Fallen and Flawed

I guess I’m just gonna say that it’s unusual how when I was a teen and would listen to the pastor talk of things like waiting for heaven with excitement, my thoughts would be like.. “Forget that.. I still have a life of things I want/need to do before I die!” Nowadays, not so. During times of great suffering, I long for the day to have misery swept away.. that’s a little self serving though because I should be more excited about serving Jesus both here while I’m still alive and worshipping him perfectly in Heaven. But I will say this.. life for me is pretty routine and I don’t have any real plans set out for myself. Even though I pretty much know what tomorrow will be like, I do have a sense of waiting. Waiting for the next big thing, be it a revelation of something that teaches me more about the LORD, or Him coming again to open a can . I have a sense of anticipation now that keeps me going thru the humdrum. So now I kinda understand whay my pastor was talking about.

My is displaced. lol.

Ok.. so the smileys don’t fit in the middle of a post?? It’s making me look insane.

Yeah, ugly glitch. My bad. I’m a writer, and not the sharpest tool in the backend code shed, so it’s one of those things I’m learning to live with. I hope you still love me.

Truth be told, I have been pretty pissed off over something trivial. Promise me you will not laugh too hard at this. Fantasy Football.
See, our league has been royally screwed up since it started. Not only that, one guy quits halfway through, the comish screws up the playoff platforms, etc.
I am angry and bummed out about this.
WHAT DOES IT MATTER?!
I am all upset over a silly game which has drawn my focus from the returning Lord and other important matters. Who cares about such things? I have been trying to get gratification and joy out of the silly.
Ugh. I repent.

Honestly, one thing that makes me twitch are all of those Christians (probably should use “scare-quotes” on that one) who GLEEFULLY cry out “Maranatha!” but do not let the truth of that sink into their hearts.

They sit back in their homes, smugly assured of their salvation, but their hearts never break knowing the huge number of people who stand condemned because the Gospel was never taken to them.

They sit there waiting/praying/pleading for the end, yet not realizing that by sitting there, they are (in a way) slowing down the second coming.

To be brutally honest, this next part is also dropping condemnation upon myself first…

You want Christ to return in Full Glory, wiping the stain of sin from this world and from our souls…. then get off your butt and obey Christ like Matthew 28 calls us to!

I have no right to call for the Lord’s return, to cry “Maranatha!”, for right now how far am I really (and the American Church for that matter) from the servant with the one mina?

D,
Well done and timely post!
It’s always a good thing to be reminded to change our focus from second helpings to the second coming.
Thanks!

Demian.. I’ll let it slide just once.

Hell hath no fury like that of a smiley scorned.

Off Topic,

We just got blindsided by some news and would like to ask everyone for prayers for our church.

Our pastor just tendered his resignation, effective January 1st, 2010.

So sorry to hear that, Eric. Indeed we will pray. Keep me posted.

You have a good attitude, Preach. I’d like humbly to draw your attention to an attempt I made to chronicle the second Coming from the point of view of a regular guy who sets out for a trip around the world just at the time of the introduction of the Mark of the Beast. It’s a free e-book, Walkabout: The History of a Brief Century. If you find the time to read it, I’d be delighted to hear your comments. The lessons learned in the book are very similar to your thoughts above.

Eric my prayers are with your church.

I recently got a chance to study Titus. The verses were assigned and my initial reaction was one of disappointment. I joked that I’d never read Titus on purpose before.

The passage was Titus 2:11-14 and I think it answers the question of what do we do while we wait well.

For the grace of God has been revealed, bringing salvation to all people.

And we are instructed to turn from godless living and sinful pleasures. We should live in this evil world with self-control, right conduct, and devotion to God,

while we look forward to that wonderful event when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed.

He gave his life to free us from every kind of sin, to cleanse us, and to make us his very own people, totally committed to doing what is right.

So, since Jesus brought salvation and while you’re waiting for his return, live right, devout, self controlled lives because Jesus died to cleanse us and wants a people zealous for doing what is right.

Well said.

Second coming was indeed an important idea in Pauline version of Chistianity, though I am not sure of other early Chritian sects. Paul clearly believed Jesus would return in his lifetime (since his prophecy didn’t fulfil, perhaps the Pauline corpus should be excluded from the Bible as “uninspired”? Just kidding…). The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (which comes from the Pauline school too) believed that Jesus lived in end times. Some passages in the synoptic gospels put apocalyptical messages into Jesus’ mouth (though they can be easily interpreted as relating to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE). And there is also John the Revelator and his book.

As a result, most Christian churches do have some kind of eschatology. The whole movements arose that made the advent a centre of their teaching – Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and more.

Yet Paul was clearly wrong – 2,000 years later the return of Jesus is not any closer than it was then.

Don’t get me wrong, I really wouldn’t mind the Jesus coming back the way Adventists or Pentecostals see it (though both visions differ a lot – Pentecostals believe in a secret rapture, based on the Bible, and Adventists do not believe in a secrert rapture, based on the same Bible). I am not afraid of God of Love. But I just fail to see any signs that are supposed to precede Jesus and his return.

Maybe the story was never meant to be taken literally. Maybe it happens individually, not collectively, when we die. Maybe it symbolises something entirely different. I don’t claim to know. What I know is that, ultimately, it doesn’t matter. Just like what you believe doesn’t matter as much as how you live – and love.

While eschatology is something expectant, anticipated, and even important to talk about with each other, the world has no idea what we mean by amillennialism, premillennialism, or postmillennialism, or pre-rapture or post-rapture. They have no idea what we’re talking about, and they frankly don’t care. We need to talk about these things in the Church, but since they are a bit ambiguous in Scripture, they need not to be the focus of our attention. You make a good point about loving each other and others until Christ’s return.

I’ve heard non-believers say that Christians only believe because it’s a safety blanket for dealing with death, because that’s what they hope in. I think it’s important that when we teach on eschatology, we include our present hope, always linking eschatology with our present mandate.

I agree, Jonathan. Depending on your personal spiritual background, various things may be important to us when it comes to doctrine. The things you call ambiguous can also be interpreted in a huge number of ways. By all means, let’s talk what they mean to us, but let’s also make sure that this doesn’t distract us from more important things.

Here’s an interesting link that I think it’s not out of place here which discusses a similar issue with regards to being “pro-choice” and “pro-life”. As usual with the Spectrum articles, the discussion under the article is just as interesting:

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/articles/column/2009/12/18/why_i%E2%80%99m_neither_prolife_nor_prochoice

And one more thing… it is indeed true that some people are Christians just because they are afraid of a fiery hell, so they are trying to bribe their way to heaven. As far as I am concerned, I am a total agnostic when it comes to any afterlife. And I don’t give too much thought to it. To me the appeal of the teaching of Jesus is in that it is about loving today, here and now. “The empire of God” is within us already. Even if there is nothing after death, I still want to follow the teaching of Jesus, just for the sake of it, and would never, ever serve any God because of fear.

@Jag: That was a good article. I really enjoyed it, thanks!

As far as following Jesus: it’s interesting that Jesus DOES make much of his teachings about life here, but it’s also equally interesting that he doesn’t leave out the afterlife. He always brings the present in perspective with the afterlife. For instance: Jesus talks about loving others here and now in Matthew 5:43-48

“43You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.
44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

We need to notice that Jesus points out the (1) reality of the heavenly Father, (2) our relation to Him, and (3) our relation to others within the first two perspectives. Jesus believed in the afterlife and taught of it. He also claimed to be God. So if Jesus believed in it, taught it, and claimed to be God, then we have every bit of reason to believe in it also, and therefore teach it (Matt. 28:19-20).

I guess I’m just wondering why you want to follow Jesus’ teachings about living here, and reject his teachings about other major issues.

Thanks for your help!

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for sharing your views. Also for an interesting quote from Matthew. Personally I differentiate between Jesus, the man, and the Christ of theology. I also differentiate between what Jesus really taught and what the gospels present him as teaching. After all, the gospels were written decades after Jesus and no by eyewitnesses. They resent layers of tradition, and naturally Jesus did not have secretaries writing down his speeches or did not write his autobiography either. Instead, their authors present the view of Jesus prevalent in their particular community at the time. That’s why if you read them in the order they were written, you clearly see the development of early Christian theology, with christology in particular. Early historical Jesus scholars did not see it clearly (some still don’t), and like Albert Schweizer concluded that Jesus was just a failed apocalyptical teacher. Others, like the Jesus Seminar, look for his core teachings in the extant texts, which I take to be a much better idea. The last verse sums up the whole quote rather well – the idea of love is not to earn a reward, it is to reach a divine level of perfection. The previous verses, even if we were assumed that that’s exactly what Jesus said, may simply be a useful illustration that we may be mistaken to take too literally.

That’s just one possibility, of course. It just happens to speak to me personally.

Jag,

Wow, thanks for the response and sharing your views. That’s really cool. Well, I’ve done a little research on the Jesus seminar, and I don’t too much agree with their approach. Besides, if you don’t believe in the Jesus of the Bible, what would make you want to believe any of the teachings from Jesus? I’m just wondering how you differentiate what is historically reliable, and what is not, when it comes to the Bible. I ask this because I don’t think we can differentiate. It seems like if we approach it like you are then we can’t take any of Jesus’ teachings to be of authenticity. Therefore, he’s left to be just a myth, along with the rest of the New Testament, and there wouldn’t be a point in even learning form him or quoting him because he wouldn’t be real. I think if that was the case I’d rather follow Gandhi. What do you think?

You are right, sifting through multiple layers of tradition is not easy. Therefore, you need to establish some kind of methodology first. This can be quite complex, but, let me give you a very simplified idea. First, you put your sources in a chronological order of being written. The older ones tend to be more accurate that the newer ones. Then you have the rule of multiple attestation: if independent sources mention the same sayings of Jesus, for instance, then they are likely to be more authentic that those that appear in only one source. Of course, it is not an exact science, and we can only approximate the historical Jesus, and the findings ore often debated by those who disagree with them. It’s good to realise what the limits of our search for historical Jesus are.

The thing is, although you mention the Jesus of the Bible, he is seen differently by various authors. In Matthew, for instance, he refuses to provide a sign; in John he hardly does anything else! But when you realise how much the Christian tradition developed between Matthew and John, you are able to understand the reasons for the discrepancy and trace the history. Of course The Jesus Seminar is not particularly liked by religious conservatives, but the truth is that most of its scholars are not atheists or even agnostics, they are sound Christian theologians, and in my opinion by “demythologising” Jesus they are only trying to save him for today’s humanity.

By all means, if you are doing your research, read both sides of the story, texts from those who disagree but also those who defend their work. Ultimately it is to each one of us to decide for themselves what we find convincing.

Funny you should mention Gandhi. To me his philosophy was totally compatible with authentic Christianity, and in fact I became his follower first and it was reading his autobiography that made me interested in Jesus. It’s a long story afterwards, as I then became quite an evangelical fundamentalist for a while, only to see my faith shattered by reality. Eventually it was likes of The Jesus Seminar that managed to convinced me Christianity was worth it after all.

I have already provided those links elsewhere on this blog, but here’s something provocative from Spectrum again:

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/node/1439

http://accent.cs.southern.edu/?p=556

Jag,

Interesting. You say that ultimately it is to each one of use to determine our own convictions. But what I can’t get past is the question of whether or not it is true. I’m okay with critique, but it seems the Jesus Seminar sets out a different standard in their ambition. It’s like they are trying to create a criteria to simply prove something they want proved. I’ve wrote about that in this link: http://www.sortingbeans.com/jesus-seminar-or-jesus-sabotoge/.

Personally, I don’t think Christianity is worthwhile at all unless it’s embraced in it’s historical context, which is found in the Bible. Otherwise, you’re just embracing fiction. It seems that Christianity is the most “real” in the sense of reality. I say this because I’m a realist.

Good point, Jonathan.

The best that the Seminar can do is exactly the same that any religious group can: make their convictions known, and declare how they were arrived at. If anyone claims more than that, the onus is on them to prove that they are right. Of course the work of the Seminar cannot convince everyone. But neither can any other religious group! which is why there are thousands of Christian denominations alone, all based on the Bible, and there are honest, truth seeking people in all of them.

You call The Jesus Seminar a challenge to the Christian faith. Huh? Given that it is not an anti-Christian organisation of any sort, are Christians challenging themselves? On second though, perhaps they are! And perhaps that is what, as Christians, we should all do – never sit on the laurels, never assume we know everything, but constantly challenge the basis of our faith!

As for the historical context of early Christianity – you will find very little in the Bible. The people who wrote its books were writing to their contemporaries, so there was no need to go deep into the context at all. It is historians who provide the context. Which is why probably the best historical Jesus scholar in the world today is arguably John Dominic Crossan, a liberal and Jesus Seminar member. He even co-authored a book with N T Wright, a leading modern conservative, to show that we can differ and still respect each others views. We need to realise that at best we can search for truth, but we can never claim we possess it.

What do you mean when you say that “Christianity is the most “real” in the sense of reality”? Sounds interesting, but not very clear…

Jag,

Where did I call the Jesus Seminar a challenge to the Christian faith?

What I mean by Christianity being the most “real” in the sense of reality (which was a response to your statement about your faith being shattered by reality) is that it is based on reality, not myths or fantasies. It’s not a feel-good system, or even one that fits in as merely a “good cause.” It’s the real deal, and it trusts in Jesus as the very God incarnate, the only way to salvation. It makes itself exclusive, because God made Himself Exclusive, and Jesus did the same in the N.T. God is truth, and truth is exclusive. It’s either true, or it’s not. That’s one thing I love about Jesus, is that He makes it very clear that He is the way, the truth, and the life.

Does that better explain?

Apologies if I got something wrong, but the article you linked previously starts with the following setence:

“This Jesus Seminar’s view of Jesus is by far one of the most ridiculous challenges to the Christian faith. It seems even silly to call it a challenge, but nonetheless, it is what it is.”

Hence my comment…

Please elaborate: what do you mean when you say that Christianity is not based on “myths or fantasies”. Are you suggesting any other religions are any different? How do we know that? Can’t a myth be true?

On what basis are you saying that Jesus is God incarnate? That’s what some church councils agreed on, but it’s not in the Bible.

How is Christianity exclusive? Do you think God prefers Christians to Hindus or atheists? On what basis?

On a personal note – when I was a fundamentalist, Christianity was exactly a “feel good” system to me, though I didn’t realise it just then. I was simply fooled into believing I “owned” God, which is why for a week or two after being baptised, if you saw me, I smiled constantly! But such feelings don’t go on forever, of course.

Finally, the quote from John’s gospel about Jesus being the way, the truth and the life can be interpreted very widely. I don’t see a problem accepting this claim by even the most liberal of church liberals – though we understand it in the historical context – not sure you do.

Jag,

Sorry, the apology is mine (open mouth, insert foot)! Yes, I did say that. I didn’t mean a challenge with regard that the Christian faith is on the verge of being debunked, rather what I meant by that is that this is a challenge in that the Christian Church has to respond to the Jesus seminar. I don’t think they threaten classical Christianity at all.

I am at lunch at work right now, so sorry for the short response. I just wanted to at least to take a moment to eat my foot! lol. I will respond to your other questions when I get time later.

Thanks!

Foot lunch? Hmmm… But if that’s what you like… enjoy!

Jag,

Sorry for the delay, but personal issues and holidays were primary. Thanks for your patients.

Okay, regarding the myth deal, 1 Timothy 4:6-7 talks about not following myths. Paul is writing to Timothy to “Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales.” In 1 Timothy 1:3-5, Paul reminds Timothy to “command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies” which “promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith.” It is clear Paul is wanting to get across that people are turning to myths rather than the truth, which is found in Christ (also, 2 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:14).

Peter was just as firm on this as Paul was. In his letter, he reminds his readers that as long as he is alive he will strive to remind them of the things he has seen and heard from Jesus. In 2 Peter 1:16-18 he writes:

“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.”

These guys died for what they believed. And they didn’t just die as one with bombs strapped to their chest, instead they were murdered. In spite of the possible martyrdom, believers throughout the ages have died because of the truth they hold fast to in Jesus—not some mythical person who has nice things to say about living morally, but a Jesus that was real in history and one that rose from the grave, which was witnessed by many, even 500. These people who die for their faith in Christ do not get some fancy reward, or 10 virgins in “heaven.” They get the same reward: life with Christ eternally. They don’t purposefully die, they are killed. For what? For submitting to the Lordship of Christ.

Can a myth be true? A myth can certainly stem from something that is true. And if we are talking about a myth in the sense of a parable or story in an effort to illustrate some kind of truth, then myths are fine to use, so long as they are not made the center of the whole. Rather, they accompany and come along side the truth to simply help illustrate the point being made. Even Jesus did this with parables. But the point was that the parables he taught with pointed to a very serious truth, they did not remain as merely fantasy. So a myth cannot be intrinsically true, but can stem from a truth, or be used to illustrate a truth.

Jesus being God: Sure, it’s in the Bible. But if I give you the text, are you going to believe it? So far—from what I understand—you do not believe in the Bible. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your view on the Bible is largely for living today. So, when I bring up Scripture that points to Jesus being God incarnate, this brings with it and entire paradigm shift for someone like yourself; because if Jesus was indeed God, then your whole view on Scripture would need to change, which means the Bible has a whole lot more to do with Just living for today. But here are a few passages that prove his deity: John 8:58; John 1:1, 14; John 8:24; John 10:30-33; John 14:9-11; John 20:28; Isaiah 44:6 with Acts 4:12 and 2 Peter 1:1; Philippians 2:5-7; 2 Timothy 3:16; Titus 2:13; Isaiah 44:24 with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16; Isaiah 43:10-11 with Revelation 1:8, 17-18, 2:8, 22:13-16.

Christianity is not exclusive because we make it so. And no, God does not prefer people of one religion rather than the other. Let’s make this more simple: Jesus is exclusive. Thus, the following of Jesus and embracing of all of his teachings has historically been called “Christianity” (Acts 11:26). Therefore, Christianity is exclusive because it is the following of Jesus, and Jesus is the truth (John 14:6)—and truth is exclusive. We are left with an either-or decision.

So we’ll keep it simple: Jesus is exclusive.

And again, God doesn’t “prefer” a certain religious type of person, He “prefers” those who believe in the one whom He sent, which is quite the opposite of “religion.” Religion kills; God saves through the person of Jesus the Christ.

Man, I just wrote a blog post. lol.

…we appreciate blog posts, Jonathan. Very much so.

It just takes so long to get through such a lengthy comment. These kind of back-and-forth comments can go on for such a long time. But it makes for great conversation and learning experiences.

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for your comments, the longer, the better! Hope you had a nice break.

First of all, a word of caution: Paline authorship of 1 Timothy is at least in doubt. But I’m not going to argue for or against it here.

Of course, the author of the epistle used the word myth (assuming that the translation is correct) in the colloquial sense, not the sociological/anthropological sense (which at the time, was of course, unknown). I particularly like the fact the the myts referred to are “godless”. The author of the letter certainly does not speak against godly myths, and it is those that are at the heart of both Judaism and Christianity. In addition, I would certainly called them “true myths”. As Wikipedia relates, “In a scholarly setting, the word “myth” may mean “sacred story”, “traditional story”, or “story involving gods”, but it does not mean “false story”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_mythology

It would also appear that the author criticises approaches such as found in the gospels of Matthew (chapter 1) and Luke (ch. 3), though if the true author were to be Paul, then he would not be referring to those very texts, as they did not exist at the time (though their sources – oral or written, would already have existed).

As for the 2 Peter, the scholarly consensus (which includes many conservative/traditional scholars) is that it’s a pseudoepigraph, certainly NOT written by an eyewitness it claims as its author. As a sidenote, it is interesting that many people in the church hierarchy know facts like this, but they prevent them from being filtered down to the pews, as they assume that simple folk might lose their faith. Isn’t such an approach patronising? Is preserving faith by preventing knowledge ever justifiable?

It is then impossible to say with any certainty that the two guys who wrote those letters died for what they believed, though there is a good case that the real Paul and Peter did.

As for the resurrection of Jesus, no-one has been able to explain what it meant, or how it happened. In some resurrection stories Jesus seems to have a resurrected body that you can touch, in others he walks through locked doors like he was a ghost. I’d rather err on the side of caution, and at this stage of my spiritual development I will imagine that the resurrection meant something that the witnesses could not find any other words to express, hence this metaphor. I do realise that this may only be a temporary explanation, but I am no longer scared of uncertainty and am prepared to wait until a better explanation is found.

Remember, that if the story were to be taken literally, Jesus was supposed to have returned centuries ago. Either he didn’t return (and the Christian Bible failed us), or he did in a totally different way.

If you are acquainted with such Christian movements as Arians, unitarians, or even Jehovah’s Witnesses, you will know that they have argued – on the basis of the Bible – that Jesus and YHWH are not the same. JW’s, for instance, admit that Jesus is a “god” but not “God”. Are you then aware of any text in the Bible stating unambiguously that Jesus equals YHWH? If so, I can only promise to take it into consideration, as I cannot promise anything for credit. My opinion is that you can justify any view by the Bible, including many attrocities. For instance, it defends slavery (US Christian abolitionists were only able to quote the spirit of the Bible, but not a single text for their cause, while slavery advocates could quote aplenty from both the OT and NT). None of the texts you quoted is conclusive, though they certainly show an early development of Christology.

I do not have a problem with seeing Jesus as a divine incarnation – a special human being who manages to show us the attributes of God. But at the same time, I do not see a need to turn this in any sort of dogma for everyone. It also does not have to mean that Jesus was the only such incarnation. Why would God only send someone like him to the Jews and not to Asians, for instance?

As to my belief in the Bible, I do respect its books as central to my spiritual tradition, but I do not worship them. So in a sense you are right that I believe in God, not in the Bible. The Bible, at best, is a road sign pointing towards God. Some time ago I was talking to a very traditional Christian who insisted that the Bible was “word of God” (though he could not explain what it really meant). When I protested by saying that such a view was not only unbiblical, but also that in the Bible it is Jesus who is the word of God, he had no choice but to start insisting that Jesus and the Bible were the same thing!

I will have to disagree with you on another point: Jesus is very inclusive. At least not in my Bible.

I also have to say that my disagreement does not involve any disrespect for you and your views.

Hey Jag,

Thanks for being so respectful. I too respect you even though our views are quite different concerning the Bible.

Just wanted to comment on “Christianity.” Arians, Unitarians, and Jahovah’s Witnesses are not Christians because they all deny the deity of Christ.

It seems as though you are pretty removed from viewing Scripture as God-breathed, and Jesus as the incarnate God, who came to appease the wrath of God for your sins by death on a cross, who rose on the third day, appeared to his disciples and many others, and ascended into Heaven and was seated at the right hand of God.

I have done some studies on the Scriptures and its authors, and have to disagree with you on their authenticity. I cannot make you believe them, and I certainly will not try to. For one, that’s not my job, and secondly, it’s quite arrogant for me to think that I can change anyone. But I believe that God can change people. And when I say God, I do not simply refer to a mystical being whom we have no ability to know personally, or whom fits the mold of anyone’s description for the sake of personal preference. I refer to the God of the Bible, who was seen through the person of Jesus Christ in the New Testament Scriptures.

We have the ability to know so much about God, and we are given such a fine source to know Him intimately, yet many reject its authority; namely, that source is the Bible. I believe in it because I have become convinced of it—not through preference or dogma, but first through conviction, and second through study. If we cannot believe the Bible, and the New Testament witnesses, then our Christianity is in vain—which I do not believe it is, or have any reason to believe it is either.

I find it difficult to see how a person would view Scripture so lightly and un-authoritatively, yet still refer to it. WIth the claims Scripture makes, I just don’t see how one can use it, like it, and not believe in it. It seems like a walking contradiction. On the other hand, I do appreciate people’s thoughts and comments in sharing their views about it. I really do.

Thanks so much for this dialog, Jag.

Hi Jonathan,

You are more than welcome to use your own definition of Christianity, as long as you realise its limitations! If you go to your Bible (Acts 11:26), you will find that the term “Christian” is used there for the first time, and it simply meant followers of Jesus – or those who recognised Jesus as the Christ (count me in!). Nothing to do with his deity whatsoever. As a result, JH’s, unitarians (in the traditional sense) and Arians easily qualify as Christians. It’s convenient and tempting to use our own definitions to exclude those we do not agree with, but the above groups are certainly not non-Christian but simply non-trinitarian. The term trinity is certainly extrabiblical.

It is also easy to proclaim the Bible as God-breathed. But the term is vague. I am sure I would easily agree with some interpretations. Though certainly not the whole Bible is – ever read about the attrocities apparently ordered by YHWH and described in Numbers or Joshua?

Likewise, the belief that Jesus died for our sins is a very particular interpretation of the Bible. So far no-one has been able to explain why this would have been necessary. I believe in the God of Love, the way Jesus taught, not a God of wrath.

Are you suggesting that the Bible is the only source of knowledge about God? If so, why? How is it better than other scriptures, or the book of nature? I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but asking for more information. There are Muslims, Hindus and many others who have been changed by the God(s) of their scriptures.

I treat the Bible as a chronicle of spiritual experiences lived by our ancestors in faith. I just happen to interpret it differently from you, but who is to say which way is better/correct? It all goes down to what you find more convincing, and being different people, I’d be really surprised if we were approaching the Bible in exactly the same way. I and am inspired by it, yet it is not my (religious) fetish.

What’s up Jag.

Indeed, we are interpreting the Bible differently. I am interpreting it in the light of itself. I also believe what it says. And I don’t have a problem with how God worked in the Old Testament, even in Numbers. Actually, let me say that I may not like what happened, but I’m willing to follow and trust that God.

The Bible is very clear about Jesus’ work on the cross. But then again, if I give Scriptures, you will likely disregard them as, I’m afraid, “Open for interpretation.” And of course the Bible is not our only source of knowledge of God. Yes, the book of nature points us toward God—even the Bible says that. But nature only goes so far. The question isn’t whether there is a God, but has He spoken. And this is what the Bible records.

So when I say I’m a Christian, I’m not making my own definition, but instead taking what the Bible records in history of what the first followers of Jesus who recognized Him as the Christ believed about Him and acted in accordance. And that has much to do with His deity, see the Scriptures in my above comment.

Have you read Demians recent post on Hell? This is another good reason to believe that Jesus is exclusive, and His early followers, recorded in the Bible, believed it. Check it out: http://www.fallenandflawed.com/hell-neglected-doctrine/

Oh yeah, interpretation. I have to disagree from the start – it is not possible to interpret the Bible “in the light if itself”. You have an anthology written down within a few centuries, often based on oral sources hundreds (if not thousands) years older. Then you have something like the Pauline letters, which you can read, but you are only getting one side of the conversation – it’s like listening to someone talking on the phone and having to guess what the other person is saying. Hope you don’t seriously propose that if there is something we don’t understand in one book, there is an explanation in another? To give you an example – Paul mentions in his letter “baptism for the dead”. Just one mention, and we can only guess what he was talking about. There are countless interpretations, and some churches even based their dogma on one of them (eg. the Mormons). Yet there is a good reason not to waste time abotu the subject, simply if we realise that Paul was NOT writing to you and me. It took a lot of time, but I recently realised that even conserative theologians begin to admit that the Bible does not speak in a single voice, but in many voices.

Another thing, ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek are dead languages. We can use the best translators with the best disctionaries, yet we will never be able to understand those texts the way the original audiences were supposed to. When even the best translators work on a text, they are already interpreting it using interpretation proposed by their dictionaries’ authors. And when you and I read the translation, we again interpret it for ourselves. We can use reason, our own experience or the dogma of our denomination, but we have to use something.

And just to mention the discrepancies we have in the texts – which ending of Mark’s gospel is correct (and “inspired”) – the short one, without any post-resurrection apperances, or the long one? It is quite obvious that the original author may have believed in some kind of resurrection, but even though he was writing about a generation after the death of Jesus, he was not familiar with the resurrected Jesus appearing to anyone… those stories were only added in later gospels (and later ending added to Mark’s, in an effort to make it less awkward), when christology was more developed.

The issue is that the Bible is not at all clear about what happened on the cross! Just look at how differently the “atonement” is understood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement
And we are only talking about mainstream, purely Bible-based interpretations.

I will gladly look aat the hell post – thanks for the link!

Hey Jag,

Thanks for the link buddy. It’s been great talking with you about this.

[...] never have I participated in a formal debate—I still wonder about that.Recently, though, I have been involved in a bit of a debate with another person in a comment thread on a website I often read.It’s been a back-and-forth [...]