The Law of Believing

[geisha779]

Hi Bride

No not a minister, just a Christian who took the time to seek Him out, after looking closely at why I responded like I did. I stopped caring for awhile. I understand

the pain TWI caused, which is why the relativist veiw can seem so comforting. I get it, which is why I am here for a bit. But, my life is encroaching just a bit as is Dan's and others, so I am slow.

I have blown discs in my neck which cause my arm and fingers to go numb. I am not very old--but it seems I am starting to crumble a bit:) It is so good to see you here.

Cman

You challenge my ego---won't work. Do you understand an outline. Written for the cheapseats. Even if I could quote the church fathers verbatim, this topic is ESOTERIC. Which in itself should give one pause. Revisionist history, is rewriting of our accepted and established view of events and persons we have come to by painful and scrutinous examination of the evidence. There are criteria by which we do this. It is not a bad thing at ALL. However, current culture is a must while looking into revisionist historians. I have not even touched that one!

This is not a new theory. It was examined in the 1800's and responded to in the early 1900's in a definitive work by Dr. Sanday of Christ Church(I think) Oxford

University. A fairly respected place. Although it seems they let anyone in. My brother-in-law got his masters at one of the colleges. Sanday was challenged in the 1940's by John Knox---A professor from Princeton(MAYBE) I can't remember. He was not as dogmatic

as you might think. He was also not conclusive. His challenge was to method Sanday used in determining language. Again, I think. I am doing this from memory. He

wrote a booklet. It has yet to rock the Christian world.

Now, there are others working this material--German mostly, at least at one time, and most of them seem to agree with this idea. How do you win grants-fellowships-and the luxury to sit around and work this stuff--just like this. Provacitive ideas that seek to reshape the greatest story ever told.

Cman-to draw a definitive conclusion on a reworking of new evidence is a wonderful thing--taking a look at established history with a differing perspective is so VERY important, as well. BUT, to draw definitive conclusions based on a narrow perspective, without considering all the variables is just plain silly. AND, as a Christian, my view is usually on the outside of academia. BUT, my point is, it is none the less valid when making a determination on heady issues and matters of God. Scholars and historians have yet to kill Him off. The bible is here and its critics always end up eventually in the same place--

Lets look at the bible for a moment. First let me say, I love the skeptic. Thanks goodness for the skeptic, or my life would be pretty boring and I would never truly

examine my faith. Having said that, the bible seems to evoke an almost pathelogical response in so many intellectuals. The usual questions come about inerrancy and all the usual suspects--nod their heads prop each other up and agree.

Step back and look at the miracle of the book. Not the miracles contained within its gospels, but the miracle of such a book even existing. Again--

Written over 1500 years

40 authors

3 continents

Written by shepards and kings and many in between. Different moods and cultures. Written from the depths of sorrow and heights of joy. Written in times of GREAT

persecution and times of prosperity. Many stories and ONE SINGLE underlying them. The promised Messiah. That is a small miracle right there.

Easily discarded?. . . to get on to disproving Jesus wasn't the Messiah. Because?--why do we even get to the point we seek to do THIS? And there are MANY that do. That pesky book. We have to get rid of the reality of the book then we don't have to deal with the issue of Jesus. Cman do you have any clue as to how many have tried? How many arguments are out there for the bible not being reliable? How long this has been considered. NOTHING NEW!!!!!!!!!!! Do you know what happens to many many honest skeptics who take the time to examine ALL the evidence? You guessed it--they become believers.

If we can cast doubt on the authorship of the books contained in the bible--well, then we can discard with having to deal with the question of whom this historical figure is. We might even have to cast some serious shadows on those nasty church fathers. (Tertullian alone gave us some serious food for thought.) All the while giving favored credence to the heretics of the day. After coming out of a life shaping-thought process shaping---anti-establishment embracing--Jesus denying similar belief system, whether 20 years ago or yesterday--those beliefs permeate.

I happen to believe that looking at all this is a process which can lead to understanding those beliefs. Which is why theology is important to any discussion. But, I also happen to understand a tiny bit about God. He is worthy of seeking but NOT OVERT. He is hidden from the proud. He is paradoxical to our understanding and self-proclaimed wisdom. A careful examination of where we formed that wisdom is a must. What really is our motivation?

What baffles me and what really makes me wonder is why the need to question the Q or Logia or the two source explanation in the first place????You don't like the external evidence???Is it so important when you take the time to look at the evidence on a whole. Meaning that which God has given us.--There are many in this world who have a PAGE of the bible. A PAGE and believe and understand far better than I the reality of God. MAny of these people go to their death for this belief, I kid you not. They suffer. They understand what it is to deny the Lord.What is your motivation? What is it you really seek? An intellectual exercise--you picked a good one. Knowledge for knowledge sake? The ever present wisdom of man.

These arguments have been around forever--these questions--the bible still remains. For yourself--you can choose to deny Him, it will never make him less real. You will be dust ---the bible will remain until the Lord returns. And those who except the explanations for "problems" so they can get on with the business of knowing God will always pity you and seek to reason with you. Klinghardt will not save you---Jesus will. He will establish Himself in your heart by the Holy Spirit and He will assure you that HE IS!

Edited July 13, 2008 by geisha779

[geisha779]

Pontus was an established Greek City--Tertullian tells us it was a barborus place. Sexual promescuity--odd happenings. It was, I THINK inhabited by Cimmerians(SP). Because it was a Greek City some argue with his evaluation. Now wait a minute, what could have been happening there that would cause Tertullian (A Christian) to so describe Sinope? He tells us of sacrifice, crucifixion, and blasphemy against God. Who else tells us of idol worship and odd happenings in Greek Cities. Paul.

So, before we write of his description as biased, we have to look at how Paul saw similar places. Corinth springs to mind. That was a barborous and sexually promiscuous place. Where do we get the use of the descriptive term "a corinthian"? Okay, other than Marcion being born there, why is this so important? Before we seek to discredit Tertullians description and write it off as biased we must consider HIS perspective. And I would also argue it would seem barborous to us today.

Either we write Tertullian off as prejudice against Sinope because of Marcion, or we consider, for a moment, the reaction of a Christian. One God, a message of

SALVATION. Looking at Sinope--seems a pretty credible way to consider.

I am back for a minute--I just have to say this and then I think I will let it stand as is. Another explanation for the synoptic problem is fine. Take it ---run with it--be accountable for it. Just remember this, there are reasons we look at the theology. Luke would have considered Marcion anathema. You don't get that without considering the gospel. You just don't see it without understanding the differences between the two systems of belief. We have Marcions theology--unless you question the source. You also have to discredit too many people. It is so difficult on this premise alone. Get rid of the Q or dismiss its need---explain around it. The whole is still the answer here. It always has been. Pick apart Tertullian--compare and contrast Mark--Luke, and Matthew---you have an explanation---not the truth.

It breaks my heart.

Do not be robbed by "another" explanation

Edited July 14, 2008 by geisha779

[Sunesis]

Hi Abi. I understand what you're saying. Sometimes I need a break from boards (not just this one) too. I do enjoy your writings on the Jewish faith you post.

Geisha, interesting food for thought. Question, what did Tertillian say - what was Corinth like?

I know from reading Augustine's City on a Hill and his descriptions of Rome, how he used to love the coluseum (before he was born again), his description of the blood lust it eventually engendered upon the people who went to the games, and the results were fascinating. His descriptions of the outdoor plays on the street corners about one god or another and the public sex that was everywhere in the worshipping of them that went on in the plays, all was amazing.

People always say this country's going to hell in a handbasket, but compared to Rome and other cultures, we're chaste goody two shoes. In many ways, under the myriad gods, life was short, brutal and nasty. Of course, when Rome did fall, and they were po'ed their gods hadn't protected them, then of course, it was Jesus' fault. I've digressed... So, tell me about tertillian and corinth please.

[Abigail]

Hi Abi. I understand what you're saying. Sometimes I need a break from boards (not just this one) too. I do enjoy your writings on the Jewish faith you post.

Thanks for understanding, Sunesis. I have enjoyed and learned from many of your posts as well, particularly those regarding the angels. I hope you will share more sometime. :)

[geisha779]

Hi Sunesis,

I agree with both you and Abby--but it has been good for me to remember this stuff-it has been years for me.

Tertullian and the church fathers are where we get most of our info on Marcion. Not much of his survived. The Pauline Christians were a wee bit zealous.

Tertullian wrote the most and the short answer is---he didn't like him---at all. He was a very verbose and vocal opponent--a lawyer--He wrote volumes on Marcion

In order to predate Marcion to Luke you have to discredit the Church Fathers. I still wonder, after all this--Marcion claimed his canon --the Antithesis

was inspired. What do you do with that? What happened to old Count Mutatori(SP)? Luke could have edited his version and Marcion had an early copy. These were

all over the place. Not unthinkable at all, but what is--to me--is that Luke would copy the work of a heretic. I am happy with the Q--works for me.

I will tell you a great story about Irenaeus though to give you an idea of what these guys were like--when he was 19 his entire church was rounded up and 50 or

so were killed--the bishop as well. He had to pull everyone together--unify them. Can you imagine at 19 doing this? The other Bishop was dead--not a job I

would want. The odds were not in your favor.

Always two sides to every story. I will take the accepted norm and enjoy my God--He is worthy.

A Corinthian was a term used to describe a bad dude. --- It was a wild city with every kind of vice of choice available. The term was still used in the 1800's.

Gonna be gone for a bit---dealing with my eldest. She is a handful to say the least.

Have fun

Edited July 14, 2008 by geisha779

[cman]

Sorry Geisha, I'm more interested in the spirit speaking now.

The spirit alone, not men or women are able to show me what it means.

Certainly there is a place for learning history.

But that's all it is.

Though I know lots of history, that is not what I rely on.

In any form or fashion.

Now is more what I'm interested in.

And those that speak of now.

And bringing any past to now is fine.

But what was written then will be shown to me now as the spirit wills.

Not me. Though I may have knowledge of history, it is overwritten by the spirit.

Not rewritten. But alive and living and present.

That's all I have.

Edited July 14, 2008 by cman

[TheInvisibleDan]

Wow. What else can I say Geisha. You’ve “knocked my socks off” with your recent fine posts.

I think had we met and discussed this topic about 4-5 years ago, I would have engaged in a far more spirited discussion from my side. Truth be told, my active interest in this subject has been on the wane, supplanted by other concerns in life.

I appreciate your impressive grasp of Christian literature and church history, and your enthusiasm as well the time you took in presenting your side of “the orthodox perspective”, which, I would tend to agree with others here, perhaps has not really been as thoroughly represented in these forums as they ought to have been over the years.

In any event, very well done.

Danny

[geisha779]

To Invisible Dan,

Please read through--

Do you think I don't understand how persuasive your argument is, or that it is not a very rational explanation? If you do you are a fool--I get it. I can't talk around this topic, and I told you I would not debate it--so, I am sorry I disappointed you. This talked you right out of God, and it would do no less than cast doubt and confusion in the heart of a new or struggling Christian. It has made apostates out of weak believers. I will not be party to that.

I tried to reason around it for you. Do you think I don't know that you think my reasoning is circular in nature about God. Or that I get my ides of gnostics from their persecutors? You said, two political factions---I get it. I know that it seems to you I don't understand, but I do. But, the canon is a real problem for many----

foolishness and nonsense taken on faith in the church fathers, I imagine you felt them unworthy of this faith. Take God out of the equation--You win. Their actions were often less than stellar--I get it. I have read more than Knox.

I know that belief in God is paradoxical--it opposes mans wisdom. There is a certain amount you must weigh and then decide to believe. For me this paticular problem, has now been settled. God is firmly rooted in my heart.

You seem on a mission to rewrite history. I wish you well, but I had hoped, seeing the result of being in an gnostic belief system, you may have recognized the truth of Paul's(Clement's) warning. Maybe step back just a bit and weigh the evidence you have seen with your own eyes. It really was my hope that it would click. It was my one shot.

BUT--I in no way have given up on you. Here is one that will hold me up to ridicule and scorn from many. I am sure as I know my own name--you will one day believe on the name of Jesus. You will bow before Him and be a powerful witness for His Glory. He is more than able. You are marked out for God. When you do, I hope that you remember me.

I am the one pleading for your soul, and will continue to do so, as I gather others to do the same. Dan, my prayers are answered with clarity.

I am sorry I could not steer you past this argument--I did my level best to bring it around to other things we could discuss about the nature of God, evidence in prophecy--there is some great historic evidence in there, creation, intellegent design, miracles, . . . . But if the gospel of Thomas and Mary---or persecution by the pauline christians-or the invectives of tertullian-or the dating of Luke--or the disagreement on the canonical books---or the need to dispense with the q for a more accepted explanation, are looked at and not weighed against the other evidence avaiable to us--you win.

Do you ever consider anymore that you came from a group that worshipped the bible? Your reaction and resultant belief is really very understable. I worship Christ, the living word. Big difference.

I don't mind looking weak or foolish to you--I cannot be party to causing any weak in faith to stumble. I always weigh my options. I always put my faith in Him.

It took everything in me not to quote Blaise Pascal to Lindyhopper. To not point out the obvious, if you are betting soul you should consider backing another horse.

Take Care and I will not stop praying for you. Your heart is too good to waste dwelling in unbelief and too tender not to be drawn to the tender mercy of God.

Edited July 15, 2008 by geisha779

[cman]

Geisha, I'm sorry but you are quite mistaken about Danny.

Sure we all have shortcomings.

But there is no way you could know what you are saying about Danny by what he posted.

The discussion was not about what your last post suggests and states.

[lindyhopper]

...if only we had all the time in the world...

I find Pascal a little dark. I assume, since I mentioned "the Wager", you mean a quote like this:

You must wager; it is not optional... Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God exists... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.

Please, don't restrain yourself so much. If it seems obvious to you, it probably is. Of course, Pascal's Wager, is only so obvious from a very closed Christian perspective. I hope for his sake he was right. He died before he was 40, right?

The problem, as I'm sure you know and "get" (but I'll say it anyway), is that this horse race is huge. Almost all are guaranteeing a BIG win... "and to the slaughter house with the rest of ya!" If you're a betting man or woman, and you want to win, and you're staking your life on it... then you better bet on all the horses. Cause there's a chance you could be wrong. Of course, it sucks that some horses only let you bet on one horse. Damn screwed up rules! Their looking for a big "return." Cha-ching!

Fact is we all make wagers on things. It's called faith. I displayed a great amount of faith today in engineering and aeronautics as I flew across the country. Lots of things could of happened and my knowledge of airplanes doesn't get much past the ones made of paper. The odds were on my side, I guess, and I made it safe and sound.

There is no total certainty in any god. Certainty doesn't exactly fit into faith. There isn't even total certainty outside of faith. That's what it's there for. So, you have just as great a odds of being right about your god as I do about the possibility of there not being one and if there is that said god will appreciate my deeds and the use of my noggin. Don't worry, I think said god will appreciate your efforts as well. You don't even have to bet on my possible god if you don't want to. My possible god will understand and accept you for what you've done and who you are anyways. Possible God will even take Pascal, as pessimistic as he was. Pretty sweet, right?

What's not pretty sweet is that our personal affinity for things that are good and right does not determine the reality of an actual god. There is the possibility that the God of the universe is not that nice. I mean just look at what Pascal wrote about God's greatest creation (at least I assume we are). In his eyes, we humans are pretty pathetic... but at least we know it. We are a screwed up people. Thanks a lot Mean God!

You get the point. You got the point before I made the point. The Wager isn't a two horse race. Indeed, The Wager is not optional, not because we must, but because we do regardless.

[geisha779]

Lindyhopper,

You and I have much more in common than you think. I have walked a fine line here--because of the nature of TWI and differing places its effect has caused us to

land. I would harm no one struggling to understand.

First off--I have been careful not to say this--it may cause some to stumble or question--when they are not ready. I don't believe in an infalliable canon. I never

have.

Second--I don't believe in Sola Scriptura. Nope--impossible standard. I do believe the probabilities are such that I am without excuse NOT to believe. I am justified

in my belief in God. Not by it--by it as well, but we all know what that means. Do you catch what I am telling you? Which is why--my standard for absolute truth is

not scripture alone. It is impossible. I never said that. Absolute truth is Jesus Christ, God for most.

Because belief in God is paradoxical--meaning you believe and then see--Pascal sprung to mind when I read your post. I really don't see it as a narrow

Christian perspective. I REALLY don't. I see it as logical. Bet the odds!

The Way set up this impossible standard to believe in God--it was bible worship. Nothing is 100% certain--I could be wrong, BUT again it is paradoxical. Infalliable

proof is no excuse for unbelief. Beyond a reasonable doubt is enough evidence to believe. The Christian belief in the Jewish Messiah sent for all mankind--a God

who came and dwelt among us--is so logical and believable when you break it down. An objective truth--that is when the bible begins to click and work.

Hope this clarifys a bit.

My very best to you and your family

[brideofjc]

Second--I don't believe in Sola Scriptura. Nope--impossible standard. I do believe the probabilities are such that I am without excuse NOT to believe. I am justified

The Way set up this impossible standard to believe in God--it was bible worship. Nothing is 100% certain--I could be wrong, BUT again it is paradoxical. Infalliable

proof is no excuse for unbelief. Beyond a reasonable doubt is enough evidence to believe. The Christian belief in the Jewish Messiah sent for all mankind--a God

who came and dwelt among us--is so logical and believable when you break it down. An objective truth--that is when the bible begins to click and work.

Hope this clarifys a bit.

My very best to you and your family

Yes, it is called bibliolatry. I prefer to use not only the English KJV bible, but the Greek translation as well. Sometimes translations can be faulty.

[Oakspear]

I see you've all been keeping this discussion going while I've been on vacation.

Geisha:

I appreciate the time you've taken to explain your POV, very well articulated. Of course you believe that your position is the only true one, I get that and am not offended. It makes sense from your angle. You've gone farther in spelling out why Christianity makes sense than any other that I have seen. Bravo!

Hope to see you around the forums.

[Tom]

Dear people,

I haven't been here for quite a while. It warms my heart to see so many of your names again. I've only read the 1st & last pages of this thread, so let me apologize if I'm not in synch with the whole flow of conversation, but I will try to stay somewhat within the direction of the original posts.

What I’m about to say can seem trite or maybe not trite, but the same old basics when we maybe feel that the same old basics have been around since the “old days;” therefore, there must be something else needed to answer the question of why we don’t see more healing.

But I ask you to look past that into the truth of what I’m saying – not a bunch of disparate principles, but a flow of truth, the connectedness of which we’ve lost.

The simplest answer is that if signs, miracles, and wonders follow them that believe, then people do not believe the Word. Okay, so what? How about a solution?

Stop praying for people to be healed.

I don’t see Jesus praying for people to be healed.

First he taught the Word. When people believed, they came to him for healing. He STILL didn’t pray for their healing; instead, he healed them.

When he sent the disciples out, Jesus didn’t tell them to pray for people to be healed. He told them to heal. Freely you have received; freely give. He told them to preach that the kingdom of Heaven was at hand & if people believed, heal them.

I think there is so much division among ex-Way believers, there is just no point in arguing about doctrinal dang associated with The Way International or groups that have developed from them – like administrations vs. covenants, grace vs. law, and grace vs. works - or Christian vs. non-christian. The Word's direction is plain – when there is division, go back to Jesus Christ, & him crucified. And I don’t give a damn who is right & who is wrong – as soon as there are sides, there is division.

Jesus, like the Old Testament sacrificial animal, was slain outside the camp. That’s where the healing is – outside the camp or the established religio-political camps of today. We have to go outside the camp to see healing because that’s where the living Word that was sent to heal be sacraficed for our healing.

That’s the Word we need to preach. They believe; we heal. They don’t believe; it’s endless squabbles & division.

Jesus Christ has got to be bigger than all that. So we have to go there – to where he is bigger than the endless squabling and divisions to see healing.

There is no face – born of ego – that can be maintained in the face of him who had his face torn beyond recognition so that we could go beyond our pretensions, and, finally, be healed. I think that is the Word, & if people believe it, they will be healed.

BTW, to those who know of my accident, my face continues to be healed these many years later.

Love to you all,

Tom

[waysider]

Interesting stuff, Tom.

"Signs, miracles and wonders followed them who believed."

(Not BECAUSE they believed)

It's a descriptive modifier telling us who these people were, not what they did.

PS---Your presence here has been missed. Don't be a stranger.

[Tom]

Thanks Waysider,

I can't seem to edit the above, so I've rewritten it here with corrections & an added sentence at the end:

Dear people,

I haven't been here for quite a while. It warms my heart to see so many of your names again. I've only read the 1st & last pages of this thread, so let me apologize if I'm not in synch with the whole flow of conversation, but I will try to stay somewhat within the direction of the original posts.

What I’m about to say can seem trite or maybe not trite, but the same old basics when we maybe feel that the same old basics have been around since the “old days;” therefore, there must be something else needed to answer the question of why we don’t see more healing.

But I ask you to look past that into the truth of what I’m saying – not a bunch of disparate principles, but a flow of truth, the connectedness of which we’ve lost.

The simplest answer is that if signs, miracles, and wonders follow them that believe, then people do not believe the Word. Okay, so what? How about a solution?

Stop praying for people to be healed.

I don’t see Jesus praying for people to be healed.

First he taught the Word. When people believed, they came to him for healing. He STILL didn’t pray for their healing; instead, he healed them.

When he sent the disciples out, Jesus didn’t tell them to pray for people to be healed. He told them to heal. Freely you have received; freely give. He told them to preach that the kingdom of Heaven was at hand & if people believed, heal them.

I think there is so much division among ex-Way believers, there is just no point in arguing about doctrinal dang associated with The Way International or groups that have developed from them – like administrations vs. covenants, grace vs. law, and grace vs. works - or Christian vs. non-christian. The Word's direction is plain – when there is division, go back to Jesus Christ, & him crucified. And I don’t give a damn who is right & who is wrong – as soon as there are sides, there is division.

Jesus, like the Old Testament sacrificial animal, was slain outside the camp. That’s where the healing is – outside the camp or the established religio-political camps of today. We have to go outside the camp to see healing because that’s where the living Word was sent to be sacrificed for our healing.

That’s the Word we need to preach. They believe; we heal. They don’t believe; it’s endless squabbles & division.

Jesus Christ has got to be bigger than all that. So we have to go there – to where he is bigger than the endless squabbling and divisions to see healing.

There is no face – born of ego – that can be maintained in the face of him who had his face torn beyond recognition so that we could go beyond our pretensions, and, finally, be healed. I think that is the Word, & if people believe it, they will be healed.

BTW, to those who know of my accident, my face continues to be healed these many years later.

And as far as finding fault with someone's believing when that one isn't healed - stop listening to people with beams in their eyes. They can't see anything.

Love to you all,

Tom

[George Aar]

WB Tom!

Yeah, I know we don't sing from the same hymnal, but it's been kinda lonesome here without ya.

Good to "see" ya!

[Tom]

Thanks goe - it's good to see you're still singing.