Is Following Christ Compatible With Christianity?

[davidk]

I have been an active Protestant (I hesitate to use the term Christian) lay person for most of the last 40-some years.

Here it is.

 

"If so, what is that denomination and what was your purpose in referring to the Presbyterians?"

I am one. I have seen those who balk at the consitutional questions.

 

"Your comment about good and evil is appropriate. Nonetheless, concerns about the nature of life are not simply a "pre-teen whine." That comment is rude. After all, the second of the two creation stories found in Genesis to which I referred is "J" and therefore has its likely origins in a much older folktale. Not distinguishing between the two creation stories strikes me as disingenuous."

I am certain you must have heard a twelve year old whine about how hard life is when he has to take out the trash or clean her room? There is no reason for me to be rude.

I am not familiar with any more than one creation story in Genesis. What is: "J" ?

 

"...be a bit more straightforward in your comments."

In fielding the topic at hand, and we've been here a long time trying to define Christ and Christianity so the topic could reasonably be discussed. Unfortunately, the definitions have yet to coalesce.

 

"By posing the questions as you have, you imply that "progressives" are not doing so."

Perhaps I have painted with a rather broad stroke, making it appear as if I accuse no liberal or progressive mind seeks the answer to those most basic philosphical problems of existence, morality, and certainty of knowledge. As you have realized, by decoding my clever repertoire, without those answers, it would be impossible for other questions to be sufficiently answered. These are the foundational, universal questions of philosophic thought.

 

minsocal:

I didn't mean for the "rehash" statement to address Whitehead. It was intended for the post you followed up with on "new trends". Sorry for the confusion. My editing prowess shows need.

[David]

Grampawompat,

Are you going to attempt to explain “J” and “P” to DavidK’s childlike mind? What purpose would that serve? Would it make you feel better? Do you think that in the available space here that you can not only explain “J” and “P” but how that applies to Genesis and then persuade DavidK that his total commitment to the Bible without such interpretation is so wrong that he should give up his simple faith? You asked DavidK what he is doing here. I suspect you know the answer to that. I will ask you what you are doing here. What purpose is there is discussing the Bible with DavidK when you and DavidK do not share the same epistemology? DavidK has no interest in the proper approach to how to read the Old Testament. At some point DavidK's world may come tumbling down but I doubt that this message board will be the catalyst.

[grampawombat]

I see your point, david, based on davidk's obtuse behavior and lack of knowledge (or is he simply being disingenuous?) regarding the documentary hypothesis. I have no trouble understanding why davidk offends you, but think you are being kind of hard on me for trying to figure out where he is coming from.

 

Though I have the impression that we probably agree on most theological matters, and would like to think that in general those who consider themselves progressive Christians are generally positively disposed toward me and my point of view, I find your comment about my "feeling better" kind of snide. When you write, "I will ask you what you are doing here," does that apply to this thread in particular or to TCPC in general? I sensed some hostility on your part to my post on the liberation theology thread. Is this my imagination, or would you prefer that I not participate in these discussions?

 

I would like to think that a person who did adhere to Borg's "earlier paradigm" could engage progressive Christians in a civil discourse, though it appears davidk is not such a person. But I don't understand why someone would go to the trouble of signing up on TCPC simply to harass its proponents.

 

What is really unfortunate on this particular thread is the fact that the original question is a good one and deserves serious discussion. As with Beliefnet, are there rules regarding participation that make it possible for someone who is consistently disruptive to be asked to refrain from participating, or even have their posts removed? Do you feel that such an action is appropriate with regard to davidk? Just so that I am being clear, I think it should at least be considered.

[Wayseer]

I am not familiar with any more than one creation story in Genesis. What is: "J" ?

 

I admitt it is a bit of a challenge - but, the books in the Bible were not written by who you generally think. In fact, those books were not written, if they were written at all (oral tradition being the prefered mean of transmission), until late in the history of Israel, about 800 BCE and were authored by a collection of writers rather than some solitary individual.

 

A group of authors were known by academics by the letter 'J' because they were concerned with Judah and generally referred to God as YHWH, 'Yahweh' . Others, used the word 'Elohim' and where called 'E' and were from the northern area of Israel. Just to add further confusion a group of writers about 622, known as the Deuteronomists, added to J and E. But, wait there's more. During the exile in babylon another group, designated 'P', because they saw a 'priestly' layer in the Torah, came along to add yet another layer. Yet, it was not until Ezra was dispatched by the King of Persia in 398 that he collected the various volumes and in became the Torah and marked the beginning of the classical era of Judaism. The 'Writings' did not stop there - but that's another story.

 

The first creation account, Genesis. 1:1 to Genesis. 2:4a, was written during the Babylonian exile - and therefore probably by P - the Priestly account. The second Creation story, Genesis 2:4b to 2:25, found its written form several centuries before the Genesis 1:1 story and is an earlier Yahwistic account, or J source.

 

Now you buy into a bun fight as to why and to what extent these creation myths are correlated. To me, it does not matter.

[David]

I find your comment about my "feeling better" kind of snide. When you write, "I will ask you what you are doing here," does that apply to this thread in particular or to TCPC in general? I sensed some hostility on your part to my post on the liberation theology thread. Is this my imagination, or would you prefer that I not participate in these discussions?

I am sorry if I gave you this impression. I have asked others the same question. Why do we spend so much time/energy on a discussion that is going to go nowhere because we do not share the same epistemology with DavidK. DavidK thinks that the Bible supports that the world is not flat. There really is nowhere to go from this position. With this position understanding "J" and "P" and the two Genesis stories is rocket science. Yet people continue to think that somehow their contribution to the discussion will pursuade DavidK that he is wrong. If someone has had some success with talking about the Bible with a fundamentalist then I would like to hear that story. Maybe that story could give us guidance on how to respond to DavidK. Personally, I have never had any such success and so I am just wondering what the point may be of doing this.

[David]

I am not familiar with any more than one creation story in Genesis. What is: "J" ?

 

I admitt it is a bit of a challenge - but, the books in the Bible were not written by who you generally think. In fact, those books were not written, if they were written at all (oral tradition being the prefered mean of transmission), until late in the history of Israel, about 800 BCE and were authored by a collection of writers rather than some solitary individual.

 

A group of authors were known by academics by the letter 'J' because they were concerned with Judah and generally referred to God as YHWH, 'Yahweh' . Others, used the word 'Elohim' and where called 'E' and were from the northern area of Israel. Just to add further confusion a group of writers about 622, known as the Deuteronomists, added to J and E. But, wait there's more. During the exile in babylon another group, designated 'P', because they saw a 'priestly' layer in the Torah, came along to add yet another layer. Yet, it was not until Ezra was dispatched by the King of Persia in 398 that he collected the various volumes and in became the Torah and marked the beginning of the classical era of Judaism. The 'Writings' did not stop there - but that's another story.

 

The first creation account, Genesis. 1:1 to Genesis. 2:4a, was written during the Babylonian exile - and therefore probably by P - the Priestly account. The second Creation story, Genesis 2:4b to 2:25, found its written form several centuries before the Genesis 1:1 story and is an earlier Yahwistic account, or J source.

 

Now you buy into a bun fight as to why and to what extent these creation myths are correlated. To me, it does not matter.

OK Wayseer, you took the bait. I will just go back in the woodwork and let you and grampawombat take it from here (but I thought I heard you say that you were through with the attempt to convert DavidK)

[Wayseer]

Yes - and that's my weakeness. I thought he raised an interesting point and it was worth answering. What he does with that is his call. But, please do not absence yourself. I have found your contributions valuable.

[David]

Yes - and that's my weakeness. I thought he raised an interesting point and it was worth answering. What he does with that is his call. But, please do not absence yourself. I have found your contributions valuable.

Well I love the point also. Now that I think about it there has not been too much discussion of the Old Testament that I can remember on this message Board. I'm not sure I could lead such a discussion. Maybe grampawobat? (OK, I'll bite, what is a wobat?)

[October's Autumn]

I am sorry if I gave you this impression. I have asked others the same question. Why do we spend so much time/energy on a discussion that is going to go nowhere because we do not share the same epistemology with DavidK. DavidK thinks that the Bible supports that the world is not flat. There really is nowhere to go from this position. With this position understanding "J" and "P" and the two Genesis stories is rocket science. Yet people continue to think that somehow their contribution to the discussion will pursuade DavidK that he is wrong. If someone has had some success with talking about the Bible with a fundamentalist then I would like to hear that story. Maybe that story could give us guidance on how to respond to DavidK. Personally, I have never had any such success and so I am just wondering what the point may be of doing this.

 

 

David, you make excellent points. I would also like to hear about anyone who has had success talking with a fundamentalist. I think some of us live with with the eternal hope that the truth will sink in. I waffle, myself. Part always has hope, the other part which has studied the workings of the human mind and its ability to deny the truth knows better. It is as you said, if davidk comes to the truth it is unlikely to be because of discussions here, it is more likely to be events in his life which is how most if not all of us ended up here. One never knows. The fact davidk doesn't even know about J and P suggests that their is some hope at some level educating him... I am a teacher after all. I do believe in the power of education...

 

 

I can't get around the lack of people using the quote feature so I've pretty much stopped reading most of the posts in this thread. That and the discussion seems to be stalled.

[October's Autumn]

Maybe grampawombat? (OK, I'll bite, what is a wombat?)

 

 

Wombat, with an "m."

 

 

http://www.photoseek.com/04AUS-30201-Wombat.jpg

[David]

Wombat, with an "m."

http://www.photoseek.com/04AUS-30201-Wombat.jpg

I like it!!! You're sure this is not a mythical animal? You know how important it is to me to know something is "real".

[October's Autumn]

I like it!!! You're sure this is not a mythical animal? You know how important it is to me to know something is "real".

 

 

LOL. IF it is those photos are pretty amazing!

[minsocal]

Here it is.

 

"If so, what is that denomination and what was your purpose in referring to the Presbyterians?"

I am one. I have seen those who balk at the consitutional questions.

 

"Your comment about good and evil is appropriate. Nonetheless, concerns about the nature of life are not simply a "pre-teen whine." That comment is rude. After all, the second of the two creation stories found in Genesis to which I referred is "J" and therefore has its likely origins in a much older folktale. Not distinguishing between the two creation stories strikes me as disingenuous."

I am certain you must have heard a twelve year old whine about how hard life is when he has to take out the trash or clean her room? There is no reason for me to be rude.

I am not familiar with any more than one creation story in Genesis. What is: "J" ?

 

"...be a bit more straightforward in your comments."

In fielding the topic at hand, and we've been here a long time trying to define Christ and Christianity so the topic could reasonably be discussed. Unfortunately, the definitions have yet to coalesce.

 

"By posing the questions as you have, you imply that "progressives" are not doing so."

Perhaps I have painted with a rather broad stroke, making it appear as if I accuse no liberal or progressive mind seeks the answer to those most basic philosphical problems of existence, morality, and certainty of knowledge. As you have realized, by decoding my clever repertoire, without those answers, it would be impossible for other questions to be sufficiently answered. These are the foundational, universal questions of philosophic thought.

 

minsocal:

I didn't mean for the "rehash" statement to address Whitehead. It was intended for the post you followed up with on "new trends". Sorry for the confusion. My editing prowess shows need.

 

davidk:

You know, it crossed my mind later that I might of misinterprteted your intentions. Sorry. I should explain my assumptions concerning "new trends". My perspective is somewhat different than the philosophical use of terms such as relativism, etc. My background is in psychology and cognitive science. In the last ten years, psychology has begun to embrace spirituality not so much as the object of study, a psychology of religion, so to speak, but psychology with spirituality. The origins of this perspective date back to the early 1900's, especially the work of Pierre Janet and C. G. Jung. Janet was important because he was one of the first to define cognitive development in a series of levels ending with what he termed "progressive thinking". The levels represent a series of nine steps from the literal and concrete through individual doubt and finally a stage where the person rejoins the world "in spiritual union with all creation (the progressive level)." C. G. Jung added ethical and moral considerations. His experience led him to conclude that his patients did far better when he treated them as unique individuals with a story to tell, this being most important for his older patients whose "problems were almost always spiritual".

 

In summary, my intentions are not to disuade anyone here from their perspectives. If what I post is useful, so much the better.

 

P.S. My editing prowess also shows need. I'll get better at it as I become more familiar with the people here.

 

minsocal

[McKenna]

No need to apologize to DavidK. No need to apologize to me or anyone on this Board. Even if you were not one of the most gracious persons I have never met there would be no need to apologize. Even if you were not so insightful there would be no need to apologize. Even if you were not so wise beyond your years there would be no need to apologize. God bless you too.

 

Thanks, David. That means a lot.

 

I need to apologize however for posting that twice.

 

This is where the age thing comes in. You can tell I'm a "dinosaur" when it comes to computers. My kids laugh at me.

 

Haha I tease my mom too. We younger folks should probably let up on you guys about that...I mean, many of us did more or less grow up with all this new technology, and I can imagine it would be hard to adjust to/learn...but it's just so much fun to tease y'all

 

I do have a Master's Degree in New Testament Theology. When we think of history today we think of things that actually happened. We don't try to make a truth out of something and change the "facts" to fit the message, or if we do, it is recognized as being fiction or flat out lying.

 

It was common for a follower of a teacher to write in that teacher's name (several of the letters "signed" by Paul are these letters). In our society that would not be tolerated. Only Michael Crichton can have his name on a book that he wrote. My step-son, who is a big fan, could not write a book and sell it or market it under Michael Crichton's name.

 

Much of the New Testament is midrash. The stories of Jesus are not historical in the sense that they actually happened in the way they are told. They are meant to convey truths that are outside of the realm of historical. Spong's Liberating the Gospels gives a full description.

 

The evidence is in the contradictions in the stories, the similarity with Jewish Midrash (which the gospels are since they are written by Jews and one Jewish convert). Also there is evidence outside the bible where you see the same thing being done at this time.

 

That's so cool about the Master's Degree in NT Theology. I think I've said that before...

 

I keep hearing the word "midrash," perhaps I should read more about it. I didn't realize it was so well-evidenced. Thanks for the summary!

 

McKenna, you make an excellent point about the creation myth. The bible has incredible depth to it. The first creation story is in poetic form meant to convey a message -- that message is certainly *not* intended to be a literal telling of how humans came to be.

It is a shame that so many miss out on it because they aren't willing to take the risk of not taking the bible literally and look at it as it was written to be.

 

I understand why people view it that way, and why they put so much energy into defending a literal reading. But I just get so much more out of the story when I read it as poetry/prose (which is what I believe the original intent was anyway)!

 

I'm a bit jealous of your youth and depth of knowledge and all the time you have to explore!

 

I'm trying to use the time wisely, but "youth is wasted on the young" as they say. Ack, who knows. For my part, sometimes I wish some of the people around me would just hurry up and become mature already. And if only I knew where my life was headed!

 

To David, October's Autumn and McKenna you all have qualifications that sort of puts me in the shadows. I enjoy your contributions immensely.

 

Not me! My only qualification is time spent reading and pondering Sometimes you say things that go a bit over my head! I certainly enjoy "hearing" what you have to say as well

 

In 1999 I became so disillusioned with the Church, as opposed to God, that I left and joined a Tibetan Buddhist monastry in India for some months. As it turns out this is probably the best thing I could have done. I saw Christianity from a different angle - I had different tools to use and those tools gave me another perspective. I was not alone as I vividly recall three of us 'Western' monks discussing Christianity one day. The consensus was that we all had a greater understanding of where Christiany should have been. Serendipitously, on my return I picked us Spong's book 'Why Christianity Must Die" having no idea of what had been happening in other parts of the world.

 

Wow, that sounds like an incredible experience! I'd love to hear more about it, if you want to talk about it - maybe on the 'what brought you here' thread?

[McKenna]

The mere labels, as you're calling them, of are from Science. The observing and defining what we know of the real physical universe we live in. They are not hypothetical, they are real, they can be observed, and they can be rationally explained. I did not invent them.

 

I realize where they're from. Just because it's from science doesn't mean it's not a label. Scientists are always trying to categorize the universe, and often have to rewrite those categories. Just look at the evolution (ha!) of science's understanding of the animal kingdom. The 'label' of 'reptile' is just that, a label, and sometimes the lines are fuzzy.

 

Thus my point was that science is fluid and even though we understand the universe in certain ways doesn't mean that our understanding is accurate or that it won't change. For example, perhaps a while ago (I don't know how long) when the universe was thought of in only 3 dimensions, you would have added that to your list of everything that comes in 3s. But, at least as far as I understand it, there are a lot more dimensions that have been discovered, so that argument wouldn't work anymore.

 

That's what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear.

[October's Autumn]

That's so cool about the Master's Degree in NT Theology. I think I've said that before...

 

It saved my life.

 

I understand why people view it that way, and why they put so much energy into defending a literal reading. But I just get so much more out of the story when I read it as poetry/prose (which is what I believe the original intent was anyway)!

It is poetry. As I understand it, Hebrew poetry is not meant to be dissected like many do. The poem is not intended to give details but rather to be taken as a whole. The main idea, is what one is looking for.

 

I'm trying to use the time wisely, but "youth is wasted on the young" as they say.

 

 

Indeed, as was mine! I sometimes go through the "if only's" but the reality is I did what I could just as I am. I guess we can't really expect more than that!

[davidk]

But, at least as far as I understand it, there are a lot more dimensions that have been discovered, so that argument wouldn't work anymore.

Space can only be defined in 3 dimensions. The universe, only three: space, time, and matter. There really is nothing else that has been discovered.

 

That's what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear.

We both find ourselves trying to be clear and concise. Sometimes I'm more concise than clear! But you do not have any need to apologize to me. We have religious disagreements, and you demonstrate love by dining with the "unclean".

 

"Scientists are always trying to categorize the universe, and often have to rewrite those categories." This could be a reason religion has such difficulty in molding faith around science.

 

Wayseer;

I appreciate your educating me on J and P. I know higher criticisims but was unfamiliar with these initials. They, like some of my references, may be unknown to others. Thank you.

O.K.? What's a "bun fight"?

 

minsocal:

These may be over simplified, but;

Is this what Janet proposed: the human mind begins from simply not being able to discern fantasy from reality until the adult mind reaches such a stage as to have developed that discernment.

And Jung's: Man would do just as well believing a 'lie' as well as the truth, as long as he has something to believe in. (Some Dependancy groups have adopted such an approach to be included in their therapy.)

 

grampawombat:

David flatters me too much. He wrote only ten sentences here in post #177, and he mentioned me by name 7 times! Go to "Ecumentalism" and read his rant about me in #127. He used my name 12 times in that one. I'm mentioned again in the following #129. 4 more again, here, in #180. The count goes on! All from this man who argues: "...you (davidk) are saying that you base "how you know what you know"...upon "what you know". So my method would differ from yours in that I (David) would... begin thinking about "how I know what I know" and... relate that to "what I know" Now, if you can understand the difference here, please explain it to me.

 

grampa, He was unabashedly bullying you in post #177! He insulted you first of all. (You even recognized it in your next post.) Then he tells you what you can and can't do, what to assume, what to say, and what to believe. As if you can't make up your own mind. In post #183, He appears to have assumed the leadership mantle!

That's all this is about.

Are you feigning disingenuousness with me? Or are you purposefully obtuse? Those are rhetorical, for I don't have any reason to believe you came to this message board with the affrontary to behave in that manner. I would hope you think the same of me. This is meant to be a dialogue from which we can discuss and debate our beliefs in an open and honest forum. We shouldn't deny the discussion because of someone else's prejudices. I hope this is the last we'll have to address this bickering.

 

As far as the creation "stories" are concerned, I'm of the opinion there is only one story. Beginning, like many Old Testament stories do; giving a quick overview, followed by a more in depth analysis of the particularly important subjects. I have never seen what I could call a reasonable division into 2 distinct 'creations'. Therefore, I am not familiar with any more than one creation story. I tried to say that as 'straight forward' as I could.

 

Are we going to get back to the topic?

 

Who is Jesus Christ and what is Christianity? If one believes the Bible is unreliable, from where does one get one's knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, whom we elect to follow? Does Christianity differ? What's a Christian?

[McKenna]

It is poetry. As I understand it, Hebrew poetry is not meant to be dissected like many do. The poem is not intended to give details but rather to be taken as a whole. The main idea, is what one is looking for.

 

Good point!

 

Indeed, as was mine! I sometimes go through the "if only's" but the reality is I did what I could just as I am. I guess we can't really expect more than that!

 

Nope!

 

Space can only be defined in 3 dimensions. The universe, only three: space, time, and matter. There really is nothing else that has been discovered.

 

Okay, spatially, yes. I'll concede that point.

 

I was referring to the other dimensions such as the 4th dimension of time, and the 6 or 7 others as well according to String Theory (Wikipedia). *shrug*

 

We both find ourselves trying to be clear and concise. Sometimes I'm more concise than clear! But you do not have any need to apologize to me. We have religious disagreements, and you demonstrate love by dining with the "unclean".

 

I don't think you're "unclean," if that is what you were implying!

 

You just have a different view, one that I can understand even if I can't agree with it.

[grampawombat]

davidk,

 

You have a very strange way of expressing yourself, and that is part of the problem. Nevertheless, I think that you are twisting my meanings. I don't think you are either stupid or uninformed. I do suspect that you are not being at all straightforward in your comments, and have pushed the other david's buttons in such a way that he sometimes responds to others out of frustration. I believe that was true of his exchange with me.

 

You, on the other hand have beliefs that are clearly at odds with my own, and do not seem to be willing to admit that.

 

One does not "feign" disingenuousness. I think you me am I feigning ingenuousness, which would mean I am pretending to lack knowledge that I actually have. I came to the TCPC boards to exchange ideas with other people who think of themselves as progressive Christians. And to me that means those who, among other things, do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, and who believe that there are other religions as valid as their own. While I do thry to believe that those with whom I disagree are intelligent folk of good will, I expect the same in return. Frankly, I don't sense that in many of your comments.

 

You wrote, "this is meant to be a dialogue from which we can discuss and debate our beliefs in an open and honest forum. We shouldn't deny the discussion because of someone else's prejudices. I hope this is the last we'll have to address this bickering." Your wishes are not likely to be realized if you characterize progressive points of view as laking logic or as avoiding what you see as more serious or profound issues. As a case in point, you also wrote:

 

As far as the creation "stories" are concerned, I'm of the opinion there is only one story. Beginning, like many Old Testament stories do; giving a quick overview, followed by a more in depth analysis of the particularly important subjects. I have never seen what I could call a reasonable division into 2 distinct 'creations'. Therefore, I am not familiar with any more than one creation story. I tried to say that as 'straight forward' as I could.

 

There are two creations stories, as one correspondent already pointed out. Gen. 1:1-2:3 is the first, and Gen. 2:4-3:19 is the second. You know that. To argue to the contrary is to deny the validity of a pregressive perspective.

[October's Autumn]

As far as the creation "stories" are concerned, I'm of the opinion there is only one story. Beginning, like many Old Testament stories do; giving a quick overview, followed by a more in depth analysis of the particularly important subjects. I have never seen what I could call a reasonable division into 2 distinct 'creations'.

 

 

Well, then you should read more carefully. There are two distinct stories in which the order of creation happens in two different orders. This is factual information. You can't have an "opinion" about it. You can deny the obvious and choose to live in ignorance or you can acknowledge what is obvious. Further, if you've done any studying of any value whatsoever you'd would find that the stories were written quite far apart in history.

 

 

Two distinct stories of the creation of humanity are given in Genesis. Genesis 1 is believed to have been written by the "Priestly" author and Genesis 2 by the "Yahwist" author. (Both may well have been groups of authors). The Priestly author is believed to be the more recent, about the 7th to 5th centuries BCE, and the Yahwist story is more primitive, possibly dating from about the 10th century BCE. Scholars still debate these dates, but the majority accept these, or something similar.

 

Genesis 1:27-30: "So God created man in his own image; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase, fill the earth and subdue it, rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven, and every living thing that moves upon the earth.' God also said, 'I give you all plants that bear seed everywhere on earth, and every tree bearing fruit which yields seed: they shall be yours for food.'" Note that no exception is made for the fruit of any tree in this account.

 

Genesis 2: 7-8: "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Thus the man became a living creature." Gen. 2: 15-18: "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till it and take care of it. He told the man 'You may eat from every tree in the garden, but not from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.'" Gen. 2: 21-22: "And so the Lord God put the man into a trance, and while he slept, he took one of his ribs and closed the flesh over the place. The Lord God then built up the rib, which he had taken out of the man, into a woman,"

 

The order of creation in Genesis 1 is: heaven and earth, light, vault of heaven (i.e., separation of earthly and heavenly waters), seas and dry land, plants, sun and stars, fish and birds, land animals, and last humans. This order is the same as that of the Persian Zend-Avesta, the sacred book of the Zoroastrians. Zoroastrianism was a powerful religion at about the time of the priestly writer of Genesis. However, Zoroaster probably lived about 1000 BCE, and the Yahwist writer would be unlikely to have had any contact with the Avesta. The original Avesta has not survived; modern adherents of Zoroastrianism use a version that has been recreated from fragments, commentaries, and hymns. The order of creation in Egyptian mythology, which would surely have been familiar to the priestly author, is ocean, sun, atmosphere, earth, and sky.

 

The order of creation in Genesis 2 is: heaven and earth, man, trees and the Garden of Eden, animals and birds, woman. In Genesis 1 the earth is first covered by water. In Genesis 2 the earth is first dry and barren. In Genesis 1 God creates by simple command: "And God said, let there be light, and there was light." In Genesis 2 God manufactures his creations from dirt or earth, walks in the garden in the cool of the evening, and cannot find the humans when they are hiding. Not only are the creation stories inconsistent, but the conceptions of the power of the deity are utterly different.

 

You are the first fundamentalist I've ever met who was ignorant to the fact there were two creation stories. Even *I* knew that as a young teenager!

[grampawombat]

In order to "get back on the topic" I will answer your final questions. And I expect my answers to be treated with respct, without resort to comments like "pre-teen whine."

 

Who is Jesus Christ and what is Christianity?

For me, Jesus is the principal figure described in the New Testament. There are two things that are important about him to me. One is the description of his life, teachings, and ministry, and the other is the way people's beliefs about Jesus have affected their lives and their actions. In particular, I am drawn to those who work for peace and for social and economic justice.

 

If one believes the Bible is unreliable, from where does one get one's knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, whom we elect to follow?

The question presumes a relationship between inerrancy and reliability that is not valid. See my answer to the previous question.

 

Does Christianity differ? Differ from what?

 

What's a Christian? I am a Christian because I say I am. There is no test in terms of belief that I accept.

 

Are we back on track, now?

[October's Autumn]

There are two creations stories, as one correspondent already pointed out. Gen. 1:1-2:3 is the first, and Gen. 2:4-3:19 is the second. You know that. To argue to the contrary is to deny the validity of a pregressive perspective.

 

 

To argue the contrary is deny the validity of logic and reason! This is the first time I've ever heard anyone not recognize that there are two separate creation stories, that includes fundamentalists & conservatives!

[Wayseer]

Hands up all those who believed in only one creation story? Huh - I see there is only a couple of us. I did'nt know about two creation stories let alone J and P and E (or E1 and E2 as I've just been alerted to) until, well not all that long ago. In fact I took the Bible at it's literal best. But I kept asking question to which my teachers had no valid answer or redirected my question on to some other topic - like, and you profess to be a real Christian?

 

You see, I came out a fundamentalist tradition. And while I now see many flaws in that thinking I have a soft heart for those who, for whatever reason, find themselves anchored in those teachings. I guess, to that extent, I can see something of myself in Davidk, although that still does not stop me getting frustrated with his stone-walling. The problem with Davidk is that he is asking questions and sooner or later the penny will drop. In the end I realised that those teachers just did'nt know the answers so I moved on. But I miss their emotionalism and singing. I am about as musical as a brick but could sing at the top of my voice and no one would notice.

 

However, I did move on. No one can stand still for ever, not even Davidk. That's the hard part - moving.

 

So Davidk would like an answer to his question Who is Jesus Christ and what is Christianity.

 

The question contains the intended answer - Christ - that's who Jesus was as defined by the question which also determines the second part of the question.

 

Now if I was asked who Jesus was I would supply a different answer.

 

What's a 'bun fight'?

 

That's fight using buns, soft baked preferably. Lots of energy get's expended with little damage being inflicted.

[David]

I am glad I went back in the woodwork. I will just cheer you all on. Great response Grampawombat and thank you for your graciousness.

[davidk]

McKenna, String theory is an incomplete mathematical approach to theoretical physics. It claims no more than 3 real dimensions anyway. Time has no 4th dimension.

-

grampa:

I thought you understood that the "whine" comment was an attempt at light humor. I was sure it was something we both had heard the likes of from children before. If you considered it was disrespectful I apologize. For there is no reason for me to have been rude. "I think you me am I feigning ingenuousness, which would mean I am pretending to lack knowledge that I actually have." Did you happen to read ,"Those are rhetorical, for I don't have any reason to believe you came to this message board with the affrontary to behave in that manner." Otherwise, I feel you have been unfairly rash in saying you don't sense good will in many comments.

-

"For me, Jesus is the principal figure described in the New Testament."

Good! This is right on track!

Jesus was described as: The Anointed One, The Anointed King, Our King, The Christ, The Messiah, The Way, The Truth, The Light, The Son of God, Our Savior, God our Savior, The Deliverer, The Perfect Sacrifice, The Lord, Our Lord, The Beloved, The Rock, The Perfecter, The Author, The King of Kings, The Lord of Lords, The Word, The Apostle, The High Priest, The Mediator, the Bright and Morning Star, The Vine, The Arm of the Lord, Almighty, Creator of all things, The Door, The Foundation, The Lamb of God, the Lion of Judah, One and only Son of God, The Propitiation, and it was also written that, "... in the sight of God our Savior, Jesus Christ, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God the Father, and men, the man Christ Jesus."

"If we go on sinning after recieving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for our sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgement."

It is the believing on Jesus the Christ that we are saved. He did not offer Himself as 'a solution' to life, but as 'the One'; "I am the way, the truth, and the life." The Old Testament Scripture wrote of the personal Messiah that was to come. The New Testament says the woman at the well knew of Him, and Jesus replied to her, "I am He". Later, to the Pharisees; "... for unless you believe, I am He, you shall die in your sins."

Jesus also encouraged us with "If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink. He that believes in me as the Scripture said, 'from his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water'."

-

"Does Christianity differ? Differ from what?"

Careful, you're beginning to swerve. This happens to be topic of this board.

 

"...a relationship between inerrancy and reliability that is not valid."

Whoa! You just jumped the track!

What document containing errancy could be considered reliable by anyone?

I'll revise my questions to your phraseology:

If one believes the Bible is errant, from where does one get reliable knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, whom we profess to follow?

If one believes the Bible is errant, from where does one get reliable knowledge of Christianity, which we profess to belong?

If one believes the Bible is errant, from where does one get reliable knowledge of Christian, whom we profess to be?

-

"I am a Christian because I say I am. There is no test in terms of belief that I accept." .

That's rich. This is not a definition.

Ok; You are toying with me. Or are you being disingenuous? (disingenuous; lacking in candor or giving a false appearance of simple frankness.)

-

"I think that you are twisting my meanings."

What was it I twisted?

-

My point on bickering was in dealing with David's affront, not our discussion on Chiristianity. I tried to keep it in context.

-

"You, on the other hand have beliefs that are clearly at odds with my own, and do not seem to be willing to admit that."

You can't be serious?

-

There is one creation story, as one correspondent already pointed out. Let's see if I can sorta get this creation thingy squared away. Not that you agree, but the progressive perspective is invalid with proper examination.

Some scholars see Genesis 1 & 2 as two seperate accounts, like two watertight compartments in which nothing from the one relates to anything in the other. But according to Scripture's own exegesis of these chapters, this is not allowable. Actually, the first and second chapters of Genesis form a unit; neither account stands complete in itself, regardless of authorship. The two passages are complimentary. Each contains unique material that is important for an understanding of man. Jesus in explaining his moral standard concerning marraige, tied the two together as one unit. Referring to Gen 1:27 and 2:24. Jesus put together the creation of man in Gen 1 with the creation of man in Gen 2 to show a unity which forms the basis for His view of marraige. Jesus treated it historically.

The literary structure of the entire book has to be considered. First, less important things are delt with rapidly, and then the things more important to the central theme of the Bible are returned to and developed more fully. (ie; Jacob and Esau) Gen 1 deals with man in his entire environs. Gen 2 centers on man. While the accounts in Genesis 1 & 2 have a different emphasis, they are not pitted against each other. Two accounts, one story!

-

Wayseer;

Stone walling?

If I have not been forthright about something, what is it I am avoiding?

I can only assume no one out there can answer (avoiding) the questions with any authority. Grampa's 'non-definition' of Christian and Christianity? Or, Autumn's 'inability' to hear the questions at all! David apparently can't answer them so he 'hides' on other boards throwing stones. You said I asked the wrong one, (Who is Jesus Christ? ) saying, "Now if I was asked who Jesus was...". Now, who could be considered stone-walling! It's for certain your answers are not standing still!

-

As I said, "...liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything."

-

Bun fight! Take that!