Believing In The Name Of Jesus

[Guest billmc]

But does Paul ever actually say that Jesus was perfect? I thought that was only the view of the Hebrews author who most scholars agree is not Paul that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice?

 

Yes, you're correct, NG, that it is in Hebrews and 1 Peter and 1 John that we find statements about Jesus' sinlessness. Some scholars attribute Hebrews to Paul, some don't.

 

And while Paul did say that about not touching women, I had always thought that was about premarital sex and not within marriage. But Paul also encourages sex within marriage in 1 Cor 7 where he says he prefers it if you remain celibate like him, and he encourages his followers to get married if they can't control their sex drives.

 

Yes, how would you like to tell your fiance, "I'm only marrying you because I can't control my sex drive." That would go over like a lead balloon, wouldn't it? Paul believed people should, ideally, stay celibate. And, yes, if they can't control themselves, then get married. But with the percentage of extramarital affairs and divorces being as high in our churches as they are in secular society, Paul's view on the purpose of marriage seems outdated and ineffective. I married my wife because I love her, not because I couldn't "control myself."

 

Interestingly, Bart D Ehrman also argues that 1 Timothy, a forgery written in Paul's name, is a refutation of Gnosticism.

 

That may well be. As we have no extant manuscripts with signatures, we really don't know who wrote what. All we have is what the Church fathers decided and it is a well known fact that they had an agenda when they put the Bible together. Having read Ehrman, I'm sure you know that he lost his faith when he looked closely at the scriptures and how they were assembled/changed. IMO, this happened because Bart's faith, like many conservative Christians, was in the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures. When he could no longer believe in this doctrine, which formed the bedrock of his faith, everything came crashing down.

 

To be honest, I've been through a somewhat similar process. But to make a long story short, I found that I still have my experiences of GOD as compassion, justice, joy, love, peace, and life which don't require me to list a proof text for them in order that they be real and valid. For me, the Bible could not exist at all but GOD still would and we, as humans, would still find ways to relate to GOD. Likewise, the more I studied the scriptures and gave it careful consideration, the less I came to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the wargod Yahweh in a man-suit. I believe in Jesus' divinity because of his relationship with GOD and the compassion that flowed from that relationship; not because Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, God impregnanted Mary resulting a sinless Jesus, etc. My theology doesn't not require that I believe in a sinless sacrifice in order for GOD to forgive my sins. GOD forgives my sins simply because GOD, whose main character is love, is a forgiving GOD. I don't need Jesus to "buy" my forgiveness for me. GOD forgives me because I am loved, not because GOD is paidoff to do so.

 

All of this, of course, goes back to what it means to believe in Jesus. Because Augustinian thinking currently dominates Christianity, it is asserted that it must be believed that Jesus was a sinless sacrifice whose death appeased God's wrath towards those who believe in God holds sins against humans. All I'm saying it that, even according to Jesus' teachings, his "sinlessness" nor his death were never the point. After all the time that the disciples spent with him, when Jesus does mention his death, they rebuke him. This demonstrates to me that Jesus' gospel was never about his death as a sinless sacrifice. Christians will say that Jesus' only purpose was to come to die. But Jesus says, in the gospels, that his purpose was to preach the kingdom of God. And I find that PC, like Jesus himself, focuses more on the kingdom of God than on some schema for his redemptive death. There is little doubt that Paul, being an ex-Pharisee, saw Jesus as some kind of final sacrifice. But animal sacrifices are not part of my culture (and I would be offended at them if they were), so I find no need or desire to interpret Jesus that way.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

 

 

Yes, how would you like to tell your fiance, "I'm only marrying you because I can't control my sex drive." That would go over like a lead balloon, wouldn't it? Paul believed people should, ideally, stay celibate. And, yes, if they can't control themselves, then get married. But with the percentage of extramarital affairs and divorces being as high in our churches as they are in secular society, Paul's view on the purpose of marriage seems outdated and ineffective. I married my wife because I love her, not because I couldn't "control myself."

In some ways, I can understand though why Paul may have thought it was better to wait until marriage. In those days, they didn't have things like comprehensive sex ed or condoms and birth control, so it may have been more practical in those days to wait until marriage. The problem comes when literalists try to apply everything written for a first century mindset and culture to the 21st century.

 

 

 

Having read Ehrman, I'm sure you know that he lost his faith when he looked closely at the scriptures and how they were assembled/changed. IMO, this happened because Bart's faith, like many conservative Christians, was in the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures. When he could no longer believe in this doctrine, which formed the bedrock of his faith, everything came crashing down.

 

 

Ehrmann actually converted to liberal Christianity after he realized the bible was not the literal word of God but he deconverted to agnosticism because of the problem of evil argument.

[Mike]

Regarding Paul's attitude about marriage: I don't think Paul arrived at those conclusions because he deduced them from life principles he'd come to accept. My reading of Paul (and the entire New Testament for that matter) tells me that he thought the end of the world was at hand, now, no-time-to-waste. In fact, the entire organization and identity of the Church was sort of an emergency assembly and parenthesis between the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the world. It was supposed to be God's final call to humanity before the new age. I don't think Paul was trying to apply timeless principles in his relationship advice, but to deal with practical issues of how one is to live when Jesus is about to come back. It makes sense, then, not to bother to get married unless you absolutely have to - you can get more things done if you're not burdened by other obligations.

Of course, such expectations never materialized. And there'd be plenty less Christians in the world if they all took Paul's attitude seriously.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[davidk]

Whoa, a lotta shots being fired.

 

Javelin- Intrigued is a good word. Puzzled also comes to mind.

Jesus taught everything hung on the 2 basic commandments. The others (I'm assuming Apostles here from your post) spoke them giving credit to Jesus, whom they regarded as having the authority to provide them in the first place. That authority, the Apostles said, was God's.

Good comment on Pauls teaching.

The blood sacrifice explanation begins in Gen 3:7,21. It solves man's way to be good vs God's way. (note: for something to live, something must die; I Cor 15:36)

Paul and the other Apostles theologies differed only by application of the same Gospel, whether to Jew or gentile.

-

Neon- Briefly, surrounding Romans 8:34, reflects some of what Paul said about Jesus death and resurrection.

It seems Spong ignores ICor 15:4.

The body of Christ in ICor 15, is not euphamistic for the church, he is speaking of the specific body of Jesus Christ (vv 4-8).

 

Mike- It has never appeared to me that you have been anything short of honest!

In Isaiah 9:6,7 a child is prophesied to be born and he will be the visible God. Jesus claimed to be this Messiah and it is oft repeated by His Apostles.

I think by identifying the philosophies attempting to redefine Christianity as being the world's and modern, we can see the problem. The world being corrupt, while modern secular philosphies ignore the Christian God to center on man instead.

To perhaps reclarify, nothing about God can be considered to be impersonal, including the concept of Logos. Because, as you have so astutely observed, Logos is not seperate from God. It is as innate to God as your soul is to you. Jesus is no less Jesus before or after His physical appearance. The only thing to note is that He was, for a brief time here with us to see and touch. Jesus has always existed.(Jn 17:5)

 

Billmc- I didn't imply that choosing not to believe was arbitrary. Simply put, the biblical Christian concept of the Triune Godhead seems as unbelievable to you as it had been for me.

 

Years ago, a friend asked me to ponder on Romans 1:20, and it simply says God's character can be CLEARLY seen in what He created.

"OK?" I said.

Well, I pondered. It remained an allusive concept for years. Obviously it didn't bother me much for quite a while. What finally struck me, what finally grabbed me first was a sudden visual of the universe.

Yeah, I know what that may sound like, but it came about while I was developing a plan for a sculpture for my Mom one Christmas. I was struggling around with it and realized I needed to create a model rather than just by going by my illustrations, which were totaly insufficient for the problem I was having. What struck me next was what an art teacher had told me some time ago in college. Which was... "One dimension can be imagined, but it cannot exist. With 2 dimensions- we have the same conundrum. Not until we have the 3rd dimension, can anything be fully realized."

AH! Romans 1:20!

[JosephM]

davidk wrote ..

"One dimension can be imagined, but it cannot exist. With 2 dimensions- we have the same conundrum. Not until we have the 3rd dimension, can anything be fully realized."

 

Why stop at three?

 

Joseph

[Guest billmc]

In some ways, I can understand though why Paul may have thought it was better to wait until marriage. In those days, they didn't have things like comprehensive sex ed or condoms and birth control, so it may have been more practical in those days to wait until marriage. The problem comes when literalists try to apply everything written for a first century mindset and culture to the 21st century.

 

I agree. Even on the subject of sex, if Jesus/Christ was GOD and if Paul had the "mind of Christ" (whom, according to Christians, is omniscient), then why didn't Paul initiate comprehensive sex ed or invent condoms or birth control pills?

 

And if Jesus was GOD, then why didn't he give us the cure for cancer or tell us how to feed all of the world's hungry or inform us that the earth was really a sphere floating in a heliocentric planetary system? With all of the world's problems and pains, Jesus' best miracles, as God Almighty, is turning water into wine and casting demons into a herd of swine? IMO, GOD is concerned with many more serious matters than making alcohol and tormenting pigs. I am not purposefully denigrating Jesus, I admire him greatly and take his teachings to heart and practice. Jesus defined God as spirit and I just don't think that "believing in Jesus" inherently means believing that Jesus was a spirit.

[Neon Genesis]

 

Jesus defined God as spirit and I just don't think that "believing in Jesus" inherently means believing that Jesus was a spirit.

I agree with you and I believe the Trinity doctrine was a later addition to the Christian faith. There are even verses in the Synoptic gospels where Jesus denies he's God, like in the verse where he says not to call him good and only the Father above is good. Even if we accept John saw Jesus as existing before time as a divine being, it's still a different view than in the orthodox Christian creed of Jesus being a divine being who existed before time but was also born of a virgin as John's gospel nowhere mentions the virgin birth and seems unaware of it, so it's still a very different Christology from the modern day "orthodox" view.

 

It's also interesting that in 1 John, the church forced one of the scribes to add in a verse that promotes the orthodox view of the Trinity in clearer terms, even though it did not appear in any manuscripts before then and was a clear fabrication of the church. Even many modern English bibles either omit the verse or have a footnote explaining it's an addition. If the Trinity doctrine was so clearly spelled out in scripture, then why did the church have to force their own scribes to add in a verse that was never there originally?

[davidk]

 

Why stop at three?

 

There's no need for more. Only three dimensions are required for the physical universe to exist, to be lived in, realized, and understood.

 

Neon- Again, a thorough understanding of Mark will demonstrate that Jesus did not say, nor imply, He wasn't good.

With John's close affiliation with Jesus and the other Apostles, I think unreasonable to entertain the notion he was not aware of the virgin birth. His inescapable conclusion of Jesus as the Son of God carries with it a clear understanding that no mortal man had sired Him.

 

billmc- Perhaps you've forgotten the lame man, the blind man, the centurians daughter, forgiving sin, Lazarus...

If you're unable to glean the advice on proper behavior from Jesus and Paul, then you've obviously skipped a significant portion of what they said. If you're "not purposefully denigrating Jesus" then a rereading of His work and words might be recommended.

 

davidk

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Neon- Again, a thorough understanding of Mark will demonstrate that Jesus did not say, nor imply, He wasn't good.

With John's close affiliation with Jesus and the other Apostles, I think unreasonable to entertain the notion he was not aware of the virgin birth. His inescapable conclusion of Jesus as the Son of God carries with it a clear understanding that no mortal man had sired Him.

 

I wasn't saying Jesus was denying he was good. By saying only God was good, I was saying Jesus was denying he was God. But if Jesus was perfect, why did he have to be baptized by John the baptist, who performed baptisms for the remission of sins? And also, your point about John is presuming that the gospel of John is written by the apostle John but nowhere in the gospel does it say it was written by Jon and the consensus among biblical scholars is that it was written long after John and the other apostles had died and was not intended to be an eyewitness account.

[Guest billmc]

 

billmc- Perhaps you've forgotten the lame man, the blind man, the centurians daughter, forgiving sin, Lazarus...

If you're unable to glean the advice on proper behavior from Jesus and Paul, then you've obviously skipped a significant portion of what they said. If you're "not purposefully denigrating Jesus" then a rereading of His work and words might be recommended.

 

I've not forgotten any of those stories, David. I'm just saying that the claim the Jesus was fully GOD makes no sense. Christians claim that whatever God is, knows, and does was fully present in the person of Jesus. And with all of the problems in the world, even those in the first century, God, in the shape of Jesus, does "parlor tricks" in making alcohol and putting demons into pigs.

 

After all, David, there are accounts of God's prophets healing people in the Old Testament, even of people being raised from the dead. But nowhere were these prophets considered to to "God incarnate" or part of the Trinity. The church turned Jesus into God and, thereby, created an idol of worship of him. That is always our danger; to think that where God is at work is the "one and only" incarnation. The GOD I experience is incarnated everyday as we live out his love and compassion. But I'd rather drink wine and eat bacon, than do parlor tricks.

[grampawombat]

Off the subject, but relating to dimensions. For our ordinary life experiences, three dimensions, all related to distance, are all we need. However, if we look at the big cosmological picture, then there are more. Time is one, and string theory, a perspective favored by many (though by no means all) cosmologists adds about six more, though those are all found only at very small distances.

[JosephM]

Off the subject, but relating to dimensions. For our ordinary life experiences, three dimensions, all related to distance, are all we need. However, if we look at the big cosmological picture, then there are more. Time is one, and string theory, a perspective favored by many (though by no means all) cosmologists adds about six more, though those are all found only at very small distances.

 

 

Yes, thanks grandpawombat, that was my point to suggest that there are more and just because one is aware of 3 doesn't make everything capable of being fully realized and understood as was implied.

 

Joseph

 

PS Even Plato got a glimpse of other possibilities and insight into limited views here.

[davidk]

It seems, in review, my truncated explanation of a triune universe has led to some confusion.

May I revise and extend my remarks.

 

The triune universe is made up of its three elements: space, time, and matter. Each of these three are also triune.

 

Space: height, width, and depth.

Time: past, present , and future.

Matter: mass, motion, and energy.

 

Each 'trinity' requires the existance of all three of it's elements in order to exist. Removing any element causes it's existance to cease. If you remove either height or width or depth from space, space cannot exist, be realized or understood. Therefore, by extension, the universe would cease to exist if any of space's 3 dimensions were removed.

 

God's character and His attributes are evidenced in and by His creation. The concept of His being a trinity is comprehensible by the evidence displayed in what He has created, just as Scripture reveals.

-

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.

 

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

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.

-

billmc- I'm far from being a Biblical scholar. Would you be so kind as to point out the OT Testament healings and raising of the dead by the prophets?

I'm in there with wine drinking and bacon (the candy of the meat world).

 

 

davidk

[JosephM]

It seems, in review, my truncated explanation of a triune universe has led to some confusion.

May I revise and extend my remarks.

 

The triune universe is made up of its three elements: space, time, and matter. Each of these three are also triune.

 

Space: height, width, and depth.

Time: past, present , and future.

Matter: mass, motion, and energy.

 

Each 'trinity' requires the existance of all three of it's elements in order to exist. Removing any element causes it's existance to cease. If you remove either height or width or depth from space, space cannot exist, be realized or understood. Therefore, by extension, the universe would cease to exist if any of space's 3 dimensions were removed.

 

God's character and His attributes are evidenced in and by His creation. The concept of His being a trinity is comprehensible by the evidence displayed in what He has created, just as Scripture reveals.

 

There may well be more than these three you call elements that you cannot see. You may not be able to remove any of these elements and space not exist but you have in no way by your assertion proved by reason that there are not more than the three and that there is not a fourth that is also present and needed and sustaines the three you do see. In other words, our reasoning may well be limited and science seems to be adding credence to this.

-

billmc- I'm far from being a Biblical scholar. Would you be so kind as to point out the OT Testament healings and raising of the dead by the prophets?

I'm in there with wine drinking and bacon (the candy of the meat world).

 

 

davidk

 

Just to save him the trouble it was Elijah in 1 Kings 17:17-24 raising the dead and there were numerous OT healings recorded.

 

Joseph

[Guest billmc]

Just to save him the trouble it was Elijah in 1 Kings 17:17-24 raising the dead and there were numerous OT healings recorded.

 

Yes. And Elisha heals Naaman (or rather tells him what he needs to do to be healed). There is also Elisha and the Shunammite woman's son, and Elisha's bones reviving a dead man. So the ability to heal or raise the dead does not make one GOD.

 

I don't mind that people believe differently than I do about Jesus' nature. Gosh, it seems Christians have argued about this almost from the start. But, for me, it is more a personal question, as if Jesus were asking me, "Who do you say that I am?" My response would be that, yes, Jesus is "the anointed one" (messiah) and that, as Paul said, "God was in Christ." That works for me.

[Neon Genesis]

 

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.org/wiki/Non-trinitarian#Scriptures_cited_as_being_in_opposition_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.

 

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

Mark 1:4

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

 

 

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

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?

[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.

[Guest 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]

 

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?

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

 

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.

 

 

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]

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?

[davidk]

Mike,

Without objective truth existing, there is no hope of any subjective discovery. To consider that subjective perception can reveal more truth than what objectively exists is pure fancy.

 

The statement for the need for ambiguity is an unambiguous statement. In other words, when we say we do not need certainty, it can't be stated without certainty. It's like the absolute statement: "There are no absolutes." It's self contradicting.

 

I'm suggesting our beliefs should conform with what actually exists.

-

neon,

It seems what I have writtene has not been understood, as evidenced by your example of the parable of the prodigal son. This is parable. It is spoken of in the Bible as parable, not as an historical event.

[JosephM]

Mike,

Without objective truth existing, there is no hope of any subjective discovery. To consider that subjective perception can reveal more truth than what objectively exists is pure fancy.

 

The statement for the need for ambiguity is an unambiguous statement. In other words, when we say we do not need certainty, it can't be stated without certainty. It's like the absolute statement: "There are no absolutes." It's self contradicting.

 

I'm suggesting our beliefs should conform with what actually exists.

-

(snip)

 

Davidk,

 

It seems to me that we as humans are sentient beings and being such experience things we hear, see touch, feel and taste subjectively. That we all here are unique and read the same book and come to different conclusions is evidence of our subjective nature. In particular, I would propose that Jesus himself was a perfect example of radical subjectivity in which his words were often obscure and subject to much misinterpretation because that radically subjective state of enlightenment he was aware of was non-linear making it both difficult to convey and comprehend.

 

It seems to me that there is a great gap between the linear reasoning of the mind and the non-linear reality of spiritual truth. All you really have to work with here as a human is subjective discovery in the things of God and the Spirit. On the contrary to your statement/assertion, it seems to me, that to think with your mind you will discover objective truth is what is as you say "pure fancy".

 

All that you have to convey of these spiritual things is by definition subjective in nature a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world as in a subjective decision. b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

 

If it were not so, you would have compelling proof that you are correct and another wrong or that you are reasonable and they are not and therefor conclusions are different. But there is no compelling proof on either side to declare the other's thinking as "pure fancy".

 

You suggest that "our beliefs should conform with what actually exists" yet in the questions of God, the afterlife, your concept of heaven and hell, and such other spiritual matters, it seems to me you have nothing to offer except what your mind believes of a book and your subjective reasoning. Perhaps it is the same with us all yet the difference being perhaps that many here are able to live with our ambiguity of the realities of life rather than thinking we have the objective truth?

 

Peace and Love in Christ,

 

Joseph

 

[Mike]

Hi David,

 

I believe you missed the qualifiers in my statements. I did not negate objectivity, but I think it is equally wrong to deride the value of subjectivity. To frame my argument as follows, "subjective perception can reveal more truth than what objectively exists," is a mischaracterization. I would say "there is more to reality than what objectivity can reveal," which can be proven simply by asking you to objectively capture color, smell, consciousness, etc. The fact that you have no choice but to travel the circles of self-reference to do so is telling. It's not that objectivity has nothing to do with it, it's just that objectivity is not all there is to it. Try explaining sight to a blind man. No matter how well you objectively describe it, and how many words you use, you're not any closer to showing what those words mean, what they point to.

 

So I would argue that in religious experience, subjectivity is at least as important as objectivity, since one's experience with the Divine is all about the subject, the self. And I would say that our beliefs have to ultimately conform to life as it is lived, as it is experienced, and not simply to our mental constructs in the imaginary realm of the object, the so-called thing-in-itself.

 

I would not say reality is an object to be analyzed in this respect. But I do think objectivity has its place just as subjectivity does. Notice I said, "To me there is no necessity for absolute intellectual certainty, especially about purported historical matters that we are thousands of years removed from." My statement was qualified. For instance, I would not deny the historical objectivity of the holocaust, or even of my own birth date, that I was born in 1986. These are objective facts, or accurate reconstructions, as far as I'm concerned.

 

However, to say that life is all about objective facts and historical reconstructions, and not only that, but about believing in the right ones at that - well, that's another thing entirely. In fact, if eternal life/damnation were on the line, I could not even claim to be that sure of the holocaust or of my birth date, and I do not see how such demands actually do justice to life as it is lived, or why God would be so concerned about things of that nature. Therefore, if I cannot claim absolute certainty about the holocaust or my birth date, how much less for purported events 2,000 years ago in Palestine?

 

Objectivity is only one way of relating to reality. A lot of the time it is not a very practical goal. Few things can actually be approached objectively, and it can be argued that pure, idealized objectivity is a fiction. Again, not that I'm negating objectivity as a methodology or a valid approach - it is very useful.

 

The statement for the need for ambiguity is an unambiguous statement. In other words, when we say we do not need certainty, it can't be stated without certainty. It's like the absolute statement: "There are no absolutes." It's self contradicting.

 

This is true, but it does not say much. Would you really be comfortable with the idea that the only certainty is that there is no certainty. This is the nature of logic, and by extension, any system we can talk about. There will always be invariance in any system that persists through the transformations (for example, the shape and 'laws' regarding a whirlpool persist even though it is made of moving water). Otherwise it's all just randomness and chaos. But what happens if we see no intrinsic foundation for any particular invariance?

 

It seems what I have writtene has not been understood, as evidenced by your example of the parable of the prodigal son. This is parable. It is spoken of in the Bible as parable, not as an historical event.

 

If I may address this quickly even if was directed to Neon. What I got out of the exchange is the question of why the bible can't be meaningful even if not truly historical, if the parables can be. This is in response to what you seem to be asserting: that if everything in the bible isn't 100 percent historically correct, it might as well be thrown out.

 

Peace to you,

Mike