Inspiration

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I'm aware that some people believe that the New Testament was radically and drastically edited and changed, consciously and almost conspiratorially. But I'm not sure if there is much positive evidence to justify this conclusion. Whether one accepts that theory may depend more on one's presuppositions about history than about the texts themselves. I may be wrong however, I'm talking about things I have absolutely no expertise in. I do not entirely discount the possibility, but then again, it is not so important to me anyway. Of course this all applies to the New Testament; the Hebrew bible is something else entirely.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

My stance on the issue is that I think it's a combination of both innocent mistakes and darker reasons. Like in some instances the scribes may have thought the copy they had were the ones that were mistaken and that they were making a correction rather than intentionally changing something. I think in other instances the change was intentional like when the "official" church forced scribes to add in pro-Trinity verses in Latin Vulgate copies of 1 John to give more support to the Trinity doctrine even though these verses didn't appear in the original Greek language. These additional verses have also found their way in some of our English translations like the KJV and NKJV. Even if we have the manuscripts mostly in-tact, there's still the issue of the Q gospel and which sayings attributed to Jesus are authentic and which ones represent the views of the gospel writers. However much of the teachings of Jesus have been edited down the years, I think all this proves that contrary to the claims of biblical literalists, the biblical authors did not see scripture as the literal word of God or else they would not have made as many intentional changes to the teachings of Jesus that they did. On the one hand, I think the search for the historical Jesus is an important one but at the same time, I agree that the post-Easter Jesus is just as important and powerful as the historical pre-Easter Jesus and I don't think either one should take away from each other.

[jenny]

Thank you all for your great and informative responses!!! I appreciate them very much. I loved looking over the site about the 1600 yr old bible...amazing!

My stance on the issue is that I think it's a combination of both innocent mistakes and darker reasons. Like in some instances the scribes may have thought the copy they had were the ones that were mistaken and that they were making a correction rather than intentionally changing something. I think in other instances the change was intentional like when the "official" church forced scribes to add in pro-Trinity verses in Latin Vulgate copies of 1 John to give more support to the Trinity doctrine even though these verses didn't appear in the original Greek language. These additional verses have also found their way in some of our English translations like the KJV and NKJV. Even if we have the manuscripts mostly in-tact, there's still the issue of the Q gospel and which sayings attributed to Jesus are authentic and which ones represent the views of the gospel writers. However much of the teachings of Jesus have been edited down the years, I think all this proves that contrary to the claims of biblical literalists, the biblical authors did not see scripture as the literal word of God or else they would not have made as many intentional changes to the teachings of Jesus that they did. On the one hand, I think the search for the historical Jesus is an important one but at the same time, I agree that the post-Easter Jesus is just as important and powerful as the historical pre-Easter Jesus and I don't think either one should take away from each other.

[davidk]

This discussion has revealed many things. Some of the Biblical observations have generated rather well reasoned comments and insight.

 

my 2 cents (which may well be overpriced):

 

The Bible presents itself, whether by fact or by metaphor, as God’s propositional and inerrant truth to man. That it is true wherever it touches history, the cosmos, and matters considered religious, the whole Bible is involved.

---

 

“Oh God, if there is a God, I want to know whether You exist. And I ask You that I may be willing to bow before You if you do exist."

[Neon Genesis]

 

The Bible presents itself, whether by fact or by metaphor, as God’s propositional and inerrant truth to man. That it is true wherever it touches history, the cosmos, and matters considered religious, the whole Bible is involved.

 

Which bible? The Catholic bible or the Protestant bible?

[Adi Gibb]

Hi everyone, sorry I am replying so late into the conversation.

 

Just wanted to agree with and add to a few things. I think Karen Armstrong's On The Bible is a great resource for this discussion as she looks at the midrash interpretations, as well as others, which serve as the basis for the new testament writers. Great book, check it out.

 

From a personal point of view I want to make two points. Firstly, I, as an individual, see the bible as inspired by faith, and I see that as distinct from inspired by God. In other words, the NT, in particular for me, serves as a wonderful and magical book of inspiration because we read of how people two thousand years ago dealt with faith issues which we still deal with today. It also serves as source material for the passion and certainty these early christians had, which helps me greatly when I am having doubts (not a bad thing of course). Further to this first point I would add this, whether the words of the bible are God-breathed or God-inspired or reflections of faith, the danger is not so much in this first distinction, but rather in placing the bible at the centre of Christian worship to an extremist degree. For it is, of course, the person the book is describing we worship, not the book itself. Borg said once that when he was describing how Jesus of the Golden Rule and the Great Commandment should be the lens through which we see the bible, and the bible is then a lens through we see God, to some students, one of them said, "So what you are saying is that the bible should be the lens through which we see God, but we end up worshipping the lens!" I think this is the primary danger in biblical interpretation.

 

My second point is this, I believe we should see the bible as a mirror, and not a window! The bible's magic is not in trying desperately to see what the original author was saying, if the author had the authority to say it, if they said it because God told them to etc. For me the magic of the bible occurs when a passage speaks directly into your heart, your disposition and your individual context. An example of this is the passage from Matthew 11:28-30 (Message): "Are you tired? Worn out? Burned out on religion? Come to me. Get away with me and you'll recover your life. I'll show you how to take a real rest. Walk with me and work with me—watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won't lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you. Keep company with me and you'll learn to live freely and lightly." I can't tell you how much the words 'unforced rhythms of grace' has helped me through a stressful time, like my grandmother passing away overseas last year. It was as soothing to me as a lullaby, and, think about it, it was written, in some form, probably by a disenfranchised Jew two thousand years ago. And yet it still comes to life!

 

So I see the bible as magical not because it is inerrant or not, or God-breathed or not, but because when a passage like that above can make my heart soar two thousand years after it was written, can come alive on the page, I am experiencing a kind of resurrection of the Jesus spirit right there.

 

Adi

[jenny]

Adi, thank you for your post. I say Amen to it. Exactly...so much of what I have been thinking. I grew up and lived a majority of my adult life in the conservative church. I believe it is Jesus Himself that is the "object" of our worship...as He even said that when He inquired why a certain someone was going to the written word for their eternal life instead of Him. I also think that the OT vs. the NT tells us a lot! It was God's deliberate comparison of the law/judgment vs. Jesus/grace...and how one would work a whole lot better then the other...in fact one (OT) was found not to work at all. That all the Law did was show us (as in a mirror) our sin...and that it had no remedy for it-just judgement and a vicious circle of the same. There fore we are to take our eyes off of ourselves and our failings and put them onto Christ and the love He had for all and that being our example of how to live. THEN as our focus changes off of ourselves and we focus on loving others...because love hurts no one...a "magical" thing starts happening...we begin to grow and become the person we were TRYING to be when we were kicking ourselves, and focusing on ourselves and our behaviors.

Hi everyone, sorry I am replying so late into the conversation.

 

Just wanted to agree with and add to a few things. I think Karen Armstrong's On The Bible is a great resource for this discussion as she looks at the midrash interpretations, as well as others, which serve as the basis for the new testament writers. Great book, check it out.

 

From a personal point of view I want to make two points. Firstly, I, as an individual, see the bible as inspired by faith, and I see that as distinct from inspired by God. In other words, the NT, in particular for me, serves as a wonderful and magical book of inspiration because we read of how people two thousand years ago dealt with faith issues which we still deal with today. It also serves as source material for the passion and certainty these early christians had, which helps me greatly when I am having doubts (not a bad thing of course). Further to this first point I would add this, whether the words of the bible are God-breathed or God-inspired or reflections of faith, the danger is not so much in this first distinction, but rather in placing the bible at the centre of Christian worship to an extremist degree. For it is, of course, the person the book is describing we worship, not the book itself. Borg said once that when he was describing how Jesus of the Golden Rule and the Great Commandment should be the lens through which we see the bible, and the bible is then a lens through we see God, to some students, one of them said, "So what you are saying is that the bible should be the lens through which we see God, but we end up worshipping the lens!" I think this is the primary danger in biblical interpretation.

 

My second point is this, I believe we should see the bible as a mirror, and not a window! The bible's magic is not in trying desperately to see what the original author was saying, if the author had the authority to say it, if they said it because God told them to etc. For me the magic of the bible occurs when a passage speaks directly into your heart, your disposition and your individual context. An example of this is the passage from Matthew 11:28-30 (Message): "Are you tired? Worn out? Burned out on religion? Come to me. Get away with me and you'll recover your life. I'll show you how to take a real rest. Walk with me and work with me—watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won't lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you. Keep company with me and you'll learn to live freely and lightly." I can't tell you how much the words 'unforced rhythms of grace' has helped me through a stressful time, like my grandmother passing away overseas last year. It was as soothing to me as a lullaby, and, think about it, it was written, in some form, probably by a disenfranchised Jew two thousand years ago. And yet it still comes to life!

 

So I see the bible as magical not because it is inerrant or not, or God-breathed or not, but because when a passage like that above can make my heart soar two thousand years after it was written, can come alive on the page, I am experiencing a kind of resurrection of the Jesus spirit right there.

 

Adi

[irreverance]

...From a personal point of view I want to make two points. Firstly, I, as an individual, see the bible as inspired by faith, and I see that as distinct from inspired by God. In other words, the NT, in particular for me, serves as a wonderful and magical book of inspiration because we read of how people two thousand years ago dealt with faith issues which we still deal with today. ... My second point is this, I believe we should see the bible as a mirror, and not a window! ... So I see the bible as magical not because it is inerrant or not, or God-breathed or not, but because when a passage like that above can make my heart soar two thousand years after it was written, can come alive on the page, I am experiencing a kind of resurrection of the Jesus spirit right there.

 

Adi

Very well said! Beautiful imagery!

[davidk]

Dear Neon,

Let's consider it to be the one that has the Old and New Testaments in it.

---

 

Dear Adi,

"the person the book is describing we worship, not the book"

This is clear. What is not clear is how, by your reasoning, you came to it.

 

You reason that the Bible was written inspired by faith, yet without saying what the object of that faith is. When you separate God from the possibilities for inspiration, what choices have you left, ourselves?

 

Further, saying the Bible is a "magical book" creates a conflict within the argument. You rightfully object to the Bible being treated as the object of faith, yet you attribute to the Bible- supernatural power.

 

How does anyone's soaring feelings have any meaning if the source's dependability is uncertain (not innerant)?

---

 

Dear Jenny,

 

You are wonderfully right to be concerned over where your worship should be given. You've seen that is from the Bible we learn what Jesus taught about it. The Christian perspective is that the Bible is not God, but God's message to man. It's the communication, not the communicator. It's the message which tells us who is worthy to be worshiped and why.

If this communique' weren't from God, then by whose authority should we believe anything it says? If it's not certain to be true, throw it out. Because any wonderful feelings we derive from it would be meaningless.

While it's an interesting proposition, I believe it's in error to consider pitting the Old and New Testaments against one another.

---

 

God's grace,

 

Davidk

[Mike]

Hello again David,

 

I was very hesitant to post a response, lest an excellent thread be degraded into an overly drawn out debate. That is not to say that I do not feel you are welcome to express your own perspective here, I just feel that we each know each other's position on the matter, and even more importantly, our own positions on the matter, so debate is not necessary. So I will just keep this to the point, without any intention of dragging it out.

 

I have only one point to add, and that is, that this is inherently circular, though not obviously so…

 

You reason that the Bible was written inspired by faith, yet without saying what the object of that faith is. When you separate God from the possibilities for inspiration, what choices have you left, ourselves?

 

Further, saying the Bible is a "magical book" creates a conflict within the argument. You rightfully object to the Bible being treated as the object of faith, yet you attribute to the Bible- supernatural power.

 

How does anyone's soaring feelings have any meaning if the source's dependability is uncertain (not innerant)?

[/size][/font]

 

…because to claim something (or someone) as an authority is to do so on one’s own authority. Everything goes back to you. So existentially, you are right - what we have are ourselves*, our collection of experiences, encounters, and judgments. And unless we count our own judgment to be infallible, what we are left with is fallibility and uncertainty, especially with matters of propositional truth. You can’t avoid becoming the very authority you speak of when you claim that something is the authority.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

 

 

*the question that I ask is, what does ‘self’ mean, and is there anything deeper or more transcendent about ‘myself’ than what is normally thought?

[Neon Genesis]

Dear Neon,

Let's consider it to be the one that has the Old and New Testaments in it.

 

But does that include the Catholic bible which has the apocrypha? Is the Codex Sinaiticus inspired as well? http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

[jenny]

Dear David, I love discussing scripture...this is great! :^D Thank you for your reply to my post. I obviously do however have a different perspective then you do about the O & N T's. I do believe that each one had their specific purposes...and I believe and it is very apparent to me throughout scripture that this is true. I think that the highest (altho not the only) reason is that God wanted to SHOW us that Love is much, much more productive and useful then the law (for all of humankind). We needed to see that the law doesn't work in making us better as far as character, intention, empathy and etc...even tho it can restrain our behavior, but not all the time...as it also has the power to bring out the worst in us as well (mirrors whats inside).

 

Dear Neon,

Let's consider it to be the one that has the Old and New Testaments in it.

---

 

Dear Adi,

"the person the book is describing we worship, not the book"

This is clear. What is not clear is how, by your reasoning, you came to it.

 

You reason that the Bible was written inspired by faith, yet without saying what the object of that faith is. When you separate God from the possibilities for inspiration, what choices have you left, ourselves?

 

Further, saying the Bible is a "magical book" creates a conflict within the argument. You rightfully object to the Bible being treated as the object of faith, yet you attribute to the Bible- supernatural power.

 

How does anyone's soaring feelings have any meaning if the source's dependability is uncertain (not innerant)?

---

 

Dear Jenny,

 

You are wonderfully right to be concerned over where your worship should be given. You've seen that is from the Bible we learn what Jesus taught about it. The Christian perspective is that the Bible is not God, but God's message to man. It's the communication, not the communicator. It's the message which tells us who is worthy to be worshiped and why.

If this communique' weren't from God, then by whose authority should we believe anything it says? If it's not certain to be true, throw it out. Because any wonderful feelings we derive from it would be meaningless.

While it's an interesting proposition, I believe it's in error to consider pitting the Old and New Testaments against one another.

---

 

God's grace,

 

Davidk

[Adi Gibb]

G'Day Davidk, thanks for the response, thought provoking,

 

The object of faith in the NT, which I concentrate on I have to say (call me a red letter Christian in you like), is Jesus Christ, and through him the limitless Divine. My lack of expanding on that was simply because I assumed the object of our faith was well established. The faith which has inspired the NT is a faith in Jesus, of course.

 

I think you are placing perhaps a far too literal (also a dangerous thing to do) interpretation on my use of the word 'magic'. I could have used transcendent, powerful, poetic, transformative, any of a myriad of words that don't have the added connotation of the word 'magic'. Perhaps that was a lapse in judgement on my part. I would argue, however, that having a supernatural aspect is not predicated on being a figure of worship, Peter, Paul, James all performed 'miracles' in ACTS yet were simply the 'message' of the object of our worship. Anyway, in future I will perhaps be more careful about the words I use.

 

As for your last point I would make two observations. Firstly your phrase, "...if the source's dependability is uncertain (not innerant)?" There are two prospects there and they represent two very different things, and it is important to note the distinction I think. I would make the claim unabashedly that the bible is NOT inerrant in a literal sense, but it's dependability is absolutely certain. On this message board I along with many many others have discussed the notion of metaphorical and parabolic truth, as espoused by Borg and Crossan and others, as lifting the bible to a level where it can rightfully be considered as a very important aspect of the Christian journey without it being deemed inerrant and being placed in front of the true source of our worship. Just as there didn't need to be a real samaritan who saved the man on the side on the road for the sheer beauty and certainty of the parable to resonate and be true, I would argue that the bible can be errant literally but absolutely true as a parable and as a message of our faith. I do not see it as the cliche B-asic I-nstructions B-efore L-eaving E-arth! I personally feel the power of the bible and of our own free will is diminshed by seeing it as a manual! I would also argue again that I see the bible as being, and as MEANT to be, a mirror and not a window. So in answer to your question, "How does anyone's soaring feelings have any meaning if the source's dependability is uncertain (not innerant)?" I would say that one's soaring feelings, the sheer beauty of the way a two thousand year old passage can touch one's heart in 2010, is a product of, and a validation of, the dependability of the bible. This, however, as explained above, does NOT mean it is literally inerrant.

 

I think maybe my particular kind of biblical interpretation and Christianity might be a bit hippie, peace and mung beans for you, and that's fair enough. Mark Lowry, the Christian comedian said something like, "Imagine you are walking down the hall and you hear your kids fighting in their bedroom. They are really going at it! And you put your ear to the door and listen. They are fighting over who is the most like you! Would you kick one of them out of the house because they have it wrong?" Ultimately of course we are brothers and sisters who see Jesus as the fullest revelation of the limitless divine. So let us rejoice in the similarities and vive le difference! Thanks for your thoughts.

 

Adi

[Mike]

I received a Lenten devotional from my church today (the first Sunday in Lent), and the meditation for today seemed strangely relevant to the discussion here:

 

"For behold, you look for truth deep within me, and will make me understand wisdom secretly." (Psalm 51:6)

We sometimes use the word "true" to mean "not false or fictional," but it also can refer to what is "really real"-what is authentic, reliable, trustworthy. When you think about God, what do you "know in your bones" to be real about the Creator, about Jesus Christ and about the Holy Spirit? Try to let your mind lead you deeper than statements of doctrine to the level of inner experience, and find your own words to describe what you find there.

Prayer: May I live in your truth, O God. (Haig 2)

 

In light of this understanding, I believe Christianity and the Church may healthily affirm the bible's ability to lead them to what is 'really real,' in life and in Christ. And if the bible can do that, then it is dependable, apart from literalism and factualism.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

"Imagine you are walking down the hall and you hear your kids fighting in their bedroom. They are really going at it! And you put your ear to the door and listen. They are fighting over who is the most like you! Would you kick one of them out of the house because they have it wrong?" Ultimately of course we are brothers and sisters who see Jesus as the fullest revelation of the limitless divine. So let us rejoice in the similarities and vive le difference! Thanks for your thoughts.

 

Adi

 

ROLF!!! Thanks for making my day, Adi!! The great thing about this is that it is SO humorous AND so TRUE!! You are who I think should do that Online Religion Editor job in Australia shown on the other post

 

Janet

[Adi Gibb]

ROLF!!! Thanks for making my day, Adi!! The great thing about this is that it is SO humorous AND so TRUE!! You are who I think should do that Online Religion Editor job in Australia shown on the other post

 

Janet

 

Hey Janet,

 

Thanks so much for the kind words! I actually did check out to job but I don't have the necessary qualifications unfortunately. Talk about dream job though! I am likely to be starting Uni again soon anyway so would probably not have the time either!

 

Great to hear from you. Hope the snow is dissipating enough so that you are surrounded by a wonderland rather than a wasteland! Seen the pics on TV here in Oz! Amazing!

 

Adi

[minsocal]

What difference would there be in inspiration generated from within versus that recieved from some outside source?

[jenny]

Thank you for this post! I was shunned when I left an abusive marriege when I was affiliated with a group similar to this one. To me it is the lowest and weakest form of Christianity that basically excludes the One in whom they say they believe in. However, I TRY (I say try! ) to remember that the bible says that their faith is weak and that is why they set up these rules among themselves...and to try and be sensitive towards them.

 

To me...and I believe it is clear in scripture as well...I am not perfect enough to be able to follow a perfect law...THUS, JESUS! HURRAY!! I think that the reason people don't get the gospel...and why there are sooooo many groups, with sooooo many debates and differences... is because people for 1, don't want to live this life spiritually. Meaning- living life on a spiritual plain, where we need to be open to see things in a different fashion then we see life lived here on earth...to see things from God's perspective. Then 2, Human nature and especially here in the USA, you have to work hard for ANYTHING you get...acceptance, status, a living - basically everything. So many people live their Christian life that way too...not wanting to raise up to God's level, they bring God down to their's. The very simple Gospel...((Christ gave His life-all the work that needed to be done was done on the cross and He loves us))...is set aside in favor of human effort.

 

Now, however the only thing we are abligated to do is love.(it fulfills the law)..and this IS in the strongest sense of the word.

 

 

The group I affiliated with actually worshipped the bible. They, of course, would disagree with that statement but their actions and beliefs validate that is exactly what they were doing. They believed every word found in scripture was personally placed there by God and must be precisely adhered to. The bible, as least as far as they were concerned, was viewed as a Devine instruction manual.

 

They were literal extremist. They would debate the interpretation and meaning of words relentlessly. It was commonplace for them to dissect a single word and scrutinize the original language to validate their unique interpretation.

 

The bible was viewed as a collection of commands that requires perfect obedience. Any failure to be fully obedient to God’s commands would certainly condemn the offender to everlasting torment in the fires of hell. If scripture failed to address a particular issue that silence was interpreted as prohibitive. Instrumental music, for example, was prohibited because God did not specifically authorize the use of instruments in worship. God would surely condemn groups using instruments in their worship to hell. Since these groups were not obedient to God commands they were sinners and therefore could not be fellowshipped. This group was so legalistic that they will often not fellowship each other. It is not uncommon for one congregation in their group to refuse to fellowship another congregation within the group because of some doctrinal disagreement. This also applies to individual members. If a members views were interpreted as “unscriptural” they could be “dis-fellowshipped” which is a form of shunning.

 

Failure to immediately repent of a sin would condemn the offender to hell. If a believer sinned they must immediately ask God for forgiveness or they would lose their souls. They would remain condemned until they repented. If they failed to repent they would suffer eternal damnation. Safety required packaged repentance. The sinner would ask God to forgive them of ALL their sins so as not to miss one and be accidentally lost forever.

 

Tolerance, in that environment, simply does not exist. Even attending a church that did not have a “scriptural” name was sufficient to condemn the offender to hell forever, and of course the only “scriptural” name was the one they used. They become quite defensive, however, if they are referred to as a cult.

 

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a real life example of fundamental religious extremism taken to the max and it’s pretty damn scary. They lock up your mind and convince you that if you reject their brand of “religion” God will condemn you to hell for all eternity. They are convinced they are the only true church because they are doctrinally pure and therefore the only ones going to heaven. When you finally decide that you’ve had enough and walk away from them you have to endure that nagging question, “what if they are right?” Eventually you figure that it doesn’t really matter because you couldn’t possibly be obedient enough to please God anyway and neither will anyone else.

[davidk]

Hello Mike,

'Tis true that by my own authority I submit myself to the greater authority. What I fail to see is how, by submission to the greater authority, I somehow become the greater authority.

Man has been given authorities by God, but they're always to be understood as beholden to His final authority.

 

That's a fine quote from your church.

I think care should be taken in presenting the Bible as having any personal attributes ("the Bible's ability to lead"), it is dangerously close to idolization of the text. Rather, I suggest, we adhere to the truth, the particular substance of the ideas, expressions, and whatever facts are presented to us in the Bible from which to recieve our inspiration.

---

 

Hello Jenny,

I believe, so far, that our perspectives are not all that different. I simply wasn't certain of something that your follow-up did explain a little further. I have no doubt, and can certainly agree with you fully, that God's love is preeminent throughout.

However, to take mine a little further, I do believe God's giving us His Law demonstrates His unequivical love for us. I would argue that the Law does not, itself, restrain us. The laws purpose is to expose our personal misdeeds encouraging repentence. (the law is not there to protect me from others, but to protect others from me!) By being obedient to the law, possible only by acknowledging our dependance upon God's assistance (another purpose of the Law), we can restrain ourselves. That restraint builds character, empathy, and love. Jesus fulfilling the law clearly responds to its importance to man.

---

 

Adi,

Thanks. Of course, I didn't want to carry on with only an assumption of the object of your faith.

Would you continue with what you meant then by having said, "(you) see the Bible as inspired by faith (in Jesus Christ),... as distinct from inspired by God."

 

Don't lose the word "magic". I understand the lilting spiritual joy by experience when my heart is pierced by profound truths. I know that is what you meant when you coined your phrase. I know that is what you meant by "magical". It is a good word when understood in its proper context.

 

Let's also not lose the word "literal". I think to better grasp the intent of the word as it is used in the fundamental lexicon, replace the word "magic" with "literal".

 

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the fundamental understanding is that Jesus literally spoke a literal parable. In which case, the man is not necessarily to have been a literal man. This seems identical to your understanding.

 

The Bible literally says, "... there is no God." ( Psalm 14:1), but it does not affirm this. It does not teach "there is no God". There's no claim the Bible is inerrant in things it does not affirm, regardless how literal the reading.

 

If the words are dealt with fairly, "without error" can be seen as a proper statment. A fundamental Christian principle is: the Bible is without error not only when it speaks of values, the meaning system and religious things, but it is also without error when it speaks of history and the cosmos, whether it is stated by raw fact or metaphor.

---

 

Minsocal,

Because: we, being finite, are not a sufficient reference point.

 

G'day y'all,

 

Davidk

[minsocal]

davidk,

 

"Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another."

 

Immanuel Kant

 

minsocal

[davidk]

"Immaturity is not concerned with whether one thinks for himself but about himself."

 

DavidK

 

[jenny]

"Integrity has no need of rules." ~ Albert Camus

 

If we are actually and fully in the process of acquiring the mind of Christ...then having THAT love (that He has) as our prime motivation will be enough to restrain our own behaviors. Love fully and in everyway overwhelms the law...because love always looks for the highest welfare of the person or situation...where as the law is narrow-sighted and only looks for strict obedience to it and if it is crossed. Much of the world thinks that love is deficient, and that it is only a fluffy-nice word. However, it is powerful and affects both the one being loved AND the one loving if given the power and the chance. Love also can reach areas of the soul that the law can never, ever reach...and can transform in ways the law cannot and does not have the capacity to do. This is why Jesus often went against the grain and the rules many times...and loved as His primary motivation in all areas of life. (1Cor. 13)

 

"Immaturity is not concerned with whether one thinks for himself but about himself."

 

DavidK

 

[Neon Genesis]

 

However, to take mine a little further, I do believe God's giving us His Law demonstrates His unequivical love for us. I would argue that the Law does not, itself, restrain us. The laws purpose is to expose our personal misdeeds encouraging repentence. (the law is not there to protect me from others, but to protect others from me!) By being obedient to the law, possible only by acknowledging our dependance upon God's assistance (another purpose of the Law), we can restrain ourselves. That restraint builds character, empathy, and love. Jesus fulfilling the law clearly responds to its importance to man.

---

 

 

 

 

 

Could you please clarify your meaning? Do you believe Christians should still follow the old law?

[davidk]

Dear Jenny,

 

Thank you for posting yesterday (@ 10:40). Thank you for still loving others, despite their poor behavior.

And thank you for acknowledging that regardless of your effort, you can never reach perfection. Well, welcome to the human race, where none of us are perfect either.

---

 

"Integrity is doing the right thing regardless of the consequences."; "Love is an act of the will."- DavidK

 

Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to do away with it.

 

Do you have children? Did you teach them any modes of proper conduct? Certainly you did. And wasn't it because you loved them that you did? Didn't you punish for disobedience as well as forgive when they were repentent? Certainly you did. And wasn't it because you loved them that you did these things?

 

You're right by saying love is powerful and is the overriding principle. That's why God's commandments (Laws) are summed up by saying- we are to love Him and our neighbors. Because He first loved us, He gave us His Laws commanding us to love. Aren't there consequences for how we are obedient? Doesn't our obedience to God's Law then demonstrate our love for Him in much the same way as our children do for us, and us to our parents?

 

If 'love' looks out for the "highest welfare", shouldn't we expect bad behavior to be dealt with in order to protect it?

 

God is the source for the Law and love. He is what gives them meaning. That's what truly should inspire us.

 

With love,

Davidk

[Neon Genesis]

Are you a Messianic Jew by any chance, Davidk?

[minsocal]

What difference would there be in inspiration generated from within versus that recieved from some outside source?

 

Minsocal,

Because: we, being finite, are not a sufficient reference point.

 

G'day y'all,

 

Davidk

 

You didn't answer my question. Where is God?