters on science are a little weak, but still a worthy read.
- A theist book. - Anything by Alvin Plantiga.
- A Christian book, such as Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig. - Craig Bolmberg's The historical reliability of the Gospels
- The Quran. - Sounds lovely
- A book by Bart Ehrman. - Misquoting Jesus is really good. He inadvertently debunks a lot of bad arguments against the text's reliability.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, and if I am I apologize. But it seems that aside from the Quran you're just suggesting things that will strengthen his christian beliefs as opposed to learning about much else.
-
My suggestions:
- More New Atheism books, like God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. lol, why?
- A The God Delusion refutation, like The Dawkins Delusion. What's so great about Christianity? - puts bitches (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris) in their designated places. D'Souza's treatment of the problem of evil, Christianity's crimes (Salem witch trials, etc.) is fantastic. Chapters on science are a little weak, but still a worthy read.
- A theist book. - Anything by Alvin Plantiga.
- A Christian book, such as Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig. - Craig Bolmberg's The historical reliability of the Gospels
- The Quran. - Sounds lovely
- A book by Bart Ehrman. - Misquoting Jesus is really good. He inadvertently debunks a lot of bad arguments against the text's reliability.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, and if I am I apologize. But it seems that aside from the Quran you're just suggesting things that will strengthen his christian beliefs as opposed to learning about much else.
That may indeed be the effect, but I'm only suggesting categories of books he's going to read anyway. But just so I can't be accused of unfair recommendations, read any of the books written bythis guy (https://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3ARichard+Carrier&keywords=Richard+Carrier&ie=UTF8&qid=1309828661&sr=8-2-ent&field-contributor_id=B001K8LYEM). I vehemently disagree with almost everything he says, but he's an actual historian and a decent writer.
-
Wildsilas. Welcome to the forum and p/r. I am sad to hear of anyone losing their faith and I know it can be a challenge, so you have my sympathy. Since we are all sharing testimonies of losing faith I only want to add that I spent 18 years without god in reckless abandon. Since I found him though my faith has only grown over last 23 years. I constantly challenge my convictions and will continue to do so. But as job declared, I know that my redeemer lives
-
Having your faith strengthened by reading Misquoting Jesus must require some special reading.
rumborak
-
My serious recommendation for the best books to understand atheism: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy.
QFT
My first post in this forum, and it probably bears some background. I was a Christian for 25 years, a pastor and theology teacher for 10 of those. I've left Christianity behind over the course of the last 5 years (or rather, it has left me behind) because of some of the very doubts and issues the OP mentioned. Over the course of those 25 years I taught myself to read Hebrew and Greek well enough that I was able to discard English versions of the Bible, and spent most of my full-time job as a pastor studying Old Testament and 1st century Jewish culture and language.
I eventually came to the conclusion, after 25 years of heart-felt searching, that the historicity of the Bible was questionable at best - though I have a great deal of respect for it as a piece of literature. It is brilliantly assembled and worth the many hours I spent with it. I also found the theology to be psychologically damaging to myself and others over the course of those years, based on hundreds of hours of counseling with individuals who, at their foundation, were suffering from the long term effects of cognitive dissonance over many of the contradictory messages of Biblical theology.
I was able to sift though all of this by trying to remove the idea of God from the equation of my life. Trying to interpret and view my experiences through the lens of the Bible, and trying to reconcile them with it's teachings and doctrines, was very confusing and frustrating. However, when I simply considered that there may be no God at all, suddenly the cause and effect of almost every puzzling experience became clear and made total sense.
And oddly enough, my questions and misgivings did indeed begin with my initial read of The Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy, where Adams sticks his thumb right into the middle of so many issues that had been niggling away in the back of my brain for years. :P
Great first post. Welcome to the forums :tup Hopefully you can stick around for the many good P/R debates we have around here :)
-
Having your faith strengthened by reading Misquoting Jesus must require some special reading.
rumborak
Why? Admittedly, that's not Ehrman's goal, but he does a lot of damage to some of the more fanciful arguments made against the text's reliability. He also admits that textual critics have been able to reconstruct the original readings of the NT books reasonably well.
-
Thanks everyone - not sure why I didn't register here long ago. I've been lurking since the Score days. Most everyone seems like my kind of people, relatively calm and rational, even in disagreement.
Wildsilas. Welcome to the forum and p/r. I am sad to hear of anyone losing their faith and I know it can be a challenge, so you have my sympathy. Since we are all sharing testimonies of losing faith I only want to add that I spent 18 years without god in reckless abandon. Since I found him though my faith has only grown over last 23 years. I constantly challenge my convictions and will continue to do so. But as job declared, I know that my redeemer lives
I wish it had worked for me, I really do. I tried so hard, and then stopped trying and just tried to be content and let it work, but in the end, I had to face the fact that despite my desperate searching, I had found nothing that wan't self-manufactured, and I really had no great gaping need in my life for anything or anyone supernatural. I'm happier than ever being a husband and father, despite the fact that I'm on a heart transplant list. You'd think a life-threatening medical problem would have driven me closer to God, but in fact, it made me face the reality of randomness and the fact that I'm very small in the context of the history of the universe (rather than the center of it, as the Bible teaches), and that has actually brought me greater comfort and security than faith ever did. I don't understand why it works for some people and not for others, I just know that I sought hard after God for 25 years and came up empty handed in the end. It was very scary and sad to realize that at first, but once I got through the shock of it, I came out on the other side with all the peace and contentment that I sought through faith but never found. I wouldn't go back for anything because now I feel more free than I ever imagined I could.
Didn't mean to hi-jack the thread, I just find that when people are struggling either intellectually or emotionally with religious issues, it sometimes helps to take a step back and entertain the forbidden question: "What if I'm just making this all up in my mind?"
-
Welcome, WildeSilas. It's always nice to see new faces, and since you know some history as well as Greek and Hebrew, that means you can add depth to our conversations.
And since you brought it up, what convinced you that you we're "just making this all up in my mind?"
-
Thanks everyone - not sure why I didn't register here long ago. I've been lurking since the Score days. Most everyone seems like my kind of people, relatively calm and rational, even in disagreement.
Wildsilas. Welcome to the forum and p/r. I am sad to hear of anyone losing their faith and I know it can be a challenge, so you have my sympathy. Since we are all sharing testimonies of losing faith I only want to add that I spent 18 years without god in reckless abandon. Since I found him though my faith has only grown over last 23 years. I constantly challenge my convictions and will continue to do so. But as job declared, I know that my redeemer lives
I wish it had worked for me, I really do. I tried so hard, and then stopped trying and just tried to be content and let it work, but in the end, I had to face the fact that despite my desperate searching, I had found nothing that wan't self-manufactured, and I really had no great gaping need in my life for anything or anyone supernatural. I'm happier than ever being a husband and father, despite the fact that I'm on a heart transplant list. You'd think a life-threatening medical problem would have driven me closer to God, but in fact, it made me face the reality of randomness and the fact that I'm very small in the context of the history of the universe (rather than the center of it, as the Bible teaches), and that has actually brought me greater comfort and security than faith ever did. I don't understand why it works for some people and not for others, I just know that I sought hard after God for 25 years and came up empty handed in the end. It was very scary and sad to realize that at first, but once I got through the shock of it, I came out on the other side with all the peace and contentment that I sought through faith but never found. I wouldn't go back for anything because now I feel more free than I ever imagined I could.
Didn't mean to hi-jack the thread, I just find that when people are struggling either intellectually or emotionally with religious issues, it sometimes helps to take a step back and entertain the forbidden question: "What if I'm just making this all up in my mind?"
I can't imagine how hard of a time that must have been for you...I know others here have been through similar experiences. Thanks for your honesty
-
Thanks everyone - not sure why I didn't register here long ago. I've been lurking since the Score days. Most everyone seems like my kind of people, relatively calm and rational, even in disagreement.
Wildsilas. Welcome to the forum and p/r. I am sad to hear of anyone losing their faith and I know it can be a challenge, so you have my sympathy. Since we are all sharing testimonies of losing faith I only want to add that I spent 18 years without god in reckless abandon. Since I found him though my faith has only grown over last 23 years. I constantly challenge my convictions and will continue to do so. But as job declared, I know that my redeemer lives
I wish it had worked for me, I really do. I tried so hard, and then stopped trying and just tried to be content and let it work, but in the end, I had to face the fact that despite my desperate searching, I had found nothing that wan't self-manufactured, and I really had no great gaping need in my life for anything or anyone supernatural. I'm happier than ever being a husband and father, despite the fact that I'm on a heart transplant list. You'd think a life-threatening medical problem would have driven me closer to God, but in fact, it made me face the reality of randomness and the fact that I'm very small in the context of the history of the universe (rather than the center of it, as the Bible teaches),
The bible says we don't run the universe, God does.
and that has actually brought me greater comfort and security than faith ever did. I don't understand why it works for some people and not for others, I just know that I sought hard after God for 25 years and came up empty handed in the end. It was very scary and sad to realize that at first, but once I got through the shock of it, I came out on the other side with all the peace and contentment that I sought through faith but never found. I wouldn't go back for anything because now I feel more free than I ever imagined I could.
Didn't mean to hi-jack the thread, I just find that when people are struggling either intellectually or emotionally with religious issues, it sometimes helps to take a step back and entertain the forbidden question: "What if I'm just making this all up in my mind?"
I would be making it up I think if i said I was "certain" Jesus was the son of God or that I'm certain that "life is eternal" as the buddhists say. But isn't the point that we are making it all up in our minds anyway and that we can't perceive or know everything on a thought level so the question of "what is reality?" remains.
-
But assuming that Paul DID believe in such divine origins for Jesus, I still don't agree. Mostly because there is no record in the Synoptic Gospels of Jesus ever telling anyone any such thing while he was on this earth. I believe that all such divine statuses for Jesus are post-crucifixion attributions by his fervent followers, nothing more.
But hey, that's just my $0.02.
EDIT: @GP: especially God's Final Message To His Creation.
EDIT 2: BrotherH, I would suggest The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright.
If he was resurrected, how is he not divine?
-
I was able to sift though all of this by trying to remove the idea of God from the equation of my life. Trying to interpret and view my experiences through the lens of the Bible, and trying to reconcile them with it's teachings and doctrines, was very confusing and frustrating. However, when I simply considered that there may be no God at all, suddenly the cause and effect of almost every puzzling experience became clear and made total sense.
Although I was never so deep into Christianity as you were my experience was pretty much the same. It was such a liberating feeling that the world suddenly made so much more sense once you accept that there is no God, like a veil had been lifted from my eyes.
-
My problem with the whole Atheistic view of science and complexity and God is that it presumes that man is able to understand exactly who God would be, if he existed, by using our own limited knowledge of understanding and rejecting that there may be levels of understanding well beyond what we can even bear to know as humans. It stands to reason that if there is a God that is the creator of the universe and all life that dwells within then this God would be more complex in ways that humans could never conceive by their own understanding. To say that we can is the ultimate display of self-importance and arrogance.
BTW...I hear "Reason For God" by Tim Keller is a great book.
-
So because we can't understand God completely we should just listen to a 2000+ year old book which claims to?
-
My problem with the whole Atheistic view of science and complexity and God is that it presumes that man is able to understand exactly who God would be, if he existed, by using our own limited knowledge of understanding and rejecting that there may be levels of understanding well beyond what we can even bear to know as humans. It stands to reason that if there is a God that is the creator of the universe and all life that dwells within then this God would be more complex in ways that humans could never conceive by their own understanding. To say that we can is the ultimate display of self-importance and arrogance.
BTW...I hear "Reason For God" by Tim Keller is a great book.
I don't follow that reasoning at all actually. There is no requirement for a Creator to be in any way complex. Let's assume for a second that the creation of a universe fell naturally out of Quantum Mechanics (which some say it actually does, see Brian Greene's latest book). Quantum Mechanics is definitely "understandable" by humans.
The conclusion that something big has to have been created by something complex is IMHO a very erroneous conclusion. I for one expect the final explanation of physics (if there is one) to be very simplistic. Maybe not intuitive, but simple. I know Christians tend to be suckers for big things that steer your life, but I think the eventual reality will be vastly different.
rumborak
-
As a Christian who hates it when atheist make up stuff about how Christians are, I hate it even more when a fellow believer does the same back to them.
Being an atheist doesn't say that they think we should/would know everything about God if he exists. It just says they don't believe in God.
-
But assuming that Paul DID believe in such divine origins for Jesus, I still don't agree. Mostly because there is no record in the Synoptic Gospels of Jesus ever telling anyone any such thing while he was on this earth. I believe that all such divine statuses for Jesus are post-crucifixion attributions by his fervent followers, nothing more.
But hey, that's just my $0.02.
EDIT: @GP: especially God's Final Message To His Creation.
EDIT 2: BrotherH, I would suggest The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright.
If he was resurrected, how is he not divine?
What does that have anything to do with it? When and if you or I are resurrected, will you or I be divine?
-
Yeah, I don't see that either. Isn't the idea that God resurrected Jesus, not Jesus himself? (being completely aware that the Trinitarians here might see this as the same thing)
rumborak
-
Yeah, I don't see that either. Isn't the idea that God resurrected Jesus, not Jesus himself? (being completely aware that the Trinitarians here will see it as one and the same thing)
rumborak
That's what I think. God raised Jesus from the dead. Of course, this is also how Paul describes it in 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, and 1 Thessalonians. It is also used thusly in 1 Peter, and in Acts, Colossians, Ephesians, etc.
-
My problem with the whole Atheistic view of science and complexity and God is that it presumes that man is able to understand exactly who God would be, if he existed, by using our own limited knowledge of understanding and rejecting that there may be levels of understanding well beyond what we can even bear to know as humans. It stands to reason that if there is a God that is the creator of the universe and all life that dwells within then this God would be more complex in ways that humans could never conceive by their own understanding. To say that we can is the ultimate display of self-importance and arrogance.
BTW...I hear "Reason For God" by Tim Keller is a great book.
it's not at all like that, I'm (as an atheist) perfectly fine with not knowing everything, I just don't fill those empty spaces with a God.
-
(being completely aware that the Trinitarians here might see this as the same thing)
rumborak
Yep.
-
Welcome, WildeSilas. It's always nice to see new faces, and since you know some history as well as Greek and Hebrew, that means you can add depth to our conversations.
And since you brought it up, what convinced you that you we're "just making this all up in my mind?"
It was many things, too many to detail here. Some specific examples would be:
1) Prayer - despite the assurance of the scriptures that God does hear and answer prayer (though not always in the way we want), I can't honestly say I never saw a specific answer to prayer. Now keep in mind that I not only prayed continually on-and-off all day for almost 25 years, but have also prayed for specific things for people - healing, guidance, wisdom to navigate difficult situations, etc. In most every case, I found that I was eventually left to my own devices to figure out what to do, where to go, or how to handle something. Of course, I tried to use the scripture as a guide, but there are many specific situations in life and counseling where you can only apply biblical principles, but specifics must be decided through some other means. In my case, I wanted to rely on the Holy Spirit, but I can't say that I ever once had any kind of conviction or internal push to do one thing or the other. What I did find however, was that when I made pragmatic decisions based on logic and evidence, it was usually a right or "good" decision in the end. When I did not consider logic and evidence, but rather acted "in faith" for what I thought was the will of God (or should be, according to the biblical principles applied in the situation), the decision typically led to disaster, heartache, and confusion. This became very distressing to me over time as I found that acting in concert with faith (when it contradicted logic and reason) ended badly. It's too much to go into here, but suffice to say that as a result of 25 years of doing this, I ended up bankrupt, despised by the people I was ministering to, on the brink of divorce, physically ill, and fearful for my own physical safety (this all has to do with the fact that I pastored an extremely poor church in the middle of gang-land Little Rock, Arkansas, and physical threats were not uncommon, nor was hunger, poverty, dysfunction, etc.). Either way, after 25 years, I had no "miracle" stories to tell, no inspiring anecdotes of how "God came through" at the last minute to rescue me or anyone else. What I did see was however were the natural consequences of irrational decisions (based on faith) and irresponsible reliance on God to deal with situations where police, psychologists, physicians, and social workers would have been a million times more helpful.
2) Spiritual Growth - despite being a very intense student of the bible, pursuit of mission work, constant prayer, service, and even willingness to sacrifice my life in the work of ministry, I found that after 25 years, I was still pretty much exactly the same person with exactly the same quirks, sins, and struggles that I had been at age 15. I gained a lot of experience and knowledge for sure, but no increase in what Paul refers to as the Fruits of the Spirit. I witnessed this same lack of change in the people around me. If the Holy Spirit makes us "new creatures" and abiding in Christ makes us more like him, why was I simply becoming more like myself, and more like my parents, from whom I've inherited much of my nature? I honestly couldn't point to a single thing in my personality, character, or "spirit" (if you will) that was different as a result of following Jesus all those years. Either something is wrong with the promises of scripture (i.e. there IS no Holy Spirit), or something is wrong with me. Well, of course there's something wrong with me, I'm a sinner, right? I can't achieve Christ-likeness through works. I hope it doesn't sound like that's what I was trying to do. I list these "works" as evidence that my faith had muscle to it - these things were (I felt) a natural response to salvation and being a "new creature" - not the means to it. That said, I was earnestly seeking to be changed, to commune with God, to have a close relationship and communion with him. But in the end, I have no sense that anything supernatural ever happened to me. Any "experience" I had can be easily duplicated by listening to a stirring speech, seeing a movie that moves me, or listening to Octavarium.
I could go on, but the lack of change, lack of seeing tangible answer to prayer, along with constantly having to play theological whack-a-mole with contradictions and competing doctrines made me face the fact that while the whole thing would be awesome if it really were true, and if it really worked, it simply wasn't and didn't. Low and behold, I changed the way I made decisions, stopped praying and looking for answers in the scripture and BOOM pretty much everything in my life straightened out, started to make sense, etc. I also became a better husband and father because I had more time and attention for the things of earth. All the patience, devotion, peace, contentment, financial security, and peace of mind I'd sought through scripture and a relationship with God, I found outside of that whole mindset and culture.
-
My problem with the whole Atheistic view of science and complexity and God is that it presumes that man is able to understand exactly who God would be, if he existed, by using our own limited knowledge of understanding and rejecting that there may be levels of understanding well beyond what we can even bear to know as humans. It stands to reason that if there is a God that is the creator of the universe and all life that dwells within then this God would be more complex in ways that humans could never conceive by their own understanding. To say that we can is the ultimate display of self-importance and arrogance.
BTW...I hear "Reason For God" by Tim Keller is a great book.
I don't follow that reasoning at all actually. There is no requirement for a Creator to be in any way complex. Let's assume for a second that the creation of a universe fell naturally out of Quantum Mechanics (which some say it actually does, see Brian Greene's latest book). Quantum Mechanics is definitely "understandable" by humans.
The conclusion that something big has to have been created by something complex is IMHO a very erroneous conclusion. I for one expect the final explanation of physics (if there is one) to be very simplistic. Maybe not intuitive, but simple. I know Christians tend to be suckers for big things that steer your life, but I think the eventual reality will be vastly different.
rumborak
The problem is complexity is a relative term. We understand it in a human context. God may be something completely different than our human understanding can conceive. He may not be something that can be described in terms of science. Science is of the universe. God created the universe and may dwell beyond all that we as humans understand as the workings of the universe.
Whether then that you want to believe that a creator then is the God of the Bible is a whole different discussion but in no way does the argument of scientific complexity disprove any existence of God. If anything it would seem to support it.
-
As a Christian who hates it when atheist make up stuff about how Christians are, I hate it even more when a fellow believer does the same back to them.
Being an atheist doesn't say that they think we should/would know everything about God if he exists. It just says they don't believe in God.
To be an Atheist by definition infers a reason for God not existing otherwise they would be an Agnostic.
-
As a Christian who hates it when atheist make up stuff about how Christians are, I hate it even more when a fellow believer does the same back to them.
Being an atheist doesn't say that they think we should/would know everything about God if he exists. It just says they don't believe in God.
To be an Atheist by definition infers a reason for God not existing otherwise they would be an Agnostic.
Sigh...
Atheists don't believe in gods. If one doesn't believe in a god, regardless of how sure one is about their lack of belief, they're an atheist.
-
This discussion again?
Reo, atheists don't need reasons to not believe in god anymore than you need a reason to not believe in a great jellybean, it just doesn't seem true to you just as god doesn't seem true to atheists.
-
As a Christian who hates it when atheist make up stuff about how Christians are, I hate it even more when a fellow believer does the same back to them.
Being an atheist doesn't say that they think we should/would know everything about God if he exists. It just says they don't believe in God.
To be an Atheist by definition infers a reason for God not existing otherwise they would be an Agnostic.
Sigh...
Atheists don't believe in gods. If one doesn't believe in a god, regardless of how sure one is about their lack of belief, they're an atheist.
Fair enough...In my first post I am referring to Atheists who use science as a reason for God to not exist. Obviously anyone can call themselves anything they like for any reason.
-
I have always contended that science can neither prove nor disprove God. A belief, or non-belief, in a creator requires a leap of faith. This is where I disagree with people like Richard Dawkins who seem to argue the non-existence of God through the empirical evidence of science . On the same level, there are plenty of Christians who will argue the opposite just as passionately.
-
My problem with the whole Atheistic view of science and complexity and God is that it presumes that man is able to understand exactly who God would be, if he existed, by using our own limited knowledge of understanding and rejecting that there may be levels of understanding well beyond what we can even bear to know as humans. It stands to reason that if there is a God that is the creator of the universe and all life that dwells within then this God would be more complex in ways that humans could never conceive by their own understanding. To say that we can is the ultimate display of self-importance and arrogance.
BTW...I hear "Reason For God" by Tim Keller is a great book.
I don't follow that reasoning at all actually. There is no requirement for a Creator to be in any way complex. Let's assume for a second that the creation of a universe fell naturally out of Quantum Mechanics (which some say it actually does, see Brian Greene's latest book). Quantum Mechanics is definitely "understandable" by humans.
The conclusion that something big has to have been created by something complex is IMHO a very erroneous conclusion. I for one expect the final explanation of physics (if there is one) to be very simplistic. Maybe not intuitive, but simple. I know Christians tend to be suckers for big things that steer your life, but I think the eventual reality will be vastly different.
rumborak
The problem is complexity is a relative term. We understand it in a human context. God may be something completely different than our human understanding can conceive. He may not be something that can be described in terms of science. Science is of the universe. God created the universe and may dwell beyond all that we as humans understand as the workings of the universe.
Why are you so eagerly excluding God from "understandability"? Where do you get this certainty that God can not be understood by humans? And even more interestingly, how can you be so certain to "understand" its non-understability? Seems like a contradiction in your own argument. "I don't know what X is at all, but I can tell you it's too hard to understand".
My point is, IMHO, the closest to having any insight into the creation is by studying physics. And if there's any guiding principle that has worked in physics, it was that of simplicity. If I had an inclination to look for the divine, I would look for simplicity. Not clumsy antropomorphizations which, frankly, is what the Christian god is described by best.
rumborak
-
My problem with the whole Atheistic view of science and complexity and God is that it presumes that man is able to understand exactly who God would be, if he existed, by using our own limited knowledge of understanding and rejecting that there may be levels of understanding well beyond what we can even bear to know as humans. It stands to reason that if there is a God that is the creator of the universe and all life that dwells within then this God would be more complex in ways that humans could never conceive by their own understanding. To say that we can is the ultimate display of self-importance and arrogance.
BTW...I hear "Reason For God" by Tim Keller is a great book.
I don't follow that reasoning at all actually. There is no requirement for a Creator to be in any way complex. Let's assume for a second that the creation of a universe fell naturally out of Quantum Mechanics (which some say it actually does, see Brian Greene's latest book). Quantum Mechanics is definitely "understandable" by humans.
The conclusion that something big has to have been created by something complex is IMHO a very erroneous conclusion. I for one expect the final explanation of physics (if there is one) to be very simplistic. Maybe not intuitive, but simple. I know Christians tend to be suckers for big things that steer your life, but I think the eventual reality will be vastly different.
rumborak
The problem is complexity is a relative term. We understand it in a human context. God may be something completely different than our human understanding can conceive. He may not be something that can be described in terms of science. Science is of the universe. God created the universe and may dwell beyond all that we as humans understand as the workings of the universe.
Why are you so eagerly excluding God from "understandability"? Where do you get this certainty that God can not be understood by humans? And even more interestingly, how can you be so certain to "understand" its non-understability? Seems like a contradiction in your own argument. "I don't know what X is at all, but I can tell you it's too hard to understand".
My point is, IMHO, the closest to having any insight into the creation is by studying physics. And if there's any guiding principle that has worked in physics, it was that of simplicity. If I had an inclination to look for the divine, I would look for simplicity. Not clumsy antropomorphizations which, frankly, is what the Christian god is described by best.
rumborak
I am only saying that it stands to reason that God, if he is the creator of all things, possess a quality that may be beyond all human understanding. I have no idea what those qualities are, but why should I assume that they are something that has to fit within the mold of natural science and if natural science does not allow us to talk, see, hear, feel, taste, or touch a creator then the creator must not be true.
-
It might, but you seem hell-bent on asserting that it is, despite lacking any substantial reason for this.
In essence, I don't see how you get to make any positive statement about a Creator. Especially about whether it can be understood or not.
rumborak
-
It might, but you seem hell-bent on asserting that it is, despite lacking any substantial reason for this.
In essence, I don't see how you get to make any positive statement about a Creator. Especially about whether it can be understood or not.
rumborak
My point exactly, and someone like Richard Dawkins shouldn't either.
-
Who cares about Dawkins? Are you using his abrasive stance as an excuse to make statements of your own?
rumborak
-
Who cares about Dawkins? Are you using his abrasive stance as an excuse to make statements of your own?
rumborak
My whole first post was in response to Dawkins position. My "abrasive" stance is that you cannot use the argument "because science hasn't proved God then God is not true" because it assumes that a human understanding of all things can only come from science and assumes that God must fit into a scientific mold.
Do you disagree with that?
-
A belief, or non-belief, in a creator requires a leap of faith.
I strongly disagree that a non-belief in a creator requires a leap of faith.
-
A belief, or non-belief, in a creator requires a leap of faith.
I strongly disagree that a non-belief in a creator requires a leap of faith.
So then God can emperically be disproven?
-
No, it's just the default position.
-
No, it's just the default position.
Really, I didn't know God doesn't exist until proven otherwise was a humankind default position.
-
To be an Atheist by definition infers a reason for God not existing otherwise they would be an Agnostic.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge, whereas atheism deals with belief.
Agnostic means "a person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists." That's from my Oxford dictionary although I'd say it applies more broadly than just the singular "God" and applies to religions with multiple gods, but you get the idea from what I've quoted.
Atheism means "disbelief in the existence of a god or gods."
The point here is that the atheist doesn't believe in the existence of God but doesn't necessarily claim that they know that God doesn't exist.
And even if they explain why they feel good about their stance on disbelief through something like science, that isn't claiming they know God doesn't exist.
-
No, it's just the default position.
Really, I didn't know God doesn't exist until proven otherwise was a humankind default position.
It is the position of every child that is born on this planet.
rumborak
-
No, it's just the default position.
Really, I didn't know God doesn't exist until proven otherwise was a humankind default position.
It is the position of every child that is born on this planet.
rumborak
So is the pleasure of crapping in their pants, unfortunately we grow up and gain knowledge of other possible things.
-
To be an Atheist by definition infers a reason for God not existing otherwise they would be an Agnostic.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge, whereas atheism deals with belief.
Agnostic means "a person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists." That's from my Oxford dictionary although I'd say it applies more broadly than just the singular "God" and applies to religions with multiple gods, but you get the idea from what I've quoted.
Atheism means "disbelief in the existence of a god or gods."
The point here is that the atheist doesn't believe in the existence of God but doesn't necessarily claim that they know that God doesn't exist.
And even if they explain why they feel good about their stance on disbelief through something like science, that isn't claiming they know God doesn't exist.
Makes sense. Thank-you.
-
It is the position of every child that is born on this planet.
rumborak
So is the pleasure of crapping in their pants, unfortunately we grow up and gain knowledge of other possible things.
Yes but logic doesn't rest on the stance of crapping in your pants or not. It rests on the stance that the person making a claim (namely that God exists) be the one to prove it. The atheists simply assume it's not true unless it's proven to be true.
And to be fair, that's how most of our rational discourses are based. Like lets say someone thinks some drug leads to lower blood pressure. While testing it, they must use the double-blind placebo testing because their "null hypothesis" is the assumption that really this drug doesn't do shit.
-
It is the position of every child that is born on this planet.
rumborak
So is the pleasure of crapping in their pants, unfortunately we grow up and gain knowledge of other possible things.
Yes but logic doesn't rest on the stance of crapping in your pants or not. It rests on the stance that the person making a claim (namely that God exists) be the one to prove it. The atheists simply assume it's not true unless it's proven to be true.
And to be fair, that's how most of our rational discourses are based. Like lets say someone thinks some drug leads to lower blood pressure. While testing it, they must use the double-blind placebo testing because their "null hypothesis" is the assumption that really this drug doesn't do shit.
Exactly that, the default position is an assumption and not an empirical fact. It takes proof in either direction to discount or to confirm that assumption. To assume a drug doesn't do shit still requires you to test the drug to confirm it doesn't do shit.
The default position that God does not exist will require us to prove that he doesn't once evidence is presented that maybe he does. At this point the debate turns to a critical analysis of what is considered the evidence for or against the existence of God.
-
Reo have you critically disproven all religions and sets of beliefs that you do not adhere to?
-
It is the position of every child that is born on this planet.
rumborak
So is the pleasure of crapping in their pants, unfortunately we grow up and gain knowledge of other possible things.
Yes but logic doesn't rest on the stance of crapping in your pants or not. It rests on the stance that the person making a claim (namely that God exists) be the one to prove it. The atheists simply assume it's not true unless it's proven to be true.
And to be fair, that's how most of our rational discourses are based. Like lets say someone thinks some drug leads to lower blood pressure. While testing it, they must use the double-blind placebo testing because their "null hypothesis" is the assumption that really this drug doesn't do shit.
Exactly that, the default position is an assumption and not an empirical fact. It takes proof in either direction to discount or to confirm that assumption. To assume a drug doesn't do shit still requires you to test the drug to confirm it doesn't do shit.
The default position that God does not exist will require us to prove that he doesn't once evidence is presented that maybe he does. At this point the debate turns to a critical analysis of what is considered the evidence for or against the existence of God.
Haha, we've gone from non-belief in a creator to empirically asserting he doesn't exist. I'm sorry, but that's rather a big jump. Please re-read hefdaddy's post. Lacking belief in deities is the default position. Just like lacking belief in any other supernatural concept or theory, the initial position is that of skepticism and/or requiring evidence before you make a commitment. There is no leap of faith. Some people maintain this skepticism for their whole lives, if they are underwhelmed by the evidence of a creator being presented to them. Some are indoctrinated at an early age so believing becomes just a part of your life (whether you chose it or not).
-
Reo have you critically disproven all religions and sets of beliefs that you do not adhere to?
Not scientifically. I have my own reasons to believe they are not true but I have not proven them to anyone not to be true.
-
Reo have you critically disproven all religions and sets of beliefs that you do not adhere to?
Not scientifically. I have my own reasons to believe they are not true but I have not proven them to anyone not to be true.
So what's the difference?
-
It is the position of every child that is born on this planet.
rumborak
So is the pleasure of crapping in their pants, unfortunately we grow up and gain knowledge of other possible things.
Yes but logic doesn't rest on the stance of crapping in your pants or not. It rests on the stance that the person making a claim (namely that God exists) be the one to prove it. The atheists simply assume it's not true unless it's proven to be true.
And to be fair, that's how most of our rational discourses are based. Like lets say someone thinks some drug leads to lower blood pressure. While testing it, they must use the double-blind placebo testing because their "null hypothesis" is the assumption that really this drug doesn't do shit.
Exactly that, the default position is an assumption and not an empirical fact. It takes proof in either direction to discount or to confirm that assumption. To assume a drug doesn't do shit still requires you to test the drug to confirm it doesn't do shit.
The default position that God does not exist will require us to prove that he doesn't once evidence is presented that maybe he does. At this point the debate turns to a critical analysis of what is considered the evidence for or against the existence of God.
Haha, we've gone from non-belief in a creator to empirically asserting he doesn't exist. I'm sorry, but that's rather a big jump. Please re-read hefdaddy's post. Lacking belief in deities is the default position. Just like lacking belief in any other supernatural concept or theory, the initial position is that of skepticism and/or requiring evidence before you make a commitment. There is no leap of faith. Some people maintain this skepticism for their whole lives, if they are underwhelmed by the evidence of a creator being presented to them. Some are indoctrinated at an early age so believing becomes just a part of your life (whether you chose it or not).
You just confirmed what I said earlier. The debate becomes about the evidence then and the default position becomes a mute concept because at that point the subject must weigh the evidence and make a decision about his/her belief.
I don't think I even agree with the idea of a default position other than we know nothing until knowledge is presented to us.
-
Reo have you critically disproven all religions and sets of beliefs that you do not adhere to?
Not scientifically. I have my own reasons to believe they are not true but I have not proven them to anyone not to be true.
So what's the difference?
What's the difference between what?
-
The difference between you not believing in Tefnut without disproving it and an atheist not believing in god and not disproving it
-
Welcome, WildeSilas. It's always nice to see new faces, and since you know some history as well as Greek and Hebrew, that means you can add depth to our conversations.
And since you brought it up, what convinced you that you we're "just making this all up in my mind?"
It was many things, too many to detail here. Some specific examples would be:
1) Prayer - despite the assurance of the scriptures that God does hear and answer prayer (though not always in the way we want), I can't honestly say I never saw a specific answer to prayer. Now keep in mind that I not only prayed continually on-and-off all day for almost 25 years, but have also prayed for specific things for people - healing, guidance, wisdom to navigate difficult situations, etc. In most every case, I found that I was eventually left to my own devices to figure out what to do, where to go, or how to handle something. Of course, I tried to use the scripture as a guide, but there are many specific situations in life and counseling where you can only apply biblical principles, but specifics must be decided through some other means. In my case, I wanted to rely on the Holy Spirit, but I can't say that I ever once had any kind of conviction or internal push to do one thing or the other. What I did find however, was that when I made pragmatic decisions based on logic and evidence, it was usually a right or "good" decision in the end. When I did not consider logic and evidence, but rather acted "in faith" for what I thought was the will of God (or should be, according to the biblical principles applied in the situation), the decision typically led to disaster, heartache, and confusion. This became very distressing to me over time as I found that acting in concert with faith (when it contradicted logic and reason) ended badly. It's too much to go into here, but suffice to say that as a result of 25 years of doing this, I ended up bankrupt, despised by the people I was ministering to, on the brink of divorce, physically ill, and fearful for my own physical safety (this all has to do with the fact that I pastored an extremely poor church in the middle of gang-land Little Rock, Arkansas, and physical threats were not uncommon, nor was hunger, poverty, dysfunction, etc.). Either way, after 25 years, I had no "miracle" stories to tell, no inspiring anecdotes of how "God came through" at the last minute to rescue me or anyone else. What I did see was however were the natural consequences of irrational decisions (based on faith) and irresponsible reliance on God to deal with situations where police, psychologists, physicians, and social workers would have been a million times more helpful.
2) Spiritual Growth - despite being a very intense student of the bible, pursuit of mission work, constant prayer, service, and even willingness to sacrifice my life in the work of ministry, I found that after 25 years, I was still pretty much exactly the same person with exactly the same quirks, sins, and struggles that I had been at age 15. I gained a lot of experience and knowledge for sure, but no increase in what Paul refers to as the Fruits of the Spirit. I witnessed this same lack of change in the people around me. If the Holy Spirit makes us "new creatures" and abiding in Christ makes us more like him, why was I simply becoming more like myself, and more like my parents, from whom I've inherited much of my nature? I honestly couldn't point to a single thing in my personality, character, or "spirit" (if you will) that was different as a result of following Jesus all those years. Either something is wrong with the promises of scripture (i.e. there IS no Holy Spirit), or something is wrong with me. Well, of course there's something wrong with me, I'm a sinner, right? I can't achieve Christ-likeness through works. I hope it doesn't sound like that's what I was trying to do. I list these "works" as evidence that my faith had muscle to it - these things were (I felt) a natural response to salvation and being a "new creature" - not the means to it. That said, I was earnestly seeking to be changed, to commune with God, to have a close relationship and communion with him. But in the end, I have no sense that anything supernatural ever happened to me. Any "experience" I had can be easily duplicated by listening to a stirring speech, seeing a movie that moves me, or listening to Octavarium.
I could go on, but the lack of change, lack of seeing tangible answer to prayer, along with constantly having to play theological whack-a-mole with contradictions and competing doctrines made me face the fact that while the whole thing would be awesome if it really were true, and if it really worked, it simply wasn't and didn't. Low and behold, I changed the way I made decisions, stopped praying and looking for answers in the scripture and BOOM pretty much everything in my life straightened out, started to make sense, etc. I also became a better husband and father because I had more time and attention for the things of earth. All the patience, devotion, peace, contentment, financial security, and peace of mind I'd sought through scripture and a relationship with God, I found outside of that whole mindset and culture.
Wow, excellent response. I've met a few Christians who've had similar experiences and now no longer need to believe. Most of them I'd argue seem much more free and happy now that they no longer have this omnipresent judge sitting on their shoulder. They're still perfectly kind and caring people, which leads me to believe it's a lot more about personal virtue and values than divine guidance (as I think you were getting at). I'm interested to find out what your responses were to atheism while you still whole-heartedly believed. Were you respectful? annoyed? perplexed? Thanks.
-
You just confirmed what I said earlier. The debate becomes about the evidence then and the default position becomes a mute concept because at that point the subject must weigh the evidence and make a decision about his/her belief.
I don't think I even agree with the idea of a default position other than we know nothing until knowledge is presented to us.
Well evidence is a broad term. Some people are satisfied with unexplained anecdotal events as evidence of a creator. Others require empirically verifiable evidence. Others don't require any evidence at all and act on faith alone. Some point to the bible as evidence, others point to the tendency of man throughout history to invent/believe in Gods is evidence. I think you're not taking into account the variability in the amount of evidence required for any one person to accept the idea of a creator. It depends a lot on how you were brought up, your education level and your own personal mind-set regarding spirituality.
-
-i love double posting-
-
Welcome, WildeSilas. It's always nice to see new faces, and since you know some history as well as Greek and Hebrew, that means you can add depth to our conversations.
And since you brought it up, what convinced you that you we're "just making this all up in my mind?"
It was many things, too many to detail here. Some specific examples would be:
What I did find however, was that when I made pragmatic decisions based on logic and evidence, it was usually a right or "good" decision in the end. When I did not consider logic and evidence, but rather acted "in faith" for what I thought was the will of God (or should be, according to the biblical principles applied in the situation), the decision typically led to disaster, heartache, and confusion.
I've never understood the two to be mutually exclusive. Why did you? And can provide an example of what you mean?
as a result of 25 years of doing this, I ended up bankrupt, despised by the people I was ministering to, on the brink of divorce, physically ill, and fearful for my own physical safety (this all has to do with the fact that I pastored an extremely poor church in the middle of gang-land Little Rock, Arkansas, and physical threats were not uncommon, nor was hunger, poverty, dysfunction, etc.).
This I can appreciate. Growing up as a pastor's son, I've seen and experienced much mistreatment meted out by supposedly faithful Christians. Still, I don't understand why this is a condition sufficient to abandon faith; those unfortunate circumstances say nothing about the Bible as a reliable source, the teachings of Jesus and so forth.
2) Spiritual Growth - despite being a very intense student of the bible, pursuit of mission work, constant prayer, service, and even willingness to sacrifice my life in the work of ministry, I found that after 25 years, I was still pretty much exactly the same person with exactly the same quirks, sins, and struggles that I had been at age 15. I gained a lot of experience and knowledge for sure, but no increase in what Paul refers to as the Fruits of the Spirit. I witnessed this same lack of change in the people around me. If the Holy Spirit makes us "new creatures" and abiding in Christ makes us more like him, why was I simply becoming more like myself, and more like my parents, from whom I've inherited much of my nature? I honestly couldn't point to a single thing in my personality, character, or "spirit" (if you will) that was different as a result of following Jesus all those years. Either something is wrong with the promises of scripture (i.e. there IS no Holy Spirit), or something is wrong with me. Well, of course there's something wrong with me, I'm a sinner, right? I can't achieve Christ-likeness through works. I hope it doesn't sound like that's what I was trying to do. I list these "works" as evidence that my faith had muscle to it - these things were (I felt) a natural response to salvation and being a "new creature" - not the means to it. That said, I was earnestly seeking to be changed, to commune with God, to have a close relationship and communion with him. But in the end, I have no sense that anything supernatural ever happened to me. Any "experience" I had can be easily duplicated by listening to a stirring speech, seeing a movie that moves me, or listening to Octavarium.
I can't speak to your feelings in this case, since they're not mine. But a healthy faith takes work, and I don't mean to say that we somehow have to earn our salvation - we can't. But as a lifelong Christian (so far), I too regularly struggle with "the same quirks, sins, and struggles" I always have. We have to do our best to live like Christ and overcome the things that hinder us. I think it's worth nothing, however, that a life free of struggle isn't promised anywhere in the Bible as far as I know. Knowing the truth doesn't somehow protect us from pain.
Again, and I don't mean to sound harsh, our feelings don't speak to the truth of Christianity. Furthermore, human emotions are often terrible guides and usually aren't reliable enough to adjudicate the reality of a given situation.
constantly having to play theological whack-a-mole with contradictions and competing doctrines made me face the fact that while the whole thing would be awesome if it really were true, and if it really worked, it simply wasn't and didn't.
Like what? Which competing doctrines and contradictions were insurmountable? I'd like to try and answer them but am also genuinely interested in what was the last straw for you. After all, maybe you're right.
-
Exactly that, the default position is an assumption and not an empirical fact. It takes proof in either direction to discount or to confirm that assumption. To assume a drug doesn't do shit still requires you to test the drug to confirm it doesn't do shit.
1) I never said that the default position that these people are taking is empirical fact. Way to put words in my mouth. Also, since you seemed to have missed it the couple times I said it, I'm a Christian.
2) Assuming a drug doesn't do anything particularly useful doesn't require testing it.
What we have in drug testing is where you suggest a hypothesis that X drug treats Y disease. And then you test that hypothesis by comparing results to those that would have come from the null hypothesis (that X drug will have no better effect than an inert substance/placebo). This null hypothesis comes before you've done ANY testing whatsoever and in fact, is supposed to be implicit and adhered to at all stages of the trial (be it in design or implementation phases).
The default position that God does not exist will require us to prove that he doesn't once evidence is presented that maybe he does.
Except they already grant you the assumption of "maybe He does" with no evidence. They just default themselves to thinking that He doesn't and change their mind when you have convinced them that their assumption is wrong. It's all about that null hypothesis. They compare your hypothesis (called the "alternative hypothesis") and the conclusion derived from it to those obtained from the null hypothesis.
-
I think it would be really great if all the major religions got together, figured out their differences, and then told me what their "best version" is, ie the one most convincing. kthxbye
rumborak
-
But assuming that Paul DID believe in such divine origins for Jesus, I still don't agree. Mostly because there is no record in the Synoptic Gospels of Jesus ever telling anyone any such thing while he was on this earth. I believe that all such divine statuses for Jesus are post-crucifixion attributions by his fervent followers, nothing more.
But hey, that's just my $0.02.
EDIT: @GP: especially God's Final Message To His Creation.
EDIT 2: BrotherH, I would suggest The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright.
If he was resurrected, how is he not divine?
What does that have anything to do with it? When and if you or I are resurrected, will you or I be divine?
It just strikes me that if you're willing to believe in resurrection then you might as well believe in the rest of the gospel supernatural. Since when has a non-divine being been resurrected?
-
I thought you were against the "all-or-nothing" mentality.
-
Since when has a non-divine being been resurrected?
Lazarus?
-
Since when has a non-divine being been resurrected?
Lazarus?
Maybe, but wasn't he was resurrected by Jesus though - God on earth - rather than seemingly resurrecting himself?
-
I thought you were against the "all-or-nothing" mentality.
I suppose so, but I'm wondering why you don't believe Jesus was divine to start with when he ends with an unaided divine act that you do believe in.
-
Exactly that, the default position is an assumption and not an empirical fact. It takes proof in either direction to discount or to confirm that assumption. To assume a drug doesn't do shit still requires you to test the drug to confirm it doesn't do shit.
1) I never said that the default position that these people are taking is empirical fact. Way to put words in my mouth. Also, since you seemed to have missed it the couple times I said it, I'm a Christian.
2) Assuming a drug doesn't do anything particularly useful doesn't require testing it.
What we have in drug testing is where you suggest a hypothesis that X drug treats Y disease. And then you test that hypothesis by comparing results to those that would have come from the null hypothesis (that X drug will have no better effect than an inert substance/placebo). This null hypothesis comes before you've done ANY testing whatsoever and in fact, is supposed to be implicit and adhered to at all stages of the trial (be it in design or implementation phases).
The default position that God does not exist will require us to prove that he doesn't once evidence is presented that maybe he does.
Except they already grant you the assumption of "maybe He does" with no evidence. They just default themselves to thinking that He doesn't and change their mind when you have convinced them that their assumption is wrong. It's all about that null hypothesis. They compare your hypothesis (called the "alternative hypothesis") and the conclusion derived from it to those obtained from the null hypothesis.
Didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I was just agreeing with your statement that the position is an assumption. Perhaps my argument here is not so articulate, but it seems to me that there is a certain amount of faith one must take to stand firm on a atheistic position because at some point the atheist will have to reject a contrary position and will realize that their own position cannot be empirically proven. Whether we call this position default or not does not make a difference about the fact that someone must still put faith in it.
-
I thought you were against the "all-or-nothing" mentality.
I suppose so, but I'm wondering why you don't believe Jesus was divine to start with when he ends with an unaided divine act that you do believe in.
I believe he was raised by God, which goes along with all the references I posted yesterday.
God raised Jesus from the dead. Of course, this is also how Paul describes it in 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, and 1 Thessalonians. It is also used thusly in 1 Peter, and in Acts, Colossians, Ephesians, etc.
-
Not surprisingly really, right? As I understand it, the notion that Jesus is part of God emerged much later. So, in the mindset of early Christianity, there could have been only one agent to raise Jesus from the dead.
rumborak
-
Not surprisingly really, right? As I understand it, the notion that Jesus is part of God emerged much later. So, in the mindset of early Christianity, there could have been only one agent to raise Jesus from the dead.
rumborak
Perhaps according to the Jesus Seminar, but who cares what they think?
-
What are you talking about? There were many interpretations floating around (Arianism, Sabellianism), pretending that the Church fathers all only believed in the orthodox trinitarian view is ridiculous.
You seem to become more fundamentalist as time passes, WW. I can't remember you driving such categorical rejections of differing views a while ago.
rumborak
-
What are you talking about? There were many interpretations floating around (Arianism, Sabellianism), pretending that the Church fathers all only believed in the orthodox trinitarian view is ridiculous.
rumborak
Right, but those heretical views are all more recent, usually dated to the second or third century. A fact even your go to source, Ehrman, acknowledges.
-
WW - I honestly don't feel like getting into all of it in detail. I know that sounds like a cop-out but I just don't care :). I've had literal days worth of conversations with good Christian friends and other pastors for the last 5-6 years about this, picked through every scrap of theological contradiction with them, etc. At this point, picking out individual issues I fought with really isn't going to change anything, even if they could be reconciled or answered. It's not that I don't think you have good things to say, just that after spending 25 years parsing these issues, I have no desire to spend any more of my precious time on this earth doing so.
The one issue I will raise is this: For the sake of argument, let's say I somehow resolve all of my problems with contradictions, philosophical impossibilities, etc. concerning the Bible and the theology is presents. There is still no experience with a supernatural God on my part to go back to. I myself insisted for many years that belief is not based on feeling - it is based on faith in the direction of evidence (Paul makes this clear in Hebrews 11, distinguishing "blind faith" from "evidence based faith"). However, what is the presence of the Holy Spirit, God's guidance, conviction, knowing God's will, and all the rest, if not a feeling (at it's base)?
It's great to say, "It's not about feelings," but at the end of the day, individual spiritual experiences are exactly about that. How does the Bible itself speak of God's presence in the lives of people? It uses phrases such as (paraphrasing the Greek now) "peace that defies intellect," and "prodding of the soul," and "burning in the breast/heart." All of these confirmations that God is in fact interacting in us through the Holy Spirit are manifested in internal, subjective feelings. The manifestations of peace may be displayed in outward contentment, or Spirit granted "power" (as seen in Acts 2) is manifested in boldness to speak the gospel, etc. But I think you'd agree that these outward signs are not proof of God in and of themselves, as they can be inexplicably displayed by serial killers, pagans, the mentally disturbed, or more commonly, by normal everyday people who attribute their boldness, peace, etc. to external events.
So while I agree that faith in God should have very little to do with emotions, the confirmation of a relationship with him is deeply rooted in such emotions. In this, I feel that I had a very long, one-sided relationship in which I sought very hard for such confirmations - conviction, boldness, guidance, etc. But if I'm being completely honest with myself, any time I claimed such supernatural intervention in my life, it was completely manufactured in hopes that it really was of God and not of me. But it always began and ended with me. There's a temptation to say, "Well, you were doing it wrong then," to which I would answer - then why didn't God correct it or show me the way when I confessed that very thing to him repeatedly for years? Asking him to help my unbelief, to show me why none of it was real for me, to fix it? I'm still open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but it's disturbing at the least to think of the many tears I shed in genuine supplication, asking for God to show me, and yet never received a hint of answer, either in my "heart" or in scripture. Am I the vessel made for destruction? What father would give a child a stone when he asks for bread? I begged for it, yet I starved.
Also, I would never pit logic against faith. As I said earlier, I believe the biblical view is that they should work together in matters of salvation. But in real life, often times financial responsibility or simple knowledge of cause/effect tells us to do one thing (save money, invest, don't trust strangers, etc.), faith and biblical president tells us to do another (give all your money to the poor, think not for tomorrow, treat the stranger as a brother). Unfortunately, I often did the latter and it caused irreversible pain to many people, especially my family, who scripture also says is to be my main priority. I'm sure there's a way to balance this, but I share a similar story to many people in "ministry" who have lost everything for the sake of the gospel. That's fine if you want to do it, but I (and others around me) accurately assessed that my sacrifice was reaping zero fruit. I'm not bitter about that, it's just a factual assessment taken over many years.
As for my opinion about atheists prior to de-conversion, that's actually one of the "straws" you spoke of (though I can't point to a single straw that finally "broke me" - this happened gradually over almost 5 years of time, and is in fact still happening now. I'm still weighing evidence, praying, and trying to understand - I'm just not letting it rule my life, and I actually don't think about it much at all anymore. I'm at peace :)) I worked part time in a cover band while I was a pastor. The drummer was the only atheist and over time I came to greatly admire his work ethic, compassion, citizenship, self-discipline, and the fact that he was the most genuinely happy and content person I'd ever known. I was jealous of that - he had everything that Jesus was supposed to have been working in me for 25 years. We never talked about religion - it was his "witness" that made me seriously consider that there was something wrong about my worldview. I didn't expect him to be a "bad" person because he was an atheist, no more than I expected Christians to be "good" because they were saved. But his life greatly challenged my perception that man needs God to live a fulfilled life and exhibit Christ-like behavior. Seriously, this single atheist was more Christ-like than anyone I'd ever met in all my years of ministry - across denominational and country lines. It had a huge impact on me and made me start wondering why I, supposedly filled with the Spirit of the living God, could not find the simple peace and love this guy had found from just enjoying life and seizing the day.
-
What are you talking about? There were many interpretations floating around (Arianism, Sabellianism), pretending that the Church fathers all only believed in the orthodox trinitarian view is ridiculous.
rumborak
Right, but those heretical views are all more recent, usually dated to the second or third century. A fact even your go to source, Ehrman, acknowledges.
The concept of trinity is equally as recent to my knowledge, and was in fact formulated and agreed-on in response to the other views.
rumborak
-
What are you talking about? There were many interpretations floating around (Arianism, Sabellianism), pretending that the Church fathers all only believed in the orthodox trinitarian view is ridiculous.
rumborak
Right, but those heretical views are all more recent, usually dated to the second or third century. A fact even your go to source, Ehrman, acknowledges.
The concept of trinity is equally as recent to my knowledge, and was in fact formulated and agreed-on in response to the other views.
rumborak
I don't want to come in here being a smart-ass know it all (I'm still new, I'll do that later... :biggrin:), but the idea of the Trinity is latently present from the early parts of Genesis. Usually it's found in the language which seems to purposely use plural pronouns incorrectly. In other words, many times when God speaks, and the context and structure calls for a personal pronoun, the biblical writers actually used a plural pronouns (We and Us instead of I and Me). This was a curiosity to early scribes and later to the Pharisees in the inter-testimental period in the first century, but it was maintained because it was thought to be sacred despite being grammatically incorrect. The Trinity is also represented in archetype and symbolism in the vast majority of the partriarchial stories.
That said, I don't think the early nation of Israel believed in a triune God - or at least spoke of it in that way. I think they were more influenced by polytheistic cultures surrounding them. Paul and other NT writers on the other hand used the teachings of Jesus to work backwards through the Jewish scriptures and point out many of these hints about the doctrine of the Trinity, something that Jesus also encourages his followers to do on several occasions.
-
I agree with most of what you wrote there, WS. I also agree that Paul and other "worked backwards" to make sense of what they had experienced (the death of Jesus and his post-death sightings) and thus concluded that Jesus was divine, or at least had divine elements. But, and I also agree with you there, that the early Christians did not believe in anything triune. That whole concept was a later invention.
rumborak
-
What are you talking about? There were many interpretations floating around (Arianism, Sabellianism), pretending that the Church fathers all only believed in the orthodox trinitarian view is ridiculous.
rumborak
Right, but those heretical views are all more recent, usually dated to the second or third century. A fact even your go to source, Ehrman, acknowledges.
The concept of trinity is equally as recent to my knowledge, and was in fact formulated and agreed-on in response to the other views.
rumborak
No it isn't. And this is where Ehrman as a source of apologetic material comes in. As he points out, early scribes actually changed certain verses to affirm the trinity, which means many first century Christians obviously knew about it accepted the concept. And a good read on this topic, which I'm engaged in now, is Phillip Jenkins' The Hidden Gospels.
-
As a quick FYI, WW, I am not Bart Ehrman. Yes, I have read 2 books of his, but I have also read other sources that contribute to my notion of this.
IMHO, the early Christians tried to make sense of the phenomenal "failure" of Christianity, in that their leader was plainly crucified, and the Kingdom was nowhere to be seen. So, they tried to glue the remaining pieces together best as they could. The idea that Jesus had a special standing with God, and even elements of divinity, was a theological necessity (so to speak), but Trinity, as the modern concept of a triune being, was not their view.
rumborak
-
As a quick FYI, WW, I am not Bart Ehrman. Yes, I have read 2 books of his, but I have also read other sources that contribute to my notion of this.
I understand. I see him as a hostile witness of sorts, so I regularly reference his work when possible. I shouldn't have suggested that you're an Ehrman fanboi, sorry. Though I recall you mentioning that most of what you know about this stuff comes from his books.
IMHO, the early Christians tried to make sense of the phenomenal "failure" of Christianity, in that their leader was plainly crucified, and the Kingdom was nowhere to be seen.
We went over this before and you decided it wasn't worth the effort to answer my arguments that Jesus wasn't preaching a soon-to-come apocalypse. Unless you've changed your mind, I don't think it's fair to assume what you are from the outset.
So, they tried to glue the remaining pieces together best as they could. The idea that Jesus had a special standing with God, and even elements of divinity, was a theological necessity (so to speak), but Trinity, as the modern concept of a triune being, was not their view.
rumborak
It's a lovely (and old) theory, but it's severely hampered by the fact that our earliest sources affirm the views, including the trinity, we would call orthodox today.
-
I would be quite interested in seeing passages that, without semantic acrobatics, show that early Christians had the view of orthodox Trinity.
rumborak
-
I would be quite interested in seeing passages that, without semantic acrobatics, show that early Christians had the view of orthodox Trinity.
rumborak
Well to be fair, the word "Trinity" wasn't around in those times, so no one would have said "I believe in the Trinity". But it's clear that Jesus was regarded as God, and that the Holy Spirit was regarded as God, and the Father of course, throughout the NT. So "God" was ascribed to each of those people. And that's the "Trinity" right there.
-
I would be quite interested in seeing passages that, without semantic acrobatics, show that early Christians had the view of orthodox Trinity.
rumborak
I won't bother then, since you seem to classify standard biblical exegesis as "semantic acrobatics."
EDIT:
You seem to become more fundamentalist as time passes, WW. I can't remember you driving such categorical rejections of differing views a while ago.
I'm not sure why. My views on these issues have changed very slightly with time.
-
I would be quite interested in seeing passages that, without semantic acrobatics, show that early Christians had the view of orthodox Trinity.
rumborak
Well to be fair, the word "Trinity" wasn't around in those times, so no one would have said "I believe in the Trinity". But it's clear that Jesus was regarded as God, and that the Holy Spirit was regarded as God, and the Father of course, throughout the NT. So "God" was ascribed to each of those people. And that's the "Trinity" right there.
This...the Gospel of John attributes Christ and God as one in the same. Also Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The actual theology of the Trinity did not come about until a couple centuries later as orthodox Christian leaders sought to define this "of same essence" relationship in response to sects that started to view the Father and the Son as separate Gods.
-
I would be quite interested in seeing passages that, without semantic acrobatics, show that early Christians had the view of orthodox Trinity.
rumborak
Well to be fair, the word "Trinity" wasn't around in those times, so no one would have said "I believe in the Trinity". But it's clear that Jesus was regarded as God, and that the Holy Spirit was regarded as God, and the Father of course, throughout the NT. So "God" was ascribed to each of those people. And that's the "Trinity" right there.
This...the Gospel of John attributes Christ and God as one in the same. Also Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The actual theology of the Trinity did not come about until a couple centuries later as orthodox Christian leaders sought to define this "of same essence" relationship in response to sects that started to view the Father and the Son as separate Gods.
But their formulation was based on data from the New Testament. That's the key.
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
But John does provide an account of the period we're talking about, and his gospel was completed in the first century, not too much later than the Synoptics. I don't see a particular reason he should be distrusted. Furthermore, his theology may be much more explicit than the other three, but there's nothing in John that can't be found in Matthew, Mark or Luke.
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
But John does provide an account of the period we're talking about, and his gospel was completed in the first century, not too much later than the Synoptics. I don't see a particular reason he should be distrusted. Furthermore, his theology may be much more explicit than the other three, but there's nothing in John that can't be found in Matthew, Mark or Luke.
There is plenty in John that is not in the Synoptics.
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
But John does provide an account of the period we're talking about, and his gospel was completed in the first century, not too much later than the Synoptics. I don't see a particular reason he should be distrusted. Furthermore, his theology may be much more explicit than the other three, but there's nothing in John that can't be found in Matthew, Mark or Luke.
There is plenty in John that is not in the Synoptics.
This. If it weren't for the Passion sequence, John almost seems like it's about a completely different person.
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
But John does provide an account of the period we're talking about, and his gospel was completed in the first century, not too much later than the Synoptics. I don't see a particular reason he should be distrusted. Furthermore, his theology may be much more explicit than the other three, but there's nothing in John that can't be found in Matthew, Mark or Luke.
There is plenty in John that is not in the Synoptics.
This. If it weren't for the Passion sequence, John almost seems like it's about a completely different person.
There's differences to be sure. But I think your exaggerating them. Why John must conform to the Synoptics in order to be reliable is a mystery to me.
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
But John does provide an account of the period we're talking about, and his gospel was completed in the first century, not too much later than the Synoptics. I don't see a particular reason he should be distrusted. Furthermore, his theology may be much more explicit than the other three, but there's nothing in John that can't be found in Matthew, Mark or Luke.
There is plenty in John that is not in the Synoptics.
This. If it weren't for the Passion sequence, John almost seems like it's about a completely different person.
There's differences to be sure. But I think your exaggerating them. Why John must conform to the Synoptics in order to be reliable is a mystery to me.
Because when two people share accounts of an event, and both are different, they cannot both be right.
-
Lots of NT scholars say that their differences actually add to their credibility.
-
Lots of NT scholars say that their differences actually add to their credibility.
Lots of fundamentalist "scholars" say that. Most others wouldn't.
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
But John does provide an account of the period we're talking about, and his gospel was completed in the first century, not too much later than the Synoptics. I don't see a particular reason he should be distrusted. Furthermore, his theology may be much more explicit than the other three, but there's nothing in John that can't be found in Matthew, Mark or Luke.
There is plenty in John that is not in the Synoptics.
This. If it weren't for the Passion sequence, John almost seems like it's about a completely different person.
There's differences to be sure. But I think your exaggerating them. Why John must conform to the Synoptics in order to be reliable is a mystery to me.
Because when two people share accounts of an event, and both are different, they cannot both be right.
Yes, if there are truly irreconcilable differences. But that doesn't make either generally unreliable. You could dismiss a lot of historical material, and would do so wrongly, based on the standard that many commentators apply to the Gospels, John particularly.
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
But John does provide an account of the period we're talking about, and his gospel was completed in the first century, not too much later than the Synoptics. I don't see a particular reason he should be distrusted. Furthermore, his theology may be much more explicit than the other three, but there's nothing in John that can't be found in Matthew, Mark or Luke.
There is plenty in John that is not in the Synoptics.
This. If it weren't for the Passion sequence, John almost seems like it's about a completely different person.
There's differences to be sure. But I think your exaggerating them. Why John must conform to the Synoptics in order to be reliable is a mystery to me.
Because when two people share accounts of an event, and both are different, they cannot both be right.
Yes, if there are truly irreconcilable differences. But that doesn't make either generally unreliable. You could dismiss a lot of historical material, and would do so wrongly, based on the standard that many commentators apply to the Gospels, John particularly.
I didn't say they were both wrong, I said at least one is.
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
But John does provide an account of the period we're talking about, and his gospel was completed in the first century, not too much later than the Synoptics. I don't see a particular reason he should be distrusted. Furthermore, his theology may be much more explicit than the other three, but there's nothing in John that can't be found in Matthew, Mark or Luke.
There is plenty in John that is not in the Synoptics.
This. If it weren't for the Passion sequence, John almost seems like it's about a completely different person.
There's differences to be sure. But I think your exaggerating them. Why John must conform to the Synoptics in order to be reliable is a mystery to me.
Because when two people share accounts of an event, and both are different, they cannot both be right.
Yes, if there are truly irreconcilable differences. But that doesn't make either generally unreliable. You could dismiss a lot of historical material, and would do so wrongly, based on the standard that many commentators apply to the Gospels, John particularly.
I didn't say they were both wrong, I said at least one is.
I know. And I don't think that makes either generally unreliable.
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
Not true...See Matthew 28:19. And see 2 Cor 13:14. These verses suggest an early formulation of the idea of the trinity or at least a foundation upon which the theology was formulated.
-
I think there's a difference between believing in something and then finding something in the text that might vaguely confirm it, and reading the text without the belief and coming to the same conclusion.
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
Not true...See Matthew 28:19. And see 2 Cor 13:14. These verses suggest an early formulation of the idea of the trinity or at least a foundation upon which the theology was formulated.
Not really. Neither of those support any such theology in and of themselves.
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
Not true...See Matthew 28:19. And see 2 Cor 13:14. These verses suggest an early formulation of the idea of the trinity or at least a foundation upon which the theology was formulated.
Not really. Neither of those support any such theology in and of themselves.
No, not in and of themselves. But combined with the Gospel of John, other various pieces of scripture, and a couple hundred of years of early church formation is how the theology came to be.
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
Not true...See Matthew 28:19. And see 2 Cor 13:14. These verses suggest an early formulation of the idea of the trinity or at least a foundation upon which the theology was formulated.
Not really. Neither of those support any such theology in and of themselves.
No, not in and of themselves. But combined with the Gospel of John, other various pieces of scripture, and a couple hundred of years of early church formation is how the theology came to be.
See, if I was a Christian, I'd ONLY accept theology that was present at the time of the Jesus event, why on earth would I care about the theological development of random Roman people hundreds of years later?
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
Not true...See Matthew 28:19. And see 2 Cor 13:14. These verses suggest an early formulation of the idea of the trinity or at least a foundation upon which the theology was formulated.
Not really. Neither of those support any such theology in and of themselves.
No, not in and of themselves. But combined with the Gospel of John, other various pieces of scripture, and a couple hundred of years of early church formation is how the theology came to be.
See, if I was a Christian, I'd ONLY accept theology that was present at the time of the Jesus event, why on earth would I care about the theological development of random Roman people hundreds of years later?
As I said, the doctrine was formulated from biblical data, and has roots in Jewish theology. Furthermore, given that the early church was so furiously opposed to the different heretical schools of Christianity, because they altered Jesus' teachings, I find it unlikely that church itself would take the liberty of decreeing something as central as the trinity by fiat.
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
Not true...See Matthew 28:19. And see 2 Cor 13:14. These verses suggest an early formulation of the idea of the trinity or at least a foundation upon which the theology was formulated.
Not really. Neither of those support any such theology in and of themselves.
No, not in and of themselves. But combined with the Gospel of John, other various pieces of scripture, and a couple hundred of years of early church formation is how the theology came to be.
See, if I was a Christian, I'd ONLY accept theology that was present at the time of the Jesus event, why on earth would I care about the theological development of random Roman people hundreds of years later?
I actually agree with you. Who cares what church history says?
-
I find it unlikely that church itself would take the liberty of decreeing something as central as the trinity by fiat.
This makes me laugh when I think of what the Christian Church has actually done over the course of History.
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
Not true...See Matthew 28:19. And see 2 Cor 13:14. These verses suggest an early formulation of the idea of the trinity or at least a foundation upon which the theology was formulated.
Not really. Neither of those support any such theology in and of themselves.
No, not in and of themselves. But combined with the Gospel of John, other various pieces of scripture, and a couple hundred of years of early church formation is how the theology came to be.
See, if I was a Christian, I'd ONLY accept theology that was present at the time of the Jesus event, why on earth would I care about the theological development of random Roman people hundreds of years later?
Because the Christian faith is not just comprised of the Bible alone, it is comprised of the Church as well which is a dynamic and living institution, established by Christ himself. But if you want to formulate your own theology solely on what was documented as happening during the life of Christ then I will just refer you back to the passage in Matthew and the Book of John and you can determine for yourself whether you want to believe in a trinity.
-
well i don't believe in any of it. but all i meant was that i wouldn't believe any later theological inventions because that would be absolutely silly and illogical in my opinion.
-
We don't know for sure what happened in the life of Christ. But Paul's legitimate writings are from shortly thereafter, and the Gospel of Mark is the oldest extant narrative of the life of Jesus. Matthew and Luke both used Mark as the framework for their gospels, along with teachings and sayings of Jesus. John is much later and contains a bunch of stuff not present in the Synoptics or Paul.
John is useful to determine the history of Christianity, but I don't find it very useful in determining what Jesus really said, did, or taught.
-
I find it unlikely that church itself would take the liberty of decreeing something as central as the trinity by fiat.
This makes me laugh when I think of what the Christian Church has actually done over the course of History.
A lot of less than wonderful things. But the above is not an argument.
-
But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing. Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels. There is no such theology in the Synoptics. And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.
But John does provide an account of the period we're talking about, and his gospel was completed in the first century, not too much later than the Synoptics. I don't see a particular reason he should be distrusted. Furthermore, his theology may be much more explicit than the other three, but there's nothing in John that can't be found in Matthew, Mark or Luke.
There is plenty in John that is not in the Synoptics.
This. If it weren't for the Passion sequence, John almost seems like it's about a completely different person.
There's differences to be sure. But I think your exaggerating them. Why John must conform to the Synoptics in order to be reliable is a mystery to me.
Because when two people share accounts of an event, and both are different, they cannot both be right.
2 points in opposition:
1. Yes, they can be different and still both be right as long as the differences do not contradict one another (which is the case here).
2. We are not talking about two people sharing an account of an event. We are talking about two people sharing an account of select events that took place mostly over a 3 - 3 1/2 year period, and the differences are not conflicting, contradictory accounts of the same event, but generally fall into one of two categories: (1) emphasis on different events during that time period, or (2) placing emphasis on different things within the same events.
-
It's not just the different events discussed. It is also the very way that Jesus and his teachings are presented. John presents something entirely different than do the Synoptics.
-
Not really. But one thing I will say about John: he could turn a drop of water into an ocean.
-
Not really.
Yeah, I'd like an example, Hef.
Of course I realize John recounted some of the same events in the Synoptics differently, some that don't appear in the first three at all and arranged his material differently. But I'm not sure what you see that makes John unreliable.
-
Not to oversimplify or misstate what Hef would say, but based on what I've seen him post in the past, I think he would primarily say: "The synoptics presented Jesus as going about teaching the people privately and telling them to keep things quiet without putting any emphasis on himself whatsoever. In John, we have a completely different Jesus teaching openly and unable to shut up about himself." I can see where there is a bit of truth to that, but in general, I don't agree.
-
I think it's more about the underlying theology. The synoptics mostly portray Jesus as an itinerant prophet (who has special standing with God, but is distinctly separate), whereas John sees him as the incarnation of the Logos and part of God himself. I mean, there's a reason why the the synoptics are called synoptics, and John isn't.
In terms of historical accuracy, I kinda consider John to be on par with other non-canonical writings really, e.g. the Gospel of Thomas. Inspired by historical accounts, but too concerned with pitching a message to be taken at face value.
rumborak
-
I think it's more about the underlying theology. The synoptics mostly portray Jesus as an itinerant prophet (who has special standing with God, but is distinctly separate), whereas John sees him as the incarnation of the Logos and part of God himself. I mean, there's a reason why the the synoptics are called synoptics, and John isn't.
In terms of historical accuracy, I kinda consider John to be on par with other non-canonical writings really, e.g. the Gospel of Thomas. Inspired by historical accounts, but too concerned with pitching a message to be taken at face value.
rumborak
The pre-resurrected Jesus does not directly claim his deity in the Synoptics, but his Deity is implicit in his behavior. For instance he forgives sin, he holds the power to judge, he lays claim to fulfillment of OT prophecy, he claims to know man's heart and thoughts, he claimed himself greater than the temple, he teaches of himself for eternal destiny, etc.
-
In terms of historical accuracy, I kinda consider John to be on par with other non-canonical writings really, e.g. the Gospel of Thomas. Inspired by historical accounts, but too concerned with pitching a message to be taken at face value.
rumborak
Except that one wasn't drastically edited by the Gnostic Christians.
-
I think it's more about the underlying theology. The synoptics mostly portray Jesus as an itinerant prophet (who has special standing with God, but is distinctly separate), whereas John sees him as the incarnation of the Logos and part of God himself. I mean, there's a reason why the the synoptics are called synoptics, and John isn't.
In terms of historical accuracy, I kinda consider John to be on par with other non-canonical writings really, e.g. the Gospel of Thomas. Inspired by historical accounts, but too concerned with pitching a message to be taken at face value.
rumborak
The pre-resurrected Jesus does not directly claim his deity in the Synoptics, but his Deity is implicit in his behavior. For instance he forgives sin, he holds the power to judge, he lays claim to fulfillment of OT prophecy, he claims to know man's heart and thoughts, he claimed himself greater than the temple, he teaches of himself for eternal destiny, etc.
Given the large amount of direct quotes in the gospels, and given the "game changer" quality of him being divine, I think the fact that he didn't claim his divinity means he didn't think he was. That's like Barack Obama never mentioning that he's president of the USA, but instead leaving everyone guessing.
rumborak
-
I think it's more like a brief narrative by a third party about his entire 4-year presidency in a book about, for example, "Barak Obama, the 44th President of the United States" that doesn't see the need to introduce quotes by Obama claiming to be president. There is simply no need.
-
I think Jesus had to primarily demonstrate himself as the prophetic Messiah, because that's what people were looking for. He does this quite obviously in all four gospels.
But he was more secretive about his deity, I think, because if he came out and said "I'm God," I don't think that would be something the Israelites would see as consistent with their beliefs. I think it's possible that his deity was something that started off as something only few people knew, and expanded outward over time (which would also explain why the later gospels contain more references to him as God).
-
I'm late with this, but it's a big mistake to take a book that in itself claims progressive revelation and not be willing to tolerate the semantic disciplines required to assemble arching doctrines established therin. This isn't necessarily a case of biblical scholars doing acrobatics as much as it's the way any responsible scholar would draw theological principles from any religious text, be it the bible, quaran, etc. It is the most sensible and effective way to draw out ideas and doctrines over the course of time. If anyone is looking for the word Trinity or Rapture in the Bible, they are misunderstanding how language translation works at a very basic level. It is actually very simple to demonstrate that early writers did have a concept of a triune diety, but it's done by following the thread of passages dealing with that issue and building the case systematically as you go. That's not semantics, it's basic heurmanutics.
-
^That. It's a pretty simple concept. Of course the earliest accounts of specific historical EVENTS are most likely the most reliable, but the development of doctrine, theology and philosophy are completely different things. It's only natural that those things develop over time, because human understanding of things is progressive in general.
-J
-
Actually, that leads to another question I have. Do the Christians here believe in an evolution of theology? By that, I mean does one generation grow in knowledge from the generations before it?
For example, justification by faith was a pretty unknown doctrine for a good while of history, until Martin Luther uncovered it and spent his life defending it. Of course, because he was fighting the fight for that specific doctrine, he wasn't able to develop other doctrines that have since been developed.
So...it's almost like one person spends 30 years in study, and plants flags along the way, so it only takes the next generation 5 years to learn everything he did, and they have much more time to spend learning new things.
What do you guys think of that?
-
Actually, that leads to another question I have. Do the Christians here believe in an evolution of theology? By that, I mean does one generation grow in knowledge from the generations before it?
Not really, no. Jesus knew exactly what he meant, as did the Holy Spirit when he spoke through the apostles and other NT writers. Unless there is additional revelation, there isn't really any new knowledge that can be gained on what has been revealed.
For example, justification by faith was a pretty unknown doctrine for a good while of history, until Martin Luther uncovered it and spent his life defending it.
Not really. It is explicit in scripture and was VERY well known. It's just that the Catholic Church buried it, which Luther and others battled them on.
-
So do you think that each generation's church knew basically the same amount as the previous generation's?
-
I think they could have, yes. Whether or not they actually did depends a lot on the diligence of the given church's leadership and individual members (and, to some extent, historical accident). If a church has to go beyond what is written in scripture to formulate a doctrine, I think they most likely are missing the point.
-
Actually, that leads to another question I have. Do the Christians here believe in an evolution of theology? By that, I mean does one generation grow in knowledge from the generations before it?
For example, justification by faith was a pretty unknown doctrine for a good while of history, until Martin Luther uncovered it and spent his life defending it. Of course, because he was fighting the fight for that specific doctrine, he wasn't able to develop other doctrines that have since been developed.
So...it's almost like one person spends 30 years in study, and plants flags along the way, so it only takes the next generation 5 years to learn everything he did, and they have much more time to spend learning new things.
What do you guys think of that?
That's a tough question. I think it happens to an extent but I also think there is a foundation that never changes. For instance I believe the Apostles Creed to be a good foundation of the Christian Faith as it was the culmination of theology in the 4th century to define the Orthodox Christian Faith from the various sects that spun their own theology. Really this theology has held through the Church's history. But, there are a whole host of doctrines that come out of the Christian church that seem to ebb and flow over time. Some are important and some are less important. For instant the Catholic church prior to the reformation had abandoned the doctrine of Salvation thru faith almost completely which led to the rise of the reformation yet Martin Luther almost swung too far to the other extreme to a point where he was ready to throw the book of James out of the Bible because it emphasized works.
Because Christians view the Bible as a living document and the Church as a living institution I think there will always be changes in theology as study continues, but I also believe that as long as there is a recognition that scripture is inspired and authoritative and a respect for the history of the Christian church I think the foundation will stand.
-
I think they could have, yes. Whether or not they actually did depends a lot on the diligence of the given church's leadership and individual members (and, to some extent, historical accident). If a church has to go beyond what is written in scripture to formulate a doctrine, I think they most likely are missing the point.
Yeah I agree with everything you're saying. But do you believe that there were any truths that were accepted early in church history, then forgotten, then later rediscovered? For example, I think of how churches slipped away during the apostles lifetimes (lke Paul references in 1 Timothy).
-
I think they could have, yes. Whether or not they actually did depends a lot on the diligence of the given church's leadership and individual members (and, to some extent, historical accident). If a church has to go beyond what is written in scripture to formulate a doctrine, I think they most likely are missing the point.
Yeah I agree with everything you're saying. But do you believe that there were any truths that were accepted early in church history, then forgotten, then later rediscovered? For example, I think of how churches slipped away during the apostles lifetimes (lke Paul references in 1 Timothy).
Yes. But I think that problem can mostly be avoided by (1) the leadership and members being informed of what scripture teaches by diligent, frequent study, and (2) making sure the leadership structure of the church itself is scriptural (i.e., each congregation being autonomous and having as its only authority structue local elders/pastors (plural) with authority only over that congregation and deacons, and not some extra-congregational denominational structure).
Do you have specific truth in mind, or are you just speaking generally?
-
I think they could have, yes. Whether or not they actually did depends a lot on the diligence of the given church's leadership and individual members (and, to some extent, historical accident). If a church has to go beyond what is written in scripture to formulate a doctrine, I think they most likely are missing the point.
Yeah I agree with everything you're saying. But do you believe that there were any truths that were accepted early in church history, then forgotten, then later rediscovered? For example, I think of how churches slipped away during the apostles lifetimes (lke Paul references in 1 Timothy).
Yes. But I think that problem can mostly be avoided by (1) the leadership and members being informed of what scripture teaches by diligent, frequent study, and (2) making sure the leadership structure of the church itself is scriptural (i.e., each congregation being autonomous and having as its only authority structue local elders/pastors (plural) with authority only over that congregation and deacons, and not some extra-congregational denominational structure).
Do you have specific truth in mind, or are you just speaking generally?
ATM, I can speculate on three (that you may or may not agree with):
1. justification by faith (rediscovered by Luther)
2. the "rapture" (or the "catching away" to be biblical) vs. an earthly return of Christ (rediscovered 1700ish)
3. Paul's separate message/apostleship from the 12 (rediscovered 1900ish)
But there probably are a lot more, and hopefully ones that we agree on.
-
Or, for another example, Bible translations/resources are much more accessible to churches and individuals today than they were just a short time ago. Thinking back to the first or second centuries, before everyone had their own complete Bible....I can imagine that it stunted growth quite a bit.
-
Actually, that leads to another question I have. Do the Christians here believe in an evolution of theology? By that, I mean does one generation grow in knowledge from the generations before it?
For example, justification by faith was a pretty unknown doctrine for a good while of history, until Martin Luther uncovered it and spent his life defending it. Of course, because he was fighting the fight for that specific doctrine, he wasn't able to develop other doctrines that have since been developed.
So...it's almost like one person spends 30 years in study, and plants flags along the way, so it only takes the next generation 5 years to learn everything he did, and they have much more time to spend learning new things.
What do you guys think of that?
That's a tough question. I think it happens to an extent but I also think there is a foundation that never changes. For instance I believe the Apostles Creed to be a good foundation of the Christian Faith as it was the culmination of theology in the 4th century to define the Orthodox Christian Faith from the various sects that spun their own theology. Really this theology has held through the Church's history. But, there are a whole host of doctrines that come out of the Christian church that seem to ebb and flow over time. Some are important and some are less important. For instant the Catholic church prior to the reformation had abandoned the doctrine of Salvation thru faith almost completely which led to the rise of the reformation yet Martin Luther almost swung too far to the other extreme to a point where he was ready to throw the book of James out of the Bible because it emphasized works.
Because Christians view the Bible as a living document and the Church as a living institution I think there will always be changes in theology as study continues, but I also believe that as long as there is a recognition that scripture is inspired and authoritative and a respect for the history of the Christian church I think the foundation will stand.
This is a great answer. Can't say I buy into bosk's version of things remotely, although I know he's argued for it at length here before.
2. the "rapture" (or the "catching away" to be biblical) vs. an earthly return of Christ (rediscovered 1700ish)
Not to nit-pick, but if understood as a separate event in addition to the second coming, the "rapture" is definitively un-biblical. Which brings me to another point: the waxing and waning of a doctrine's popularity throughout time hardly necessarily reflects the "truth" of it.
-J
-
Or, for another example, Bible translations/resources are much more accessible to churches and individuals today than they were just a short time ago. Thinking back to the first or second centuries, before everyone had their own complete Bible....I can imagine that it stunted growth quite a bit.
We have greater access now, but most churches were essentially using all the books that were later canonized by the second century.
-
Not really.
Yeah, I'd like an example, Hef.
A few things.
In John, Jesus is presented (in the prologue) as pre-existent, assistant creator of the universe, and himself divine. In John, Jesus announces that he is the one sent from heaven to proclaim God's truth, and performs signs expressly to demonstrate that he is who he says he is. At no point in the Synoptic Gospels is Jesus presented as the Word of God, or creator of the universe, or equal to God, or the one sent from heaven, soon to return. At no point in the Synoptic Gospels does Jesus claim that to see, hear, or reject him is to see, hear, or reject the Father.
Let's look briefly at the Synoptics themselves. To be sure, they are three different documents written by three different authors to three different audiences, and they reflect these differences. But they are reflective of each other, even in their differences. In two of them, Jesus is born in Bethlehem to a virgin. In all three, his public ministry begins with baptism by John followed by the temptation in the wilderness. In all three, his main message is the coming kingdom of God, which he usually teaches about in the form of parables (in fact, according to Mark 4:33-34, parables are the ONLY way that Jesus taught the crowds in public). He also performs a few miracles, mostly healings and exorcisms. He doesn't discuss his identity very much at all, and commands demons and others who know it to keep silent. At the end of his ministry, he shares a last meal with his disciples, where he institutes what came to be known as the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion. He then goes to the Garden at Gethsemane, where he prays to God for a stay from the coming Passion. He is then arrested, stood trial before the Sanhedrin, who turn him over to the Romans for execution.
These stories are the foundation of what we know about Jesus. But none of those stories are in John.
Only in John do we get more "impressive" miracles (water to wine, the raising of Lazarus). Only in John do we get the long discourses of Jesus.
Even the things that John shares with the Synoptics are sometimes drastically different. For example, miracles. He performs MORE miracles in the Synoptics, but BIGGER ones in John, and in contrast with the Synoptics, the miracles in John are for the express purpose of demonstrating who he is, and he does nothing to hide them. Compare two superficially similar miracles - the raising of Jairus's daughter from Mark 5:21-43 and the raising of Lazarus from John 11:1-44. In both, someone is dying, the family sends word to Jesus, he is delayed in getting there, the person dies in the meantime, then Jesus raises them. However, the differences are staggering. In Mark, the delay is inadvertent; in John, Jesus intentionally stays away until Lazarus dies. Jesus intentionally lets Lazarus die so that his raising would be a demonstration of Jesus's power to others. Also, in the story from Mark, Jesus isn't doing a performance; he heals the girl in private, with only her parents and three disciples with him. In John, he makes a public spectacle of the raising of Lazarus. In the Synoptics, Jesus is presented as refusing to do miracles as proof of his identity. However, in John he performs miracles for precisely that purpose. In the Synoptics, Jesus hardly ever talks about himself, but rather about God and his kingdom. In John, he never mentions the kingdom of God, and also never shuts up about himself, and goes to great lengths to demonstrate that he is who he says he is.
The entire presentation of Jesus and his teachings is different in John than it is in the Synoptics. If it weren't for the Passion narrative, it would be hard to recognize them as talking about the same person.
-
Wow, nothing?
-
I have nothing to say because I am in complete agreement with you.
-
Wow, nothing?
Sorry, I didn't see this until just now. I will definitely respond in detail later this week. Though after reading your thoughts, I still think you are greatly overestimating the divergence between John and the Synoptics. For example, why do they have to report the same events in order for John to be considered more reliable? Pick up four biographies of the same person and look at how differently they report on their subject, particularly how they put emphasis on different events. It's not that the any are necessarily unreliable, only that the authors wish to stress different ideas.
-
Wow, nothing?
Sorry, I didn't see this until just now. I will definitely respond in detail later this week. Though after reading your thoughts, I still think you are greatly overestimating the divergence between John and the Synoptics. For example, why do they have to report the same events in order for John to be considered more reliable? Pick up four biographies of the same person and look at how differently they report on their subject, particularly how they put emphasis on different events. It's not that the any are necessarily unreliable, only that the authors wish to stress different ideas.
Well, Biographies are not usually touted about as the word of God. You'd think that the life or death situation that Christians create about accepting Jesus would have a more solid foundation, or at least a more consistent one.
-
For example, why do they have to report the same events in order for John to be considered more reliable? Pick up four biographies of the same person and look at how differently they report on their subject, particularly how they put emphasis on different events. It's not that the any are necessarily unreliable, only that the authors wish to stress different ideas.
I don't remember citing order of events as a problem, or the emphasis on different events. It's the entirely different presentations of the character of who Jesus was and what he taught.
-
For example, why do they have to report the same events in order for John to be considered more reliable? Pick up four biographies of the same person and look at how differently they report on their subject, particularly how they put emphasis on different events. It's not that the any are necessarily unreliable, only that the authors wish to stress different ideas.
I don't remember citing order of events as a problem, or the emphasis on different events. It's the entirely different presentations of the character of who Jesus was and what he taught.
It's different, yeah, but not entirely different.
-
Obviously I disagree, since I've already argued that it is and gave examples.
-
For example, why do they have to report the same events in order for John to be considered more reliable? Pick up four biographies of the same person and look at how differently they report on their subject, particularly how they put emphasis on different events. It's not that the any are necessarily unreliable, only that the authors wish to stress different ideas.
I don't remember citing order of events as a problem, or the emphasis on different events.
In the quoted statement I didn't specifically mention order of events, though my wording could be clearer. So here: why is precise agreement between the four Gospels a prerequisite for accepting the reliability of John's Gospel?
It's the entirely different presentations of the character of who Jesus was and what he taught.
Yes, that's your conclusion, but the evidence - or your interpretation of it - doesn't validate that John took more liberty when penning his Gospel.
Wow, nothing?
Sorry, I didn't see this until just now. I will definitely respond in detail later this week. Though after reading your thoughts, I still think you are greatly overestimating the divergence between John and the Synoptics. For example, why do they have to report the same events in order for John to be considered more reliable? Pick up four biographies of the same person and look at how differently they report on their subject, particularly how they put emphasis on different events. It's not that the any are necessarily unreliable, only that the authors wish to stress different ideas.
Well, Biographies are not usually touted about as the word of God. You'd think that the life or death situation that Christians create about accepting Jesus would have a more solid foundation, or at least a more consistent one.
But that's exactly what we're arguing about. John's Gospels is different from the Synoptics. Big deal. Are there reasons why that poses an irreconcilable problem?
And by the way, critics make a big deal about putting the NT through the ringer of The Historical-Critical method, just as less significant texts are put through it, and then they demand that the nature of the Bible requires a higher standard of evidence. I don't think that's fair, and you've asked precisely for that kind of evidence.
-
Well if its the absolute word of God then there should be no issue with it being absolute 100% accurate.
If you don't think it lives up to it then you shouldn't promote it as such.
-
Can it not be the word of God but also sometimes less than 100% accurate?
I've got room for that in my views at least.
-
Can it not be the word of God but also sometimes less than 100% accurate?
I've got room for that in my views at least.
I've got no problem with that view, so long as the holder admits that it's not an accurate, absolute representation of the word of God and can be wrong.
-
I've never really been a hard-core inerrancy guy. It just doesn't seem necessary. I worship Christ, after all, not the Bible. Not that I just throw historicity to the wind, as I think there's very good evidence for Jesus doing or saying most of the things the gospels record him doing or saying.
-
I've never really been a hard-core inerrancy guy. It just doesn't seem necessary. I worship Christ, after all, not the Bible. Not that I just throw historicity to the wind, as I think there's very good evidence for Jesus doing or saying most of the things the gospels record him doing or saying.
Clearly I don't believe what you do, but I like your perspective on it.
-
Well thanks.
-
I've never really been a hard-core inerrancy guy. It just doesn't seem necessary. I worship Christ, after all, not the Bible. Not that I just throw historicity to the wind, as I think there's very good evidence for Jesus doing or saying most of the things the gospels record him doing or saying.
This
I think there's a difference between historical inerrancy and theological inerrancy and one can believe in a theological inerrancy, but can dismiss historical inerrancy. I think the Bible is solid theologically even though some of the facts and figures may be a bit sketchy. This seems more than plausible to me given that ordinary men pieced the story of Christ together some 30-50 years after the fact.
-
I don't buy into inerrancy of the Bible at all, so the differences between John and the Synoptics aren't cataclysmic to me. But to your point about theological inerrancy - the theology of John seems completely different than the theology of the synoptics.
-
I've never really been a hard-core inerrancy guy. It just doesn't seem necessary. I worship Christ, after all, not the Bible. Not that I just throw historicity to the wind, as I think there's very good evidence for Jesus doing or saying most of the things the gospels record him doing or saying.
That's right about where I am.
-
I don't buy into inerrancy of the Bible at all, so the differences between John and the Synoptics aren't cataclysmic to me. But to your point about theological inerrancy - the theology of John seems completely different than the theology of the synoptics.
I wouldn't say it's completely different in the sense that John somehow contradicts the other Gospels. Certainly John focuses in on the deity of Christ where the other Gospels focus on the doings of his ministry, but all of them arrive at the same place which is the crucifixion and resurrection, the giving of the great commission, the ascension, and the power to redeem man from sin.
-
What's people's view here on the authorship? It seems a good amount of one's acceptance of thing depends on who one believes wrote them.
rumborak
-
What's people's view here on the authorship? It seems a good amount of one's acceptance of thing depends on who one believes wrote them.
rumborak
That's a good null hypothesis. Believe the alleged authorship if there isn't significant evidence to show otherwise. Let that be your neutral view.
-
What's people's view here on the authorship? It seems a good amount of one's acceptance of thing depends on who one believes wrote them.
rumborak
It's impossible to know who exactly wrote what when it comes to the Gospels. Obviously the text was attributed to the various authors (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) to give them a stronger sense of authority, but as far as the actual text being written by their hand, probably unlikely. And we know that the Gospels as we read them now went through a series of redactions. I think Luke has the best case for it actually being his own written text since he was educated, was a contemporary of Paul, and wrote his Gospel in conjunction with Acts.
-
What's people's view here on the authorship? It seems a good amount of one's acceptance of thing depends on who one believes wrote them.
rumborak
It's impossible to know who exactly wrote what when it comes to the Gospels. Obviously the text was attributed to the various authors (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) to give them a stronger sense of authority, but as far as the actual text being written by their hand, probably unlikely. And we know that the Gospels as we read them now went through a series of redactions. I think Luke has the best case for it actually being his own written text since he was educated, was a contemporary of Paul, and wrote his Gospel in conjunction with Acts.
Pretty much this. Either way, one would have to demonstrate the reliability of the oral tradition on which the gospels are based, no matter who the "author" is.
-
What's people's view here on the authorship? It seems a good amount of one's acceptance of thing depends on who one believes wrote them.
rumborak
I'm not sure that it matters who wrote them, especially since we will never know for sure.
Unless of course by "who" you mean "God or man." In that case, I definitely think they were written by men, with no intrusion or help from God.
-
What's people's view here on the authorship? It seems a good amount of one's acceptance of thing depends on who one believes wrote them.
rumborak
That's a good null hypothesis. Believe the alleged authorship if there isn't significant evidence to show otherwise. Let that be your neutral view.
Well, the problem is that the gospel doesn't claim to be by John, but by the "most beloved disciple". So, it could be really have been anyone. (or even no disciple at all, as it seemed to have been practice to falsely attribute accounts to close disciples in order to give them more authority in the eyes of the reader, e.g. in the case of Matthew)
rumborak
-
What's people's view here on the authorship? It seems a good amount of one's acceptance of thing depends on who one believes wrote them.
rumborak
That's a good null hypothesis. Believe the alleged authorship if there isn't significant evidence to show otherwise. Let that be your neutral view.
Well, the problem is that the gospel doesn't claim to be by John, but by the "most beloved disciple". So, it could be really have been anyone. (or even no disciple at all, as it seemed to have been practice to falsely attribute accounts to close disciples in order to give them more authority in the eyes of the reader, e.g. in the case of Matthew)
rumborak
Yeah, but even if the author did make such a claim, the argument against traditional authorship would shift to something else. Since when has a claim to authenticity convinced anyone? All of Paul's letters are attributed to him, but he's generally regarded as the author of only seven.
-
What's people's view here on the authorship? It seems a good amount of one's acceptance of thing depends on who one believes wrote them.
rumborak
That's a good null hypothesis. Believe the alleged authorship if there isn't significant evidence to show otherwise. Let that be your neutral view.
Well, the problem is that the gospel doesn't claim to be by John, but by the "most beloved disciple". So, it could be really have been anyone. (or even no disciple at all, as it seemed to have been practice to falsely attribute accounts to close disciples in order to give them more authority in the eyes of the reader, e.g. in the case of Matthew)
rumborak
While I was mostly referring to the epistles, which mostly state the names of their authors in the text itself, I can't say when it comes to the gospels. But I can say that Matthew is an unlikely disciple to attribute authorship to by a person that wanted to fabricate the book.