Question About Christianity...

[coemgen]

"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]

Great point, nb!

 

[Dreadsox]

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.

 

[yolland]

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...

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

 

[Dreadsox]

If it is God written, every letter of the book should be followed.

 

[coemgen]

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.

 

[Dreadsox]

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?

 

[Do Miss America]

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.

 

[coemgen]

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[coemgen]

I understand what DMA was getting at BVS, I was just posting some information for people to digest.

 

[U2DMfan]

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

 

[yolland]

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.

 

[Tinybubbles]

I have nothing at all to say in this conversation - except that I am enjoying it alot and feel like a very special fly on the wall!
I don't know very many christians, and esp. don't know any willing to discuss peacefully theological differences. This is really cool. Of course, it's a u2 thing, I am convinced...Thanks, and I will go back to buzzing in a corner now....

 

[U2DMfan]

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.

Oh, I understand what they believe, trust me.

I am speaking about fundamental Christians here, surrounded by them in school, at every place I've worked, in my family, in my neighborhoods, I live in the heart of the Bible belt, there aren't many people who have a better understanding of them than those who are surrounded by them constantly, their whole lives.

And oh yes, I was taught many of these things. So I know what "they" believe because essentially I was "they" at least for a time in my earlier life.

As for inerrancy of scripture, that's fine. That is consistent with true fundamentalism, it would also be accurate to say every word and letter must be taken as inerrant. If this is the case, then you have to follow it, there is no wiggle room, it is what it is.

Besides it was just a generalization for the sake of time and effort, I thought there was an implicit understading that we are all adults, we all can read and comprehend what is being said and generalizations are apart of that.

Not trying to be offensive, I understand the idea that using terms like "fundamentalists" can be construed negatively. I don't mean it that way, it's the proper way to describe them. They believe in the fundamentals of the Bible, take it word for word. I believe in the teachings of the Bible, I believe the nature of the gospel is "inerrant". I don't however believe that's man's ability to foul things up is inerrant. That's all.

 

[coemgen]

U2DMFan— I'll respond to your last point because I found it funny. None of my posts in this thread have been copied and pasted from a Web site. I don't know if I should take that as a compliment or a put down to my posts. (I do write for a living, so maybe that's part of it. I also enjoy studying Christian apologetics. I confess, I do look up certain sites from time to time, but I don't cut and paste information. I like to write it in my own language.)

Anywho, the first thing I want to clarify is that in Timothy where it says "inspired by God," it's not talking about inspiration like "I was inspired by that woman's beauty to paint this painting," it's talking about influence. Those who wrote the Bible did so under the influence of the Holy Spirit — God. It may not have come from God's mouth, but it gets across what God wanted to be said, if that makes sense.

The second thing that needs to be clarified is your interpretation of the word "correction" in the verse. It's not saying that the Bible is in need of correction, it's saying the Bible can be used for correction, in terms of people's character and the way they live their life.

Also, most Christians don't think the whole Bible is to be taken literal. If they did, we'd all be walking around with our eyes gouged out and hands cut off. There are parts that are figurative language as well as poetic and other forms of language. HOWEVER, there's more straight forward language being used that many people think. To clearly know what voice the texts are written in, we can't just assume we know on our own. We can, however, come to this conclusion through studying the Bible, the writer, the context and other stuff.

You said Christ quotes the Book of Enoch, but that's not true. If you go to biblegateway.com (yes, I'm using the Internet here and I'm not ashamed of it.) and search the Bible for Enoch, you'll see that Enoch himself is mentioned briefly in passing in the Gospel of Luke as Luke writes out Christ's geneology. Nowhere does Christ himself quote the Book of Enoch.
The only point in the entire Bible the book may have been quoted is in the Book of Jude. Even then, just because it's quoted doesn't mean it's influenced by God enough to be included in the Bible, you know?

Also, the books of the Bible weren't selected in a hurry. It took many years to put it together with a crap-load of careful consideration by many people.

I hope that doesn't sound like I cut and pasted stuff! Notice I didn't use any scripture either. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[coemgen]

Hey Tinnybubbles

 

[coemgen]

yolland — I guess you can interpret Christ's words however you want. Sounds pretty clear cut to me though.

1 John 5:11-12 backs it up saying "And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."

Does that sound like mystical language?

You really don't even need scripture to debate this. I mean, do you really think God would send his son to earth to live as we do only live the perfect life, claim to be who he is, predict his own death (which also was fortold many times with detail in the Old Testament, then die that horrible, painful, shamefull death and be resurrected three days later and then say "Oh, if you don't like that sacrifice I made so you can spend eternity with me, then you can just go your own way." ?

With all due respect, there's no logic in that.

By the way, I sincerely don't mean to come across as a prick in any of these posts and I am truly sorry if I do. I enjoy this discussion and I hope I'm not offending anyone.

 

[U2DMfan]

U2DMFan— I'll respond to your last point because I found it funny. None of my posts in this thread have been copied and pasted from a Web site. I don't know if I should take that as a compliment or a put down to my posts. (I do write for a living, so maybe that's part of it. I also enjoy studying Christian apologetics. I confess, I do look up certain sites from time to time, but I don't cut and paste information. I like to write it in my own language.)

Anywho, the first thing I want to clarify is that in Timothy where it says "inspired by God," it's not talking about inspiration like "I was inspired by that woman's beauty to paint this painting," it's talking about influence. Those who wrote the Bible did so under the influence of the Holy Spirit — God. It may not have come from God's mouth, but it gets across what God wanted to be said, if that makes sense.

The second thing that needs to be clarified is your interpretation of the word "correction" in the verse. It's not saying that the Bible is in need of correction, it's saying the Bible can be used for correction, in terms of people's character and the way they live their life.

Also, most Christians don't think the whole Bible is to be taken literal. If they did, we'd all be walking around with our eyes gouged out and hands cut off. There are parts that are figurative language as well as poetic and other forms of language. HOWEVER, there's more straight forward language being used that many people think. To clearly know what voice the texts are written in, we can't just assume we know on our own. We can, however, come to this conclusion through studying the Bible, the writer, the context and other stuff.

You said Christ quotes the Book of Enoch, but that's not true. If you go to biblegateway.com (yes, I'm using the Internet here and I'm not ashamed of it.) and search the Bible for Enoch, you'll see that Enoch himself is mentioned briefly in passing in the Gospel of Luke as Luke writes out Christ's geneology. Nowhere does Christ himself quote the Book of Enoch.
The only point in the entire Bible the book may have been quoted is in the Book of Jude. Even then, just because it's quoted doesn't mean it's influenced by God enough to be included in the Bible, you know?

Also, the books of the Bible weren't selected in a hurry. It took many years to put it together with a crap-load of careful consideration by many people.

I hope that doesn't sound like I cut and pasted stuff! Notice I didn't use any scripture either. Thanks for the discussion.

well, I'm glad you found it humorous, as opposed to offensive, even if it wasn't meant to be either.

What I mean by the last comment was, a reply that said "read Verse 1 Chapter this that etc. " I meant, I wanted to read some intellectual thought rather than have to go refer to the Bible for something that I could take one way, and you could take the other.

As for "inspired", you mean that if I prayed for influence on a song, or a painting, or a book, and I was under the Holy Spirit could my song, painting, or book could be considered a Holy relic of some sort?

The "correction" verse, I took the other meaning to, I guess ironically I read it too literally, or I read what I wanted to read, it's the fundie in me

As for most Christians don't think the Bible should be taken literally, I would agree, but not many fundamentalists. Perhaps our defitions of fundamentalism is not the same. I know people who take it word for word, of course they don't follow everything in it.

I do agree with studying the context of the scriptures, as I have tried to educate myself on this or that. My point was that the poetic liscence and figurative IS TAKEN LITERALLY by many, you may not, others may not, but I am talking about true fundamental Christains here. No need to look further than the book of Leviticus for selective ideas on this. Some of the fundies, take certain passages as absolute truth and dismiss others. If we are on the supposition that it's all inspired and useful, then why not follow all of it?

Maybe some of you haven't met these types, I know them well. If they are consistent in their believes, I actually have admiration for those who follwo this strict path, but a lot do not, therefore, I can't understand it.

Christ got the phrase "Son of Man" from the book of Enoch. I'll try to find a link that shows where I got this from, it might be a waste of time as this might be from a gnostic text that you may dismiss.

Closing, I wasn't directing the comments at you, about the cut and paste. I just rather people try and speak (type) from tehir gut than giving me chapter and verse answers, you know what I mean?

And again, all generalizations are not out of ignorance, but of either laziness or trying to be concise in an otherwise long post

 

[Dreadsox]

By the way, I sincerely don't mean to come across as a prick in any of these posts and I am truly sorry if I do. I enjoy this discussion and I hope I'm not offending anyone.

No more of a Prick than I am and I too am enjoying the conversation!