[Neon Genesis]

davidk, on 17 November 2009 - 02:37 PM, said:

neon- Jesus neither denied being good nor denied being God by what he said to the young rich man. In context, Jesus was merely exposing to this young man his own insincerity.

But what about these other verses where Jesus says not to worship him but God or verses where Jesus says that God is greater than him? Here's more verses that call the Trinity into question: http://en.wikipedia...._to_the_Trinity I can see that Jesus lived his life in such a way that people saw something bigger than himself in his actions, but I don't think this necessarily has to mean Jesus was physically God himself.

Quote

As far as I can tell, John the Baptist did not baptize anyone for the remission of sin, but for repentance.

Mark 1:4

Quote

John the baptizer appeared* in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Quote

While some modern scholars shed doubt on the Apostle John as author of the gospel, there are numbers of scholars who dispute the criticizm. I would not be so confident to say the doubters form the consensus.

But even the bible says the apostles, including John, were uneducated in Acts 4:13

Quote

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized them as companions of Jesus.

In those times, if you were uneducated, it was highly unlikely you would be able to read or write, so how could John or any of the apostles write any of the bible if even the bible says they were uneducated?

This post has been edited by Neon Genesis: 17 November 2009 - 10:32 PM

[davidk]

I think when more than three are in evidence, we can discuss them then. Until that time we can only discuss the ones we actually know about.
As far as Elijah is concerned, in I Kings, the reference clearly attributed the healing to God and not to Elijah. The healings associated with Elisha show Elisha invoking God for the healing. Unlike Jesus, who was the one healing.
-
My spirit is greater than I. Does that mean my body, mind, and spirit are not, in fact, one person? I reviewed the Wikipedia web site, found nothing conflicting with the character of a Holy Trinity.
-
Neon is right about John the Baptist's ministry. The Baptist at first did not want to baptise Jesus, saying Jesus should be baptising him meaning Jesus did not need to be baptised! But Jesus said, "Permit it at this trime; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness."

Jesus is saying...let Me be baptized. I have undertaken a solemn resolution to bear the sin and the guilt of sinners for whom I will die. And that He is indeed the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. He must be baptized to satisfy the requirement of His active righteousness and His passive righteousness as well. And then John baptized Him.
Also see what the Baptist said of Jesus in Jn 1: 29-34
-
The Jewish people were a literate people. Their history is replete with reading and writing, particularly scripture and other religious documents. Not all were formally educated to be more than a fisherman or tax collector.

[billmc]

David, IMO, this thread is getting bogged down into the very things that make conservative Christianity so untenable; namely, exactly what must be believed about Jesus in order to be a Christian or in order to be saved? The fact of the matter is that Christianity has never had a monolithic view of Jesus and held to an unchanging list of "facts" about him that must be given mental assent in order for one to be considered a "believer." The list changes from denomination to denomination, from church to church, and from time to time; with everyone insisting that their particular list is the "right" one to produce "true" Christians while all other lists are wrong or incomplete, producing false Christians or non-Christians.

Believing in Jesus is a matter of the heart, not of the head. It is "be-loving" Jesus, not analyzing him as if he were an insect under a microscope.

I believe in my marriage. I know my wife experiencially and I am a better person for being married to her. To believe in her is not to list a whole bunch of facts about her or to slice her open in order to discover who she is. It is simply to trust my experience of her, to be with her and know that she makes my life joyful. Believing in her and in our marriage is about faith-full-ness, about trusting that she and I are, together, more than we could be apart.

For me, so it is with Jesus. I trust my experience of him, I trust that he is, in some sense, with me and a source of joy in my life. Believing in him is about trusting that he leads me more into God and more into being who I truly am. I am more with him than I am without him. But my belief in him is not about a list. Yes, I do have specific beliefs about Jesus. But I try to remember that my beliefs about him are not him. He is bigger or more transcendant than my beliefs. And that is a good thing.

[Neon Genesis]

davidk, on 18 November 2009 - 07:39 PM, said:

[font="Garamond"]

My spirit is greater than I. Does that mean my body, mind, and spirit are not, in fact, one person? I reviewed the Wikipedia web site, found nothing conflicting with the character of a Holy Trinity.

But what about Mark 13:32 where Jesus says that not even he knows but only God knows when the kingdom of God will come? Why would Jesus not know what God knows if he is God himself?

Quote

‘But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Quote

Neon is right about John the Baptist's ministry. The Baptist at first did not want to baptise Jesus, saying Jesus should be baptising him meaning Jesus did not need to be baptised! But Jesus said, "Permit it at this trime; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness."

But notice this explanation never appears in Mark's gospel, which is the earliest of the four canon gospels to be written. This is a later addition which to me makes it suspicious that they would add it in later, as if they were embarrassed by the possibility Jesus was a sinner like everyone else.

Quote

The Jewish people were a literate people. Their history is replete with reading and writing, particularly scripture and other religious documents. Not all were formally educated to be more than a fisherman or tax collector.

Nobody said the Jewish people were not a literate people, but then Americans are a literate people yet that doesn't mean no one in America is illiterate. Do you think it would be likely for someone who's a beggar in America to be an accurate historian who knows all the details about ancient civilization if they don't even know how to read or write let alone received an education in history? But the bible clearly says Peter and John had no education and there's no evidence they ever wrote anything other than heresy and letters by authors pretending to be them. If you accept the bible is literal history, then either 1 Peter is right and it is written by Peter but this would mean Acts is wrong and the bible does in fact contain errors and contradictions in it, or if Acts is right and Peter was uneducated, then 1 Peter is wrong and the bible is still contradictory, but they can't both be right.

[davidk]

Billmc,
Well, progressives do make it simple by seemingly not having to explain the meaning for anything. After all, there doesn't seem to be any certainty, nor absolutes, nor objective truth to be burdened with, don't have any need to be saved, and won't admit they have their own lists. Really now, how can specific beliefs not be considered a list?

Since you do not have a Christian faith in God, the possibility of Jesus as anyone but a really smart guy would seem nonsense. The foundation being: knowing objective truth, certainty, absolutes and an influencial God exist are a prerequisite for a Christian faith.
Once your head is on straight, your heart will follow appropriately. Feelings alone make poor judgements.
Now I'm not disparaging experience, it's crucial. But like marraige, you must set your mind to love someone forever, regardless. As a result, your love and pleasures (experiences) in that relationship often exceed most expectations, despite whatever conflicts may arise.

You have implied, in the past, that you believe the teachings of Jesus to be true and it doesn't make Him God to say those things. Agreed. Well, if you believe what He taught was true, by what measure then have you concluded it was?

You don't expect God to fear close examination, do you? Shouldn't you think he would expect, if not demand, it?

Does all of this simply mean you don't believe in the name of Jesus as all the Bible enunciates?
-

neon,
Whether each gospel should be exactly like the other, or whether each detail must be in each, or whether they stand complimentary, rightly concerns you. However, if one is not of the mind to consider that the Bible needs the parts to be considered within its entirety, then you must realize that to constantly take things out of context we will be here, as billmc mentions, bogged down in minutia.

Can the presented evidence be considered true or not? In this case, the Bible.
It contains all the foundational evidence we have or need for these discussions. (Some ancillary secular writings do exist, such as the writings of the Roman historian- Josephus, which verified Biblical historical content concerning Jesus.) Regardless, if one cannot consider the Bible to be true wherever it touches history or science or the spiritual, then the reliablity of everything in it becomes suspect and purely subjective, and may as well be thrown out. If it can no longer be considered totally reliable, we are left with no evidence for anyone to claim themselves Christian, regardless the stripe?
If you wish, I will gladly explain my position while answering your questions about Biblical reliability, however specific.
As I've said before, I cannot consider myself a Bible scholar, but we can search out the answers together. Again, if you wish.
-

Thank you both for allowing me to speak freely,

May God continue to reveal to you both His personal and infinite nature,

davidk

[Mike]

Hello David,

I think that objective truth is important, but not for everything. Subjectivity is not a pejorative word. There are things that subjectivity can convey that would be worthless if left to mere objectivity. I see in your thought a lot of demands for a black and white, all-or-nothing theology with no place for ambiguity - but I don't see the logical necessity for such a worldview or where the evidence demands it. To me there is no necessity for absolute intellectual certainty, especially about purported historical matters that we are thousands of years removed from. Therefore demanding certainty and asserting its necessity is not personally relevant for me, and simply does not stick.

Ultimately you are resting your faith on beliefs and interpretations just like anyone else. 'Objective truth' is not so obvious. God is not knocking on my door with a list of things he wants me to believe about him. One might say that the Bible is the authority, but the fact is, that person has himself decided it is and has decided to accept what he thinks it teaches. The whole religious impulse returns to you, the individual, they arise from the self and are accepted based on one's own experience and understanding.

Therefore, to me, the idea that life is all about what you believe, getting those beliefs right and getting saved, is just not a compelling idea of reality. To me in a large way ambiguity reflects the reality of life as it is lived. And any theology must do justice to life as it is lived. I question foundationalism, which seeks to prove certain fundamental propositions and reason from those with certainty about specific matters, to be untenable in my experience of life and from what I know about the world, including Christianity and the bible, the latter two for which I feel I've done my allotted share of homework, as much as can be reasonably be expected.

Peace to you,
Mike

[Neon Genesis]

davidk, on 19 November 2009 - 01:01 PM, said:

Regardless, if one cannot consider the Bible to be true wherever it touches history or science or the spiritual, then the reliablity of everything in it becomes suspect and purely subjective, and may as well be thrown out.
-

Why must the bible be taken as literal historical and scientific fact in order for it to have any value? Does the parable of the prodigal son have to be accepted as a literal historical account to have value?