Question About Christianity... - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-22-2005, 08:59 AM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en
"i am love" was not part of the logic.
"i" am not god, nor am "i" jesus.

the point was that jesus and love could be interchangable, and you highlighted that nicely.

i, or we, have nothing to do with it.
I'm glad you said that, Se7en. I guess that's what I thought you were saying when you changed what Christ said to say "Love is the way and the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father except through Love."

It sounded, to me, like you were saying "All I have to do is love, and I can get to the father." If that's not what you meant, then I'm sorry. The point I was trying to make is that when you substitute ourselves for love in the other verse, we fall short. Does that make sense?
__________________

__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 09:02 AM   #92
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Great point, nb!
__________________

__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 10:51 AM   #93
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
If we expand God's Word beyond what is says, are we in effect creating our own god? And does that not make us equal or greater than God?
How is that expanding it beyond his word?

If we have chosen to no longer take all of the book and live by it to the letter........Which we have done....how can we say God is limited by a man written book?

I would argue putting limitations on God's grace is more like placing yourself at an equal playing field or greater than God.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 10:53 AM   #94
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
If we expand God's Word beyond what is says, are we in effect creating our own god?
I assume when you say 'expand,' you're referring to interpetive disagreements like the one coemgen and Dreadsox are having.

If such a strict criterion had been used by all the scribes, redactors, priests et al. who took part over the centuries in compiling the Bible (NT or OT) in the precise form you know it today, the Bible wouldn't exist. Decisions had to made about whose gospels to include in the canon, which targum to regard as authoritative where manuscripts disagreed, how to translate conceptual language which has no exact parallel in other tongues, etc. And such decisions assume the ability of people other than the original writer(s) to make judgments about which texts speak with the voice of revelation and which don't, which contain the exact words and teachings of Jesus and which don't, and so on. Apparently, you have no problem accepting that thousands of anonymous ancient decision-makers were guided by God in making these choices for you. So why is it so hard to imagine that different readers of the Bible today could also be guided by God, yet arrive at different understandings of a passage--much as the four accepted gospels reveal four very different takes on Jesus?

Human language is a limited power, and when we use it to comprehend or talk about God, these limitations inevitably follow along. Words are only symbols: the thoughts they represent are compromised when they leave the thinker's mind and emerge as speech or writing, to be 'decoded'. Does logos, a Hellenistic concept found in the Gospel of John, really mean 'Word'? Sort of, kind of...but it also resonates with a host of mystical, epistemic and metaphysical nuances that can't be so concisely translated.

Humility, piety, and regard for tradition all have their place when studying the Bible, but even with them present (AND they should be--don't get me wrong), the nature of language nonetheless means you are, in fact, 'expanding God's Word' every time you read it. And respectfully acknowledging the accumulated expansions of many others over the centuries, as well.

We have these debates in Judaism all the time too...
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 11:08 AM   #95
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
How is that expanding it beyond his word?

If we have chosen to no longer take all of the book and live by it to the letter........Which we have done....how can we say God is limited by a man written book?

I would argue putting limitations on God's grace is more like placing yourself at an equal playing field or greater than God.
I think the degree to which we disagree is greater than just the extent of Grace.

I would suggest that man should be limited by a God written book.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 11:41 AM   #96
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:14 AM
If it is God written, every letter of the book should be followed.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 11:46 AM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Dreadsox, I see where you're coming from, but how else do you interpret those two verses I posted? They're very clear — you either get to heaven with Christ, or you don't. Now, does that mean the dude living in the jungle who's never been presented with the Gospel is expected to go to hell without hearing about Christ, probably not — God is fair and just. However, those of us who have heard have a decision to make.

Who said everyone's chosen to take the Bible and not live it letter by letter? Do I think it's all to be taken litteral, no. However, I don't think those who would argue that when Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the life; nobody gets to the father but by me," that he's using anything other than litteral language here. There's no room for interpretation; there's no gray there.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 01:06 PM   #98
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:14 AM
How do you interpret the eye of the needle?

If Ghandi stands in judgement before Christ, isn't he still getting to the father through Christ?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 01:51 PM   #99
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 06:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader




I would suggest that man should be limited by a God written book.
Do we have one of those?

Seriously is there anywhere in the Bible that says "this is what I wrote"? I mean the Bible was put together years after the authors were dead and pieced together by man. I have a hard time claiming that God wrote anything given the manner in which we recieved this document.
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 02:35 PM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America


Do we have one of those?

Seriously is there anywhere in the Bible that says "this is what I wrote"? I mean the Bible was put together years after the authors were dead and pieced together by man. I have a hard time claiming that God wrote anything given the manner in which we recieved this document.
2 Timothy 3:16 says "All Scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

The writing of the Bible as well as the compiling of the books and letters included, were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 02:39 PM   #101
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 06:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen


2 Timothy 3:16 says "All Scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

The writing of the Bible as well as the compiling of the books and letters included, were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Oh, but inspired by and written by are two ENTIRELY different things and I think that's what DMA was getting at.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-22-2005, 03:21 PM   #102
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 07:14 AM
I understand what DMA was getting at BVS, I was just posting some information for people to digest.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 04:25 PM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 06:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen


2 Timothy 3:16 says "All Scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
Three things.

1-If the books were written by man, as most non-fundamental Christians believe then 2 Timothy 3:16 wouldn't make any difference, it would be Timothy's 'inspired by God' word, no? Much like I could write a song inspired by God, doesn't mean it came from his mouth.

2-If the Bible is indirectly written by God, why would it be fallable?
Why would it need correction, as it says in that verse? Don't tell me that God is fallable, man certainly is.

3-Man wrote this book inspired by God which is entirely what the book actually says, and most scholars and historians agree, the only ones who don't are the fundamental Christians who believe that every word is to be taken to a letter.

Now, if you are a fundamental Christian and believe this, don't be offended, I just refuse to ignore the inconsistency of the Bible, in the manner in which is was written and out together, not the ideas behind the actual teachings.

There were many books left out, The Book of Enoch is not in the Bible, but Jesus quotes it, and it's mentioned in the OT. Who decided this? Are you going to tell me God decided this, that Lord Jesus Christ quotes this book and yet it's not good enough to teach to the followers?

The men who voted on the books to be canonized as the Bible were just as fallable as any other man.

The men who wrote the books were just as fallable as any other man.

If there were no need to alter the book at all, why was there a need to canonize some books and not others?
Why is there a need in that verse from Timothy to correct X, Y or Z?

If God wrote the Bible, then he wrote those other books too, why aren't they taught in the church?

I have a extremely hard time resolving that the Bible is word for word from the mouth of God, and that the 66 books in it are the only ones worthy of being called 'the scripture'.

And if you quote scripture as a response to my questions and problems, then don't you see the nature of the problem?

I don't trust the nature of man, especially those with tremendous power, like the heads of churches many centuries ago. Maybe my cynicisms are founded in my distrust of the current organized church. But as I have tried to resolve my problems with my faith, I discovered that it wasn't my faith at all, it was the business of the faith.

So I removed it. And like a cancerous tumor, I discovered I didn't need it. So why would I need it? And if I'm wrong about the nature of the authors of the Bible, then I would need some sort of "churching" wouldn't I?

Maybe the God of the Bible is entirely consistent, and when he says Men cannot be even remotely close to God's purity, he meant it. And wouldn't this include the ones who wrote the Bible? And were they "more inspired" than those who wrote the gnostic texts and such?

Sorry, I am rambling, just looking for discussion, maybe even some enlightening answers that don't seem as if they are copied and pasted from some apolgetic Christian website.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 04:56 PM   #104
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
fundamental Christians who believe that every word is to be taken to a letter
This is bad teaching. Inerrancy of Scripture is the accurate description. Saying that one group must take every word to a letter is an easy way to paint them in a corner without understanding what they truly believe.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 05:01 PM   #105
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
However, I don't think those who would argue that when Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the life; nobody gets to the father but by me," that he's using anything other than litteral language here.
It's textbook mystical language. What's literal about it?

If Jesus had gone on to add..."And when I say 'gets to the father' I mean whether you spend eternity in heaven or hell, and when I say 'nobody' I mean every human being that ever existed or will exist, and when I say 'except by me' I mean you'll stand up in church and say, 'I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior,' because I'LL decide whether you go to hell or not, and YOU WILL if you don't acknowledge me as God in that fashion"...if Jesus had been recorded as saying that, then I'd agree with you that it was 'literal'.

Not that I disagree with you about what the author(s) of this passage probably understood it to mean. I've read about the Johannine community, their quarrels with their Pharisees, their Hellenistic influences, their eschatological differences with the synoptics, etc. I imagine they would have shared your interpretation. But that's an entirely different thing from asserting that the recorded words themselves have a universally indisputable meaning.
__________________

__________________
yolland is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com