Believing In The Name Of Jesus

[Neon Genesis]

 

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.

[/size][/font]

What evidence is there that the biblical authors were primarily concerned with writing historical facts as we understand history in our modern sense?

[davidk]

neon-

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

At the risk of trying the moderators generous patience, I'd like to address this one more time in the hopes of being clear: i.e.; The Bible presents, as historical, Jesus telling the parable of the good Samaritan. The Bible presents Jesus' parable as a parable and not as a story of historic facts.

 

The Bible sets forth its own statement of what the Bible itself is: Truth communicated by God to man in a manner that man can understand. Whether by parable or not, it is true wherever it touches history, science, or the spritual. As in our example, the Bible when it touches the historicity of Jesus' telling a parable, and when the Biblical record of the parable touches the spiritual, both conditions are considered true.

 

More on topic: It is the Bible that provides content to the word "Jesus".

-

Mike-

(Objective; reality existing independant of individual thought or perception. Subjective; peculiar to a particular individual.)

 

I believe you are wise enough to know objective truth/reality exists. I hope you see that even I may be clever enough to recognize man's view of the world must begin from himself to begin to understand the meaning of life and the universe. In other words, man is subjective.

But, I believe there are two very different concepts of what that means.

 

It is not possible for man to forge a bridge to ultimate truth beginning totally independently and autonomously, because he is finite and, as such, has nothing toward which to point with certainty. Man has no way, beginning from himself, to set up universal truths. Sartre saw this very clearly when he said man finding no infinite reference point can only conclude all is absurd.

 

Second, is the Christian concept that man created in God's image can begin with himself, not as infinite, but as personal; plus that God has given to fallen man contentful knowledge.

 

When the non-Christian system leads us to think love, rationality, longing for significance, or fear of non-being have no reason to exist; when man can't explain the things that distinguishes him from the rest of creation; when beginning from himself autonomously, being finite, man can never reach any absolute answer. This would be true if only on the basis of being finite but add to this the fact of man's rebellion, in which he rebels against, and perverts, the testimony of what exists- an external universe with form, and the personality of man.

 

If man is to survive, he must conform to reality.

-

Joseph,

Thanks for joining in.

 

You can't pretend to think I said it would be possible for any man to personally reach pure objective truth. That is far from my having said that objective truth exists, and we all have our perception of it. If it did not exist we would have nothing to be subjective about!

 

I would say Jesus' words were profound and on the mark, rather than obscure and imprecise.

 

Heaven and Hell exist only if God is a good God. But that's for another thread.

 

davidk

[JosephM]

Hi David,

 

(snip)

 

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

 

Davidk,

 

I got the same understanding from Neon's statement as Mike did above. If you want to get to the heart of all the disagreement in this thread, I think the above needs to be addressed. It seems to me, ( I may be mistaken) that your total acceptance of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and understanding that if one doesn't accept that than it is of no use to the individual. Perhaps this is the root of the differences and your understanding in that light of your belief is the source of your assertions. I think you will find (IMO) that MOST but not ALL progressives Christians do not agree with your understanding of what the Bible is. A discussion by PC's concerning what the Bible means to them can be found here.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

 

PS You said "I would say Jesus' words were profound and on the mark, rather than obscure and imprecise." To me, even the Bible testifies that his words were spirit and there are many examples of even disciples finding his sayings very hard to understand because they were obscure. Perhaps they are not obscure to you but i have found them so at least on the surface but i will leave it at that and would not debate the point if you still differ.

[Guest billmc]

"IMPORTANT: Please delete my dung beetle parable." PM from Billmc

 

deleted entire post per Bill's request on November 25, 2009 JosephM(Moderator)

[tariki]

Maybe it would be for the best to stay out of this yet I feel I have my point of view. So I'll offer it.

 

Long ago I knew a "born again" Christian. I'm not being patronising by saying that he was a "good" man. There was, I could see, a childlike joy buried deep within him which sometimes shone on those around him. I say "buried deep" because when the subject of religion came up it seemed like a shadow would fall over his face, his entire countenance would change for the worse. I thought at the time, and I still think now, that "salvation" has a sense of mystery about it, that more often than not we are "saved" in spite of our beliefs and not because of them. I did say this somewhere else, but I'll repeat that when I look back and remember I sometimes wonder just how I got away with some of the daft things I've thought, and even acted upon. I think I've got away with it because of Grace and because of Mercy........which I know as Amida or Reality-as-is. A reality that acts with apaya, "skilful means", which in some ways has its parallel with St Pauls words about "becoming all things to all men."

 

For me, as far as enlightenment/salvation is concerned I think of the words of T S Eliot near the end of Four Quartets, "a condition of complete simplicity (costing not less than everything.) Another way of seeing it is in the story of the old monk who, in despair of knowing enlightenment before he died, went to Lao-tse. On arrival Lao-tse came out to meet him, welcomed him, but told him to leave his followers and his baggage outside the gate, for otherwise he would not be admitted. The old man had no followers, and no baggage, but he understood, went in and found his fulfilment.

 

Simple, yet costing not less than everything. In the light of Grace I wonder just what else we need. (As a Pure Land Buddhist I understand all this as "given", the fabric of "reality" itself, not something "offered" in Time. But thats my understanding and I've already dealt with that!)

 

I'll finish with some words from the Sutta Nipata, a Theravada Buddhist text, which are offered in good faith and in the light of what I have just written......

 

Seeing misery in views and opinions, without adopting any, I found inner peace and freedom. One who is free does not hold to views or dispute opinions. For the sage there is no higher, lower, nor equal, no places in which the mind can stick. But those who grasp after views and opinions only wander about the world annoying people.

 

Thats it. For me this is not the first set of words in a argumentative dialogue. Anyone is now free to have the "last word" - if such a thing exists! I'll be elsewhere.

 

[Mike]

Hi David,

 

I would say that objectivity in its true intent seeks distance from reality, so as to treat everything - reality - as an object. Hence 'objectivity' - making an object of everything, externalizing everything.

 

This, however, is not reality, and approaching reality as an object that can be under-stood is mistaken in my view. Now subjectivity is that which pertains to the subject. And I think in a way Sartre is saying that there is nothing in our ideals and philosophy that does not pertain to the subject. Objectivity cannot be expected to understand the true state of things because it is impotent to do so; it has no access to the kind of truth it seeks, reality-as-is.

 

Now, your thought seems to presume that the object-way of relating to reality is more real than subjective truth; that subjectivity is subordinate to objectivity. It also presumes that there really is a pure objectivity to be gained, or in other words, that there really is a purely objective ideal that is the truth of reality as-it-is. And even though you seem to admit that there is no such thing, you still make objectivity out to be of supreme importance, and hold that your beliefs and interpretations, which arise from you and return to you, to be of something other than you and hence truly conforming to reality. Is it coincidence that theological and metaphysical beliefs imposed on the so-called objective world tend to wind up being peculiar to a particular individual? Yet somehow you are exempt from Sartre's observation - while we are finite and cannot arrive at the ideal of pure objectivity - you somehow have access to it.

 

What if there is nothing ultimately in reality that fits the criteria or category of the object-dimension of thought? I do not outright deny the objective approach to reality, because I do believe there is a world independent of my mind, which is why the method is successful. But to think that objectivity actually draws out the 'real truth' 'behind' subjective experience assumes a lot, and is questionable especially since reality 'itself' doesn't seem to want to conform to an objective ideal.

 

It is not possible for man to forge a bridge to ultimate truth beginning totally independently and autonomously, because he is finite and, as such, has nothing toward which to point with certainty. Man has no way, beginning from himself, to set up universal truths. Sartre saw this very clearly when he said man finding no infinite reference point can only conclude all is absurd.

 

I see many clear attempts here to make very universal statements and metaphysical pronouncements that clearly go beyond your personal knowledge. You seem to agree that there is no way for finite man to set up universal truths. Why are your beliefs and interpretations exempt from the limitations articulated by Sartre? You qualified yourself with 'beginning from himself', presumably because you see your beliefs as having come from somewhere other than you. But I would say that such beliefs themselves have their beginning in yourself.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[Neon Genesis]

neon-

 

 

The Bible sets forth its own statement of what the Bible itself is: Truth communicated by God to man in a manner that man can understand. Whether by parable or not, it is true wherever it touches history, science, or the spritual. As in our example, the Bible when it touches the historicity of Jesus' telling a parable, and when the Biblical record of the parable touches the spiritual, both conditions are considered true.

But the bible never claims everything in scripture is literal historical facts or that the authors were concerned with writing perfect and infallible scriptures. For example, compare the myth of the virgin birth in Luke's gospel to the virgin birth myth in Matthew's gospel and they're radically different from each other. Not to mention, there's problems reconciling the accounts in the gospels with the non-biblical historical records of this time period. But the gospel accounts were never concerned with writing history as literal fact as Luke's gospel felt free to expand on and rearrange Matthew's virgin birth account to promote Luke's theological agendas. Many of the themes and symbols are also borrowed from the Hebrew myths and the genre of the virgin birth myths is not history but Jewish midrash on the Hebrew bible. It's not just in the virgin birth myths where this takes place but the gospels are always rewriting their accounts and expanding the stories to promote their theology. So while I believe some things in the gospels are based in history, the problem is filtering through the post-Easter theology of the gospel writers to discover what the historical Jesus beneath the legend is. The gospels were never concerned with writing factual scripture and there's no scripture that says it has to be literal facts to have value. And is the bible's science true when it is says the Earth is flat?

[Guest billmc]

But the bible never claims everything in scripture is literal historical facts or that the authors were concerned with writing perfect and infallible scriptures.

 

That's true, NG. The Bible itself never once makes a claim to infallibility or inerrancy. These are claims placed upon the Bible by the group known as "fundamentalists" in reaction to the discoveries of the Enlightenment. Even the favorite verse of the fundamentalist, 2 Timothy 3:16, only tells us that the scriptures are inspired, not infallible and inerrant. In fact, the Bible itself speaks more of people being inspired (full of the Spirit) than it does of the scriptures, and yet we never insist that those inspired people are inerrant or infallible.

 

This all comes back to the topic of epistimology - what is truth and how do we know it? Truth in the modern age falls upon the scientific method, on facts and on what be scientifically proven and testified to through objective reasoning. Truth before the modern age dealt with meaning, with purpose, with very subjective experiences. This is why our gospels say, "The gospel according to..." There are differences of opinion and these differences make things richer, not diminished.

 

So to force a collection of books that rely on ancient understanding of truth into the framework of modern understanding of truth does harm to that collection and misrepresents the kinds of truths presented therein. We risk losing the Bible when we try to interpret it in scientific and solely-historical terms.

[davidk]

Davidk,

 

I got the same understanding from Neon's statement as Mike did above. If you want to get to the heart of all the disagreement in this thread, I think the above needs to be addressed. It seems to me, ( I may be mistaken) that your total acceptance of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and understanding that if one doesn't accept that than it is of no use to the individual. Perhaps this is the root of the differences and your understanding in that light of your belief is the source of your assertions. I think you will find (IMO) that MOST but not ALL progressives Christians do not agree with your understanding of what the Bible is. A discussion by PC's concerning what the Bible means to them can be found here.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

 

PS You said "I would say Jesus' words were profound and on the mark, rather than obscure and imprecise." To me, even the Bible testifies that his words were spirit and there are many examples of even disciples finding his sayings very hard to understand because they were obscure. Perhaps they are not obscure to you but i have found them so at least on the surface but i will leave it at that and would not debate the point if you still differ.

Joseph,

Well, before I studied algebraic equations, they seemed obscure. But, in fact they're not, are they? They're precise, very precise!

I think you are mistaken and I believe this is the error progressives have such difficulty navigating around.

 

Now if it seems impossible and unlikely for you to consider that God may propositionally communicate with man, then the rest of the conversation is futile.

[JosephM]

Joseph,

Well, before I studied algebraic equations, they seemed obscure. But, in fact they're not, are they? They're precise, very precise!

I think you are mistaken and I believe this is the error progressives have such difficulty navigating around.

 

Now if it seems impossible and unlikely for you to consider that God may propositionally communicate with man, then the rest of the conversation is futile.

 

Well David,

 

I guess we will also have to respectfully just agree to differ. I do have Bible college and and a Christian ministry in my background which included much study but it seems you would probably not agree there was enough as our conclusions differ. It seems to me your study requirements have brought you to a place that I feel i have been and found void of the simplicity of growing in the knowledge of truth.

 

As a progressive, I respect your right to believe progressives are mistaken. There was a time I might have agreed with you.

 

There is no doubt that God communicates with man. Yet I am most certain, it is more direct than acceptance of a book written by men. And also I am most certain that the one book you might attribute directly to God is no more appropriate to do so than another. Just my personal view and I will close with that as I agree that conversation with such a possible closed view as it appears I used to have and you seem to still have is indeed futile until the truth of the matter dawns upon one or both of us.

 

Peace to you my brother,

Love in Christ,

Joseph

[davidk]

Joseph, please excuse the error. Being that the first of these posts was actually posted. A stumbling interent connection led to my stumble. If you would, you may delete the message posted at 8:32. Thanks

-------------

 

 

In answer to: JosephM, on 24 November 2009 - 11:59 AM

 

Joseph,

Well, before I studied algebraic equations, they seemed pretty obscure. But, in fact they're not, are they? They're precise, very precise!

--

I think that you have been mistaken. And I believe this is one of the errors the progressive mind has such difficulty navigating around.

 

Why, if I believe the Bible to be true, would I consider the Bible be of no use to anyone? Whether they beieved it was God's Word or not? Does that really make sense to you?

I expect each of you have found some of the truths in it. Each time we are to discover, stumble upon, or told the truth, it is of great use to the individual.

 

For some, the Bible is simply Jewish myth, with no historical validity for modern man. For others, it's a prescientific vision that no one who respects the results of scholarship can accept. Some find it only symbolic. Some accept it as revelation in regard to some upper-story (by upper-story, I mean an irrational faith) religious truth, but allow any sense of truth in regard to history and the cosmos to be lost.

 

Without a proper understanding of even the early chapters, we have no answer to the problems of metaphysics, morals, or epistemology, and furthermore the work of Jesus Christ becomes no more than some inexplicable "upper-story" religious answer.

 

Now if it seems impossible or unlikely for you to consider that God may propositionally communicate with man His truths, then the rest of the conversation lacks any practical significance. This being the case, it is the closed system of thought to not consider God can actually speak propositionally to man such that men can communicate those truths to other men.

 

Love,

Davidk

[JosephM]

Unfortunately, that post was used as a reply already and deleting it would not change anything and make non concurrent the reply that was issued at 9:16 AM on page 3 here. previous to your request.

JosephM(as Moderator)

[davidk]

I do have Bible college and and a Christian ministry in my background which included much study but it seems you would probably not agree there was enough... . It seems to me your study requirements have brought you to a place ... void... of growing in the... truth.

Joseph? I'm a little surprised you'd consider that I would disrespect you so.

My study requirements? What has you so upset to be so insulting? If I said something that met such displeasure, I apologize. It was unintentional. Did you happen to notice I was addressing your 24 Nov post where you admitted you may be mistaken on a point? I only agreed, and I did provide an explanation.

 

There is no doubt that God communicates with man. Yet I am most certain, it is more direct than acceptance of a book written by men. And also I am most certain that the one book you might attribute directly to God is no more appropriate to do so than another. Just my personal view and I will close with that as I agree that conversation with such a possible closed view as it appears I used to have and you seem to still have is indeed futile until the truth of the matter dawns upon one or both of us.

Joseph, I'm again surprised. But this time in that you have admitted to a certainty, TWICE! This is promising, even though I don't understand the structure or logic in the rest of the sentences.

--

I've patiently tried to explain the appropriateness. Sorry it was overlooked.

 

 

God's Grace to you,

 

Davidk

[Mike]

Now if it seems impossible or unlikely for you to consider that God may propositionally communicate with man His truths, then the rest of the conversation lacks any practical significance. This being the case, it is the closed system of thought to not consider God can actually speak propositionally to man such that men can communicate those truths to other men.

 

Love,

Davidk[/size][/font]

 

If I may interject here because I found this concluding paragraph to really get at the heart of our contentions. To this I would not say it is impossible, but I would say unlikely. I think you would agree that anyone or anything that claims to be a literal communication from God must be considered dubious apriori. The claim has to sufficiently merit acceptance (it also has to be proven positively, not disproved or proven negatively). Such claims conjure very tall expectations for highly convincing proofs which, one hopes, would also speak to better make sense of reality and life. And although not an absolute necessity, one would also hope that such a communication would explain itself, that there would be sufficient reason presented for why God had chosen to use such means in the first place, lest the medium of communication itself be cast into doubt.

 

So what I can do is hold the object in question to these standards. But I cannot assert through deductive reasoning the impossibility of such communication. That would be a universal claim I am not justified in making. But while I cannot make such a universal claim, I can however make claims regarding the extant, and maintain that the existential or particulars which we presently have do not fit the aforementioned criteria, and hence through inductive reasoning, combined with everything else I have gathered about life, justifiably assert that there is to my knowledge no extant book fitting these expectations. The Bible is one such extant according to my own study and research. This is not a position, by the way, that I initially arrived at out of my own desire, but a conclusion which the evidence I encountered forced upon me. And I do not really wish to get into a debate over the specifics of this or that; I have already struggled with the specifics on my own, big questions and small questions, philosophical and textual. And while my own knowledge of the bible is by no means exhaustive, I also see no realistic reason why it ought to be, or why that demand ought to be placed on anyone, especially since most Christians (and most people in the world) throughout history have known very little about the objective world and the bible, and especially since similar expectations are typically not placed on any other book or person claiming divine communication. The bible, to be perfectly honest, seems to enjoy the constant expectation that we all should accept special pleading on its behalf, that is, exemption from the same standards by which we typically reject all other claims of divine authority. And why do we typically reject them? Because we have only a short time on earth and many responsibilities and duties, and all these claims simply cannot justify our thoroughly investigating every one of them, especially if there is no pressing, immediate, extraordinary reason to do so. We might well spend our whole lives researching only one or two of them, never reaching even a small fraction of all the competing claims. Therefore we as human beings, living life as it is lived, are perfectly justified to either be agnostic toward these claims or reject them out of hand as not being relevant to our lives.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[JosephM]

Joseph? I'm a little surprised you'd consider that I would disrespect you so.

My study requirements? What has you so upset to be so insulting? If I said something that met such displeasure, I apologize. It was unintentional. Did you happen to notice I was addressing your 24 Nov post where you admitted you may be mistaken on a point? I only agreed, and I did provide an explanation.

Just for clarification, no disrespect from you was ever taken here in this thread by me. Also, i am not upset in the least by your comments here. Surely you might reconsider if you like as you misread me. ( Just FYI) My comment which you left out words in the original sentence when quoting is not proper etiquette here. SENTENCES should always be left intact when quoting what another said. (words should not be replaced with ... as others reading do not often go back to the original quote and the meaning misinterpreted easily)

 

My comment was not meant to be insulting but merely to say that we have come to different conclusions and you have said directly "I think you are mistaken and I believe this is the error progressives have such difficulty navigating around". That is fine with me as I also have an extensive background in the Bible and have now come to a different conclusion than you and feel i have been where you are and i find it was void of the simplicity in Christ. I do not see the preciseness of algebra having any relationship to our discussion of the preciseness of the spiritual words of the Bible. This is just my honest opinion and i respect your right to believe as you do and was expressing my opinion as such. I had ended my dialog with you in this thread with that post because it appears this dialog is futile because of a basic difference in, not if, but how, we believe God communicates with us. Also there is always the danger of emotions entering when such an impasse is reached which edifies no one. I believe you have sufficiently explained your position and i have nothing constructive to add or debate. Others may and if they wish to continue, that is fine with me from a moderator view. All things considered, this thread has been most civil considering the sensitivity of the subject matter to many here and only one caution was issued.

 

I may not have expressed myself well or worded things with enough sensitivity but i have no more to say on this subject except that i have the utmost respect for your perseverance among so much opposition and have an equal love for you as i do for all others here. It is my sincere belief that each person is where they are at because of the grace of God and there are no winners and losers in this discussion. Whether one gets something from this dialog, goes forward stays stagnant, or slips back is not in my hands as each works out their own acceptance or rejection of that grace.

 

Peace to you David,

Perhaps we can engage again in a different thread and you are certainly welcome to the last word in this thread concerning any issues or responses to me

.

Joseph

 

PS Added ... You have my personal apologies for any poorly stated expressions that appear as offensive. All my expressions or assertions of certainty are of course subjective in nature.

[DHAWLIA]

 

Just a couple thoughts on where this thread has taken us ....

 

It seems that many of us often times get so caught up on doctrine and traditions that we lose sight of what is most important. Jesus said that He was the light of the world. As I read scripture and learn more about Him, I understand more and more about what He meant about being the light.

 

He healed the sick, befriended the the needy and led them to liberty; He gave sight to the blind and even brought the dead back to life. His miracles were reflections of what we ourselves can and will do.

 

We can help heal the wounded in heart through care and compassion; we can help lead those who are bound by vice to understand the liberty in virtue. We can help give vision to those who have none, and we can help put life back in those who have lost the will to live ... By acting on our love, care, and concern for those we share our world with, lives will change.

 

To quote a couple of my favorite biblical verses ....

 

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

 

Matt 5:14-16 (KJV)

 

God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

 

let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith

 

Gal 6:7-10 (KJV)

 

Like Jesus, we too are to be lights of the world. I think we get so bogged down with our belief systems that we fail to be that which we were called to become....

 

 

James

[davidk]

Thank you, Joseph, for your note. I was afraid I had somehow set something off in one of my posts.

 

As far as 'algebra' is concerned, it was simply a vehicle (a little parable if you will) to demonstrate how at first blush what Jesus said may seem obscure, but in the final analysis it turns out that He was really quite frank.

 

Yes, the Apostles needed explanations, but not for the message's obscurity. They had to be given the proper reference point from which to understand the message. This is true of us today. Without the proper reference point we can't see the answer in the parables... or in algebra.

 

It's our vision that is obscured, not the message.

---

 

James,

 

Thank you for the Biblical references. Very apropos.

 

I am puzzled when such an effort is made to get distance between doctrine and, well- doctrine! We've all shared the principles of our beliefs, our doctrine. Some with the apparent disdain of traditional doctrines as well as just doctrines in general. But these, too, have only been replaced with yet another doctrine. Doctrine need not be such a frightening consideration and I frankly think there should be no fear of traditional doctrine either.

 

If I may, it seems quite clear that it is false doctrine we should be concerned about.

 

David