How about a Christian creed on the nature of God that begins: "We believe that GOD IS LOVE..."? rather than this hurtful crap that leads Christians to questioning one anothers' salvation?
A very good point, as usual Danny.
Why don't you try this one on for size?
How about Christian acts that represent the three theological virtues: Faith - Hope - Charity.
Or how about Christian acts that teach their followers the four cardinal virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance?
OR how about Christian acts that exemplify the seven spiritual works of mercy: To counsel the doubtful, to instruct the ignorant, to admonish the sinner, to comfort the sorrowful, to forgive all injuries, to bear wrongs patiently, and to pray for each other?
Or maybe the seven corporal works of mercy: To feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to ransom the captive, to visit the sick, to harbor the harborless, and to bury the dead?
Despite any doctrinal difference, for me, if I can see a group that lives the above, I will have very few problems with that group.
Def. Forgive me if Im being rude, but we've been having this argument for YEARS. I'm not going to waste an more of my time rebutting your posts or anyone else's. You want to believe Jesus is God. Great. wonderful. I don't care. I personally don't think it makes a lick of sense from a Biblical perspective. I'm not saying it's not true. Just that it doesn't make sense according to the majority of the Scripture. You can find a few verses that may be intepreted in a trinitarian fashion. I can find more than a few that contradict it. In the end, we're both resolved to believe what we already believe, so what's the point, really?
Danny: Well said sir. Let's bury this argument and focus on something positive and godly that we can agree and act on.
How about Christian acts that represent the three theological virtues: Faith - Hope - Charity.
Or how about Christian acts that teach their followers the four cardinal virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance?
OR how about Christian acts that exemplify the seven spiritual works of mercy: To counsel the doubtful, to instruct the ignorant, to admonish the sinner, to comfort the sorrowful, to forgive all injuries, to bear wrongs patiently, and to pray for each other?
Or maybe the seven corporal works of mercy: To feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to ransom the captive, to visit the sick, to harbor the harborless, and to bury the dead?
Despite any doctrinal difference, for me, if I can see a group that lives the above, I will have very few problems with that group.
Mark,
I like it a lot. And I like to add that I've nothing but the highest regard for the Roman Catholic Christians whom I've had the pleasure of meeting and even working alongside this past year. Of the latter (a husband, wife and her brother) their conduct was professional and fair - they were a pleasure to work with, and since the closing down of our workplace a month ago, I miss them dearly.
Of "burying the dead", I can attest of the unexpected passing of my sister's husband this past year, who attended a small Roman Catholic church in Pitcher, NY; the Church graciously covered the expense and ceremony of his funeral. And of the army chaplain who recently conducted my late father's service at the VA cemetary, who did so with great warmth.
And I also admire the community efforts made by members of my wife's Unitarian-Universalist church. Their ideas may be eclectic to some, but their heart is in the right place.
There are a lot of fine people across the denominational and religious lines, who exemplify some of the excellent qualities you raised, providing much inspiration and encouragement.
I wish to add a whole-heartedly AMEN to all of that......
Its with the 'heart' man believes unto Righteousness and with the mouth 'confession' is made.
To me, I believe this means, it matters what is in a person's heart, and with that, its gonna show by what they do and in how they LIVE their lives. Who are we living our lives for? If its for GOD, then we are a testiment to the greatness of God and God's great Unconditional Love.
Who ever said "Actions speak louder than words"? This is SO TRUE....
Its NOT about 'religous and dogmatic differences'. If we are 'One in the Spirit', we are 'One in the Lord'.
If we have God's Spirit within, it will be Manifest 'without'.........
So many people, from different walks of life, backgrounds, nationalities, but only one GOD.....
Whatever it takes for us 'individually' that will BRING OUT THE BEST of US....... by whatever Means!
For me there is 'light and darkness'. Good vs Evil. I choose to be on the Good side........
Hey, there are real smart guys and gals on both sides (all sides?) of the disagreement here at GS and in Christianity in general. If it's so clear, how come we have so many different opinions?
Clear as mud, Oakspear! I think sometimes we just agree to disagree, but here it looks like the majority agree that it just doesn't matter in the whole scheme of things. That's where I am.
I spent too many years arguing over jots and tittles and I don't give a sh1t about 'em anymore. I don't think God does either. He/She most likely laughs his/her head off at how anal people can get over a book and how they put God in a box. It's so much bigger than that and, like several mentioned above, it's the living and doing that matters, not the learning, studying and reading & writing.
Hey, there are real smart guys and gals on both sides (all sides?) of the disagreement here at GS and in Christianity in general. If it's so clear, how come we have so many different opinions?
Yeah, Oakspear -- IT IS CLEAR --- We all see things with our eyes of understanding differently. WHY? Because -- WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT.
No two persons unless perhaps (identical twins and even they can tell you each one has something unique about themselves.) See everything from the same Perspective.
There are so many different Languages out there, yet NO ONE IS BATTLING over which one is the BEST or the ONLY TRUE LANGUAGE? It matters where we are born, raised, and what we are taught., besides that, its whatever WE AS UNIQUE INDIVIDUALS CHOOSE. Its in our life choices and we ought to ALL be thankful we STILL live in a country where we can THINK FREELY.
God gave us "Freedom of Will". Our walks with God are INDIVIDUAL therefore DIFFERENT, and Uniquely SPECIAL. It all boils down to 'our own thoughts and feelings about God'. No matter how much we STUDY -- or SEEK TRUTH --- ALL OF US STILL ONLY KNOW IN PART!!!
One day we will have the 'great revealing' and we will all be amazed to find out -- it was all very SIMPLE -- and we thought it were more COMPLEX!!!
Let us embrase our own individual uniqueness and oneness with our Creator?
It won't be the same for each of us, why? God is a Universal God., capable of loving us all including 'the unlovely'. For this I am thankful, not to anyone but Thankful to GOD.....
Cheers! Enjoy being unique and in love with God. I know I am.
Agreed..so why even bother with a 'doctrinal' section ? Does it only serve as a platform for people to 'preach' their 'angle' on Triunity, Harlem Ghetto hell, Getting Hitler saved, Swapping from Monotheistic worship to Triune worship and back again, the Universal Church etc.. ??!!
Agreed..so why even bother with a 'doctrinal' section ? Does it only serve as a platform for people to 'preach' their 'angle' on Triunity, Harlem Ghetto hell, Getting Hitler saved, Swapping from Monotheistic worship to Triune worship and back again, the Universal Church etc.. ??!!
Why bother with a doctrinal section? I can think of several reasons.
Alan, If you actually participated instead of throwing out Wiereillean one-liners and insults, maybe you could figure out a reason or two.
Agreed..so why even bother with a 'doctrinal' section ? Does it only serve as a platform for people to 'preach' their 'angle' on Triunity, Harlem Ghetto hell, Getting Hitler saved, Swapping from Monotheistic worship to Triune worship and back again, the Universal Church etc.. ??!!
I don't see any harm in trying to UNDERSTAND what it is someone 'thinks they know', or finding out WHY someone has come to their own conclusions about 'theory' or 'issues'. I find it facinating and quite educational to learn what it is and why it is that people believe and have these differences of opinion.
I also like figuring out what makes things tick. I like learning. I think if we shut our minds to learning we shut down and stop living. Doesn't mean we are all going to agree on things., nor do we have to agree., but its really invigorating to 'discover' new things and learn more about our fellow-man/woman kind. Its a dull world if all I have to offer it is a 'narrow mind'.
Since it's tucked away down here in the sub-basement of GS, not everybody takes the time to come down here. For a long time it was more of an "intellectual" forum, where the finer (okay, and blunter) points of theology were hashed out. Not that everybody got along, but there was more of a tendency to document one's opinions. Recurring battles between certain posters over predestination or atheism were stimulating.
Then for a time the Forum seemed to be dominated by huge "Mike" threads, and other threads with titles like: "Let's talk About Flying Whales" and the level of discussion sank to "I just know that angels fixed my flat tire" - :o
We've got a couple of good topics going now...let's keep the level of discourse scholarly :P
The Doctrinal section was the ideal place for the PFAL Review and Blue Book threads, back in the day. It was also the location of a real dragout fight between Jerry Barrax and me on the validity of the epistle of James. I think we both got a lot out of that one.
Yeppers! Y'all used to make my head spin! LOL! Too much WayBrain and a person has a hard time thinking, much less keeping up with such scholarly debates.
I love to come down here when there are valid discussions going on with people who know how to discuss things and ask questions rather than merely attack or stalk people. I have learned sooooooo much in this past year and feel like someone who has been under a rock for ten years. We were never allowed or encouraged to learn about other people's beliefs, cultures or customs and all we did learn was insults like we still see here from a particular poster....All based on ignorance and from what someone "else" has said instead of actually learning, listening and discussing things.
I've learned to think and not just re-read what I've been told something says. I've learned about the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi papers, different theological views, different resources that are out there and so much more and what's really exciting is that there's so much more out there! IT's fun! It's an adventure!
Now I feel capable of going back through those debates with Jerry and Raf and like I might actually be able to comprehend some of them without my brain blowing up from spinning too fast. :P I love being able to discuss ideas and to watch the pros discuss them, especially. I always learn something down here, even if it's just to be thankful that I don't think like "that" anymore.
Well, speaking of Waybrain, I think I have come to the end of a long road. I was reading Romans a few weeks ago, pursuing a topic that arose during ye Olde PFAL Review. What I tried to do with that project was to examine what was in PFAL, see if it made sense, see if if fit the Bible, and come to a verdict of some kind. When the project came to an end onWaydale, we were discussing apects of salvation and eternal life. I made a preliminary statement about the fact that the Orange book says there was no eternal life available to anyone during OT times. That's an easy thing to disprove. But then we got into trying to decide what the "new Birth" is, and whether that's even a genuine biblical term. Raf, Evan, Steve Lortz and others were involved.
Aaaanyway. to make a very long story not quite as long, I've been working on that ever since, and have basically given up on arriving at a biblical understanding of what eternal life is.
Raf had pointed out that the terms "kingdon of heaven", "kingdom of God", eternal life" and "saved" are all used synonymously in Matthew chapter 19. I started from there. The more I read, the less I felt I knew. Questions mounted as I perused all these verses from Matthew to Revelation: How is eternal life received? How do we get into the Kingdom? Is entrance permanent, or conditional? WHEN is this supposed to happen? Are we saved by grace, by works, or some combination thereof? I know this is a very controversial subject and I've posted some of what I've studied from time to time as related topics arose.
Just a few weeks ago, I felt like I had put it all together, bringing elements from the James debate together with contradictions about eternal life in the four gospels. (There are traces of David Anderson's Two Ways of the First Century Church throughout the NT, the four gospels included.) Then I delved back into the Church epistles to corroborate my theory, thinking that the contradictions in the Gospels could be traced to the split in the Church and the revelation of the mystery. I only made it to Romans chapter 8 and closed the book. (Actually some of my posts about Paul a couple of weeks ago were written during that time, and to some extent, I feel like I should post a retraction)
The bottom line for me is this. The reason we have so much confusion about salvation, sonship, and grace vs. works is because the Apostles never agreed on what it was that Jesus taught or accomplished. Peter makes a reference to things in Paul's epistles that are hard to understand. I think he was being diplomatic. Paul's epistles have an annoying habit of making a statement that leads you to a logical conclusion, then immediately contradicting that conclusion. (See Romans 6:13-23, 8:6-9, and I Corinthians 6:9-11 and I Thessalonians 5:6-9.) The more I read Romans for clarification of the confusion in the Gospels, the more confused and disappointed I became. The end result was the final dashing of any hope I had of finding a coherent biblical message. The salvation confusion is complicated by scattered apocalyptic pronouncements in the Pauline epistles and elsewhere in the NT (Romans 1:18, I Corinthians 4:5, Matthew 26:64, Revelation 1:7, 22:10-12) that indicate that the NT writers expected Jesus to return quickly and save the First Century Church from the coming Wrath of God. There are a few other problems with Paul I've noted but not mentioned in my studies. That aforementioned bottom line: I can no longer accept his writing as divinely inspired, inerrant truth. Inspired maybe; but certainly flawed and contradictory. The Apostles and Prophets of old may have received the Word of the Lord by revelation, but their humanity made the collected written Word a work far from the harmonious, rock solid edifice of truth Fundamentalists propound it to be. That's why I've been 'sniping' recently about the doctrine of the inerrant Word. It doesn't exist, imho.
Beyond the Fundamentalists myth of the perfect Bible, The Way's appeal was to the carnal mind. PFAL tried to present spiritual matters in a logical, scientific and mathematical perspective; religion with the veneer of science. It was Christianity for the modern man so to speak. And it's great, just GREAT -- as long as you don't take too close a look at it.
So what's the point? I don't know, I'm just venting I guess. This is way off topic and I guess I should start a new one about eternal life questions, but I just haven't got the heart for it right now. It would sound like somebody bitterly attacking the Bible and the foundations of the Christian faith in general and I don't want to come off like that. I still believe in God and Christ, but not so much because of what I read, but because of what I've experienced, not the least of which is the continuing ability to speak in tongues.
A minor thought in passing thought concerning something you mentioned: Of all the gospels to consider,
Matthew is perhaps the least ideal "starting point" toward understanding or harmonizing Paul's conceptions,- in fact, I would actually expect more contradictions - because the writer of Matthew most likely regarded Paul from his standpoint a "lawbreaker" or transgressor(Matt.5:18-19):
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven
It's easy to see where this might be an inference to Paul, who referred to himself as "the least" (of the apostles) - as one who taught the abolishment of the law, and taught others to do likewise.
I would mention also the theory that the Gospel of Matthew (in its earlier form) may have been the production of the Jewish-Christians or "Ebionites", which seemed most emphatically anti-Pauline.
The Gospel of Luke, on the other hand - most definitely and most characteristically Pauline! In comparison to Matthew, it's like night and day.
I would even go so far as to say - had the dispensationalists appreciated the strong thread of Paulinism throughout "Luke" - they would have had to rethink their theories concerning the relation of "the gospel" to "the apostle". I don't think it would be an exaggeration to view "Luke" (or the earlier Marcionite edition contained therein) as "Paul's gospel".
Have you considered the experiment of weighing Paul's genuine epistles on the sole scale of Luke's gospel? I think you may be pleasantly surprised.
There will still be contradictions, but you will also encounter far more affinities with Luke than with Matthew.
Please forgive me of my ramblings - it's getting late (lol).
Thanks to both of you and, please, feel free to ramble at any time! I love reading your musings and thinking out loud.
Beyond the Fundamentalists myth of the perfect Bible, The Way's appeal was to the carnal mind. PFAL tried to present spiritual matters in a logical, scientific and mathematical perspective; religion with the veneer of science. It was Christianity for the modern man so to speak. And it's great, just GREAT -- as long as you don't take too close a look at it.
Priceless! Very well worded, imo, and worthy of the Gems section, if you don't mind my re-posting it there.
Hi Jerry..I read through the verses you posted and am wondering what you find incompatible with them ?
I am someone who reads 'lightly and simply' only going 'in-depth' when absolutely necessary.
I believe a number of scriptures can only be truly 'understood' through the 'light' of actually living the stuff (genosko). For example, understanding what it means to 'smell' the death side of people who choose to live 'carnally' and I'm talking about Christians as well etc..
'Fit for the Kingdom of heaven'..could that be talking about the rewards ??
The Bible even mentions trying to understand 'things of the spirit' from a carnal point of view. How can one explain spiritual things translating it over into our 'five senses standpoint', Jesus tried it with the usage of parables.!
A minor thought in passing thought concerning something you mentioned: Of all the gospels to consider,
Matthew is perhaps the least ideal "starting point" toward understanding or harmonizing Paul's conceptions,- in fact, I would actually expect more contradictions - because the writer of Matthew most likely regarded Paul from his standpoint a "lawbreaker" or transgressor(Matt.5:18-19):
It's easy to see where this might be an inference to Paul, who referred to himself as "the least" (of the apostles) - as one who taught the abolishment of the law, and taught others to do likewise.
I would mention also the theory that the Gospel of Matthew (in its earlier form) may have been the production of the Jewish-Christians or "Ebionites", which seemed most emphatically anti-Pauline.
The Gospel of Luke, on the other hand - most definitely and most characteristically Pauline! In comparison to Matthew, it's like night and day.
I would even go so far as to say - had the dispensationalists appreciated the strong thread of Paulinism throughout "Luke" - they would have had to rethink their theories concerning the relation of "the gospel" to "the apostle". I don't think it would be an exaggeration to view "Luke" (or the earlier Marcionite edition contained therein) as "Paul's gospel".
Have you considered the experiment of weighing Paul's genuine epistles on the sole scale of Luke's gospel? I think you may be pleasantly surprised.
There will still be contradictions, but you will also encounter far more affinities with Luke than with Matthew.
Please forgive me of my ramblings - it's getting late (lol).
Danny
Hi Dan. Always a pleasure to read your insights. :-)
Actually, I started with Matthew because it's at the beginning of the NT. And, having gotten a sense of what Matthew taught--which, as you pointed out, is very legalistic--I went from there, step by step comparing each subsequent book to it. Luke is a bit of a puzzle. I know Luke travelled with Paul, but if you look at the four gospels, it's not Luke, but John that most closely resembles Paul's gospel. Luke mimics most fo Matthew's statements about eternal life being conditional based on faithfulness and keeping the Law. In fact, Luke even quotes a verse from Matthew and presents it as if Jesus was referring to an Old Testament Scripture. (Luke 11:49, Matthew 23:34). If that doesn't support Source Criticism, I don't know what does.
But I digress. Luke has a somewhat patchwork, disjointed feel to it, as if Luke cobbled it together from different sources. (Acts is much more harmonious). The gospel of John, on the other hand, almost exclusively presents eternal life as a gift by grace received simply by believing on Christ. Furthermore, John presents Jesus as the saviour of the World, whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke present Jesus as speaking specifically, and sometimes exclusively to Israel. (John 3:15-18 4:42, 5:24, 6:35, etc). Add to that the fact that John almost alwasy speaks of Jesus and the Jews as if they were from different communities. Jesus is presented in John referring to "the Jews" in the second or third person, which is kind of weird since Jesus was a Judaean. (6:47,7:1, 7:19, 7:22, 8:17, etc.). It's almost as if John was written for the consumption of Paul's converts to give them a biography of Jesus that distanced him from their Jewish persecutors. A gospel for the Gentiles, if you will. So if I had to pick one of the four gospels that supports Paul's apostleship, it would be John, not Luke. And that's confusing because Luke travelled with Paul and John is not known to have been one of Paul's supporters. But, as I said, the whole thing's a big puzzle.
Thanks to both of you and, please, feel free to ramble at any time! I love reading your musings and thinking out loud.
Priceless! Very well worded, imo, and worthy of the Gems section, if you don't mind my re-posting it there.
I don't mind at all Belle. Thank you, that's very kind.
Hi Jerry..I read through the verses you posted and am wondering what you find incompatible with them ?
I am someone who reads 'lightly and simply' only going 'in-depth' when absolutely necessary.
I believe a number of scriptures can only be truly 'understood' through the 'light' of actually living the stuff (genosko). For example, understanding what it means to 'smell' the death side of people who choose to live 'carnally' and I'm talking about Christians as well etc..
'Fit for the Kingdom of heaven'..could that be talking about the rewards ??
The Bible even mentions trying to understand 'things of the spirit' from a carnal point of view. How can one explain spiritual things translating it over into our 'five senses standpoint', Jesus tried it with the usage of parables.!
I'm not sure what to make of your question Allen. Are your seriously asking what I see as contradictory, or merely implying that I'm too carnal to understand it? lol
To present the contradictions to your satisfaction may be impossible but it would surely throw the whole thread off topic. But since the can has been opened, I'll start a new thread and try to summarize the problem as I see it. But not tonight. I'm still tired from being up too late last night and I still have cookies to buy for a company cookout tomorrow. :-)
I'm not sure what to make of your question Allen. Are your seriously asking what I see as contradictory, or merely implying that I'm too carnal to understand it? lol
Hi Jerry..I wasn't 'implying' anything nor 'stating' anything except to say this is how I go about reading and living the Word. To me, someone who spends their life trying to figure out exactly what salvation is or how it happens (when for example we have romans 10:9,10) and does not 'appropriate it' is very foolish.
To me Jerry, if Romans 10: 9,10 is NOT the answer, then there is NO answer. Again..this is how (I) read and live the Word, Bless ya !
Luke is a bit of a puzzle. I know Luke travelled with Paul, but if you look at the four gospels, it's not Luke, but John that most closely resembles Paul's gospel. Luke mimics most fo Matthew's statements about eternal life being conditional based on faithfulness and keeping the Law. In fact, Luke even quotes a verse from Matthew and presents it as if Jesus was referring to an Old Testament Scripture. (Luke 11:49, Matthew 23:34). If that doesn't support Source Criticism, I don't know what does.
But I digress. Luke has a somewhat patchwork, disjointed feel to it, as if Luke cobbled it together from different sources.
Hi Jerry -in terms of the later, canonical version of "Luke", your sharp observations certainly do apply, gathered from my familiarity with the earlier Marcionite version of this gospel these past few years.
This disjointedness you describe is especially apparent in such cases as the reversal of the Capernaum and Nazareth episodes (=Luke 4); amidst the saying spoken by Jesus to those in the synagogue at Nazareth ("Physician, first heal yourself...all that you did in Capernaum - do here likewise!"), it makes little sense in the canonical version which commences Jesus' ministry at Nazareth (followed by Capernaum), while in the Marcionite version Jesus commences with healings at Capernaum before proceeding to Nazareth. That's just the tip of the iceburg (lol).
The gospel of John, on the other hand, almost exclusively presents eternal life as a gift by grace received simply by believing on Christ. Furthermore, John presents Jesus as the saviour of the World, whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke present Jesus as speaking specifically, and sometimes exclusively to Israel. (John 3:15-18 4:42, 5:24, 6:35, etc). Add to that the fact that John almost alwasy speaks of Jesus and the Jews as if they were from different communities. Jesus is presented in John referring to "the Jews" in the second or third person, which is kind of weird since Jesus was a Judaean. (6:47,7:1, 7:19, 7:22, 8:17, etc.). It's almost as if John was written for the consumption of Paul's converts to give them a biography of Jesus that distanced him from their Jewish persecutors. A gospel for the Gentiles, if you will. So if I had to pick one of the four gospels that supports Paul's apostleship, it would be John, not Luke. And that's confusing because Luke travelled with Paul and John is not known to have been one of Paul's supporters.
A 19th century scholar exclaimed his bewilderment as to why - had he the four canonical gospels before him to choose from - Marcion had not picked the Fourth gospel! There certainly is a lot contained within that writing which appears to reverberate Pauline/Marcionite ideas, which has caused me on a many occassions to wonder the same thing as this scholar and others. Interestingly, I haven't encountered the same emphasis or underscoring of any connection to the "Luke" figure in the Marcionite tradition as with the orthodox. In fact, the salutations at the end of Colossians which mention "Luke the physician" appears only as "Luke" with the Marcionite text. The Marcionite canon did not contain "Acts"; they had an entirely different history and tradition concerning Paul. The Marcionites in "Adamantius" apparently believed that Paul had been present at Jesus' crucifixion and had even penned "The Gospel". I've been entertaining the possibility that Paul may have been among "the seventy" new disciples that Jesus had chosen in Luke 10, to offset the failure of "the twelve", being blinded by the old religion.
As you said, it's all "one big puzzle".
But it makes our explorations all that more fun.
Danny
P.S. Thanks Belle - glad you don't mind my rambling. :)
Hi Jerry..I wasn't 'implying' anything nor 'stating' anything except to say this is how I go about reading and living the Word. To me, someone who spends their life trying to figure out exactly what salvation is or how it happens (when for example we have romans 10:9,10) and does not 'appropriate it' is very foolish.
To me Jerry, if Romans 10: 9,10 is NOT the answer, then there is NO answer. Again..this is how (I) read and live the Word, Bless ya !
Allan, if that's so then why do you bother mucking up the doctrinal forum? You apparently have no serious doctrinal statement to make. That's fine by me and I have no wish for you to be otherwise. But I do wish you'd refrain from coming in and taking potshots & posting useless non-sequitors to a serious discussion.
But I'll try again just to see if you want to discuss: Simply put, if Rom. 10:9,10 is THE answer, what is the queston?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
7
7
7
Popular Days
Oct 24
11
Oct 22
10
Oct 25
8
Oct 29
6
Top Posters In This Topic
TheInvisibleDan 7 posts
TheEvan 7 posts
Jbarrax 7 posts
jetc57 7 posts
Popular Days
Oct 24 2005
11 posts
Oct 22 2005
10 posts
Oct 25 2005
8 posts
Oct 29 2005
6 posts
TheEvan
Un-huh, right on, affirmative, Amen, yeah & dig it. Excellent Danny.
And I love your response, TGN.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
A very good point, as usual Danny.
Why don't you try this one on for size?
How about Christian acts that represent the three theological virtues: Faith - Hope - Charity.
Or how about Christian acts that teach their followers the four cardinal virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance?
OR how about Christian acts that exemplify the seven spiritual works of mercy: To counsel the doubtful, to instruct the ignorant, to admonish the sinner, to comfort the sorrowful, to forgive all injuries, to bear wrongs patiently, and to pray for each other?
Or maybe the seven corporal works of mercy: To feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to ransom the captive, to visit the sick, to harbor the harborless, and to bury the dead?
Despite any doctrinal difference, for me, if I can see a group that lives the above, I will have very few problems with that group.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Def. Forgive me if Im being rude, but we've been having this argument for YEARS. I'm not going to waste an more of my time rebutting your posts or anyone else's. You want to believe Jesus is God. Great. wonderful. I don't care. I personally don't think it makes a lick of sense from a Biblical perspective. I'm not saying it's not true. Just that it doesn't make sense according to the majority of the Scripture. You can find a few verses that may be intepreted in a trinitarian fashion. I can find more than a few that contradict it. In the end, we're both resolved to believe what we already believe, so what's the point, really?
Danny: Well said sir. Let's bury this argument and focus on something positive and godly that we can agree and act on.
Peace
JerryB
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Mark,
I like it a lot. And I like to add that I've nothing but the highest regard for the Roman Catholic Christians whom I've had the pleasure of meeting and even working alongside this past year. Of the latter (a husband, wife and her brother) their conduct was professional and fair - they were a pleasure to work with, and since the closing down of our workplace a month ago, I miss them dearly.
Of "burying the dead", I can attest of the unexpected passing of my sister's husband this past year, who attended a small Roman Catholic church in Pitcher, NY; the Church graciously covered the expense and ceremony of his funeral. And of the army chaplain who recently conducted my late father's service at the VA cemetary, who did so with great warmth.
And I also admire the community efforts made by members of my wife's Unitarian-Universalist church. Their ideas may be eclectic to some, but their heart is in the right place.
There are a lot of fine people across the denominational and religious lines, who exemplify some of the excellent qualities you raised, providing much inspiration and encouragement.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
I wish to add a whole-heartedly AMEN to all of that......
Its with the 'heart' man believes unto Righteousness and with the mouth 'confession' is made.
To me, I believe this means, it matters what is in a person's heart, and with that, its gonna show by what they do and in how they LIVE their lives. Who are we living our lives for? If its for GOD, then we are a testiment to the greatness of God and God's great Unconditional Love.
Who ever said "Actions speak louder than words"? This is SO TRUE....
Its NOT about 'religous and dogmatic differences'. If we are 'One in the Spirit', we are 'One in the Lord'.
If we have God's Spirit within, it will be Manifest 'without'.........
So many people, from different walks of life, backgrounds, nationalities, but only one GOD.....
Whatever it takes for us 'individually' that will BRING OUT THE BEST of US....... by whatever Means!
For me there is 'light and darkness'. Good vs Evil. I choose to be on the Good side........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Hey, there are real smart guys and gals on both sides (all sides?) of the disagreement here at GS and in Christianity in general. If it's so clear, how come we have so many different opinions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Clear as mud, Oakspear! I think sometimes we just agree to disagree, but here it looks like the majority agree that it just doesn't matter in the whole scheme of things. That's where I am.
I spent too many years arguing over jots and tittles and I don't give a sh1t about 'em anymore. I don't think God does either. He/She most likely laughs his/her head off at how anal people can get over a book and how they put God in a box. It's so much bigger than that and, like several mentioned above, it's the living and doing that matters, not the learning, studying and reading & writing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
Yeah, Oakspear -- IT IS CLEAR --- We all see things with our eyes of understanding differently. WHY? Because -- WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT.
No two persons unless perhaps (identical twins and even they can tell you each one has something unique about themselves.) See everything from the same Perspective.
There are so many different Languages out there, yet NO ONE IS BATTLING over which one is the BEST or the ONLY TRUE LANGUAGE? It matters where we are born, raised, and what we are taught., besides that, its whatever WE AS UNIQUE INDIVIDUALS CHOOSE. Its in our life choices and we ought to ALL be thankful we STILL live in a country where we can THINK FREELY.
God gave us "Freedom of Will". Our walks with God are INDIVIDUAL therefore DIFFERENT, and Uniquely SPECIAL. It all boils down to 'our own thoughts and feelings about God'. No matter how much we STUDY -- or SEEK TRUTH --- ALL OF US STILL ONLY KNOW IN PART!!!
One day we will have the 'great revealing' and we will all be amazed to find out -- it was all very SIMPLE -- and we thought it were more COMPLEX!!!
Let us embrase our own individual uniqueness and oneness with our Creator?
It won't be the same for each of us, why? God is a Universal God., capable of loving us all including 'the unlovely'. For this I am thankful, not to anyone but Thankful to GOD.....
Cheers! Enjoy being unique and in love with God. I know I am.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Agreed..so why even bother with a 'doctrinal' section ? Does it only serve as a platform for people to 'preach' their 'angle' on Triunity, Harlem Ghetto hell, Getting Hitler saved, Swapping from Monotheistic worship to Triune worship and back again, the Universal Church etc.. ??!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Why bother with a doctrinal section? I can think of several reasons.
Alan, If you actually participated instead of throwing out Wiereillean one-liners and insults, maybe you could figure out a reason or two.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
I don't see any harm in trying to UNDERSTAND what it is someone 'thinks they know', or finding out WHY someone has come to their own conclusions about 'theory' or 'issues'. I find it facinating and quite educational to learn what it is and why it is that people believe and have these differences of opinion.
I also like figuring out what makes things tick. I like learning. I think if we shut our minds to learning we shut down and stop living. Doesn't mean we are all going to agree on things., nor do we have to agree., but its really invigorating to 'discover' new things and learn more about our fellow-man/woman kind. Its a dull world if all I have to offer it is a 'narrow mind'.
Love you guys/gals!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The Doctrinal Forum goes through phases.
Since it's tucked away down here in the sub-basement of GS, not everybody takes the time to come down here. For a long time it was more of an "intellectual" forum, where the finer (okay, and blunter) points of theology were hashed out. Not that everybody got along, but there was more of a tendency to document one's opinions. Recurring battles between certain posters over predestination or atheism were stimulating.
Then for a time the Forum seemed to be dominated by huge "Mike" threads, and other threads with titles like: "Let's talk About Flying Whales" and the level of discussion sank to "I just know that angels fixed my flat tire" - :o
We've got a couple of good topics going now...let's keep the level of discourse scholarly :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The Doctrinal section was the ideal place for the PFAL Review and Blue Book threads, back in the day. It was also the location of a real dragout fight between Jerry Barrax and me on the validity of the epistle of James. I think we both got a lot out of that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
yeppirs. we did. Those were the days. :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Yeppers! Y'all used to make my head spin! LOL! Too much WayBrain and a person has a hard time thinking, much less keeping up with such scholarly debates.
I love to come down here when there are valid discussions going on with people who know how to discuss things and ask questions rather than merely attack or stalk people. I have learned sooooooo much in this past year and feel like someone who has been under a rock for ten years. We were never allowed or encouraged to learn about other people's beliefs, cultures or customs and all we did learn was insults like we still see here from a particular poster....All based on ignorance and from what someone "else" has said instead of actually learning, listening and discussing things.
I've learned to think and not just re-read what I've been told something says. I've learned about the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi papers, different theological views, different resources that are out there and so much more and what's really exciting is that there's so much more out there! IT's fun! It's an adventure!
Now I feel capable of going back through those debates with Jerry and Raf and like I might actually be able to comprehend some of them without my brain blowing up from spinning too fast. :P I love being able to discuss ideas and to watch the pros discuss them, especially. I always learn something down here, even if it's just to be thankful that I don't think like "that" anymore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Well, speaking of Waybrain, I think I have come to the end of a long road. I was reading Romans a few weeks ago, pursuing a topic that arose during ye Olde PFAL Review. What I tried to do with that project was to examine what was in PFAL, see if it made sense, see if if fit the Bible, and come to a verdict of some kind. When the project came to an end onWaydale, we were discussing apects of salvation and eternal life. I made a preliminary statement about the fact that the Orange book says there was no eternal life available to anyone during OT times. That's an easy thing to disprove. But then we got into trying to decide what the "new Birth" is, and whether that's even a genuine biblical term. Raf, Evan, Steve Lortz and others were involved.
Aaaanyway. to make a very long story not quite as long, I've been working on that ever since, and have basically given up on arriving at a biblical understanding of what eternal life is.
Raf had pointed out that the terms "kingdon of heaven", "kingdom of God", eternal life" and "saved" are all used synonymously in Matthew chapter 19. I started from there. The more I read, the less I felt I knew. Questions mounted as I perused all these verses from Matthew to Revelation: How is eternal life received? How do we get into the Kingdom? Is entrance permanent, or conditional? WHEN is this supposed to happen? Are we saved by grace, by works, or some combination thereof? I know this is a very controversial subject and I've posted some of what I've studied from time to time as related topics arose.
Just a few weeks ago, I felt like I had put it all together, bringing elements from the James debate together with contradictions about eternal life in the four gospels. (There are traces of David Anderson's Two Ways of the First Century Church throughout the NT, the four gospels included.) Then I delved back into the Church epistles to corroborate my theory, thinking that the contradictions in the Gospels could be traced to the split in the Church and the revelation of the mystery. I only made it to Romans chapter 8 and closed the book. (Actually some of my posts about Paul a couple of weeks ago were written during that time, and to some extent, I feel like I should post a retraction)
The bottom line for me is this. The reason we have so much confusion about salvation, sonship, and grace vs. works is because the Apostles never agreed on what it was that Jesus taught or accomplished. Peter makes a reference to things in Paul's epistles that are hard to understand. I think he was being diplomatic. Paul's epistles have an annoying habit of making a statement that leads you to a logical conclusion, then immediately contradicting that conclusion. (See Romans 6:13-23, 8:6-9, and I Corinthians 6:9-11 and I Thessalonians 5:6-9.) The more I read Romans for clarification of the confusion in the Gospels, the more confused and disappointed I became. The end result was the final dashing of any hope I had of finding a coherent biblical message. The salvation confusion is complicated by scattered apocalyptic pronouncements in the Pauline epistles and elsewhere in the NT (Romans 1:18, I Corinthians 4:5, Matthew 26:64, Revelation 1:7, 22:10-12) that indicate that the NT writers expected Jesus to return quickly and save the First Century Church from the coming Wrath of God. There are a few other problems with Paul I've noted but not mentioned in my studies. That aforementioned bottom line: I can no longer accept his writing as divinely inspired, inerrant truth. Inspired maybe; but certainly flawed and contradictory. The Apostles and Prophets of old may have received the Word of the Lord by revelation, but their humanity made the collected written Word a work far from the harmonious, rock solid edifice of truth Fundamentalists propound it to be. That's why I've been 'sniping' recently about the doctrine of the inerrant Word. It doesn't exist, imho.
Beyond the Fundamentalists myth of the perfect Bible, The Way's appeal was to the carnal mind. PFAL tried to present spiritual matters in a logical, scientific and mathematical perspective; religion with the veneer of science. It was Christianity for the modern man so to speak. And it's great, just GREAT -- as long as you don't take too close a look at it.
So what's the point? I don't know, I'm just venting I guess. This is way off topic and I guess I should start a new one about eternal life questions, but I just haven't got the heart for it right now. It would sound like somebody bitterly attacking the Bible and the foundations of the Christian faith in general and I don't want to come off like that. I still believe in God and Christ, but not so much because of what I read, but because of what I've experienced, not the least of which is the continuing ability to speak in tongues.
Peace, grace, and love to all.
JerryB
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Deep stuff, Jerry.
A minor thought in passing thought concerning something you mentioned: Of all the gospels to consider,
Matthew is perhaps the least ideal "starting point" toward understanding or harmonizing Paul's conceptions,- in fact, I would actually expect more contradictions - because the writer of Matthew most likely regarded Paul from his standpoint a "lawbreaker" or transgressor(Matt.5:18-19):
It's easy to see where this might be an inference to Paul, who referred to himself as "the least" (of the apostles) - as one who taught the abolishment of the law, and taught others to do likewise.
I would mention also the theory that the Gospel of Matthew (in its earlier form) may have been the production of the Jewish-Christians or "Ebionites", which seemed most emphatically anti-Pauline.
The Gospel of Luke, on the other hand - most definitely and most characteristically Pauline! In comparison to Matthew, it's like night and day.
I would even go so far as to say - had the dispensationalists appreciated the strong thread of Paulinism throughout "Luke" - they would have had to rethink their theories concerning the relation of "the gospel" to "the apostle". I don't think it would be an exaggeration to view "Luke" (or the earlier Marcionite edition contained therein) as "Paul's gospel".
Have you considered the experiment of weighing Paul's genuine epistles on the sole scale of Luke's gospel? I think you may be pleasantly surprised.
There will still be contradictions, but you will also encounter far more affinities with Luke than with Matthew.
Please forgive me of my ramblings - it's getting late (lol).
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thanks to both of you and, please, feel free to ramble at any time! I love reading your musings and thinking out loud.
Priceless! Very well worded, imo, and worthy of the Gems section, if you don't mind my re-posting it there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Hi Jerry..I read through the verses you posted and am wondering what you find incompatible with them ?
I am someone who reads 'lightly and simply' only going 'in-depth' when absolutely necessary.
I believe a number of scriptures can only be truly 'understood' through the 'light' of actually living the stuff (genosko). For example, understanding what it means to 'smell' the death side of people who choose to live 'carnally' and I'm talking about Christians as well etc..
'Fit for the Kingdom of heaven'..could that be talking about the rewards ??
The Bible even mentions trying to understand 'things of the spirit' from a carnal point of view. How can one explain spiritual things translating it over into our 'five senses standpoint', Jesus tried it with the usage of parables.!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Hi Dan. Always a pleasure to read your insights. :-)
Actually, I started with Matthew because it's at the beginning of the NT. And, having gotten a sense of what Matthew taught--which, as you pointed out, is very legalistic--I went from there, step by step comparing each subsequent book to it. Luke is a bit of a puzzle. I know Luke travelled with Paul, but if you look at the four gospels, it's not Luke, but John that most closely resembles Paul's gospel. Luke mimics most fo Matthew's statements about eternal life being conditional based on faithfulness and keeping the Law. In fact, Luke even quotes a verse from Matthew and presents it as if Jesus was referring to an Old Testament Scripture. (Luke 11:49, Matthew 23:34). If that doesn't support Source Criticism, I don't know what does.
But I digress. Luke has a somewhat patchwork, disjointed feel to it, as if Luke cobbled it together from different sources. (Acts is much more harmonious). The gospel of John, on the other hand, almost exclusively presents eternal life as a gift by grace received simply by believing on Christ. Furthermore, John presents Jesus as the saviour of the World, whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke present Jesus as speaking specifically, and sometimes exclusively to Israel. (John 3:15-18 4:42, 5:24, 6:35, etc). Add to that the fact that John almost alwasy speaks of Jesus and the Jews as if they were from different communities. Jesus is presented in John referring to "the Jews" in the second or third person, which is kind of weird since Jesus was a Judaean. (6:47,7:1, 7:19, 7:22, 8:17, etc.). It's almost as if John was written for the consumption of Paul's converts to give them a biography of Jesus that distanced him from their Jewish persecutors. A gospel for the Gentiles, if you will. So if I had to pick one of the four gospels that supports Paul's apostleship, it would be John, not Luke. And that's confusing because Luke travelled with Paul and John is not known to have been one of Paul's supporters. But, as I said, the whole thing's a big puzzle.
I don't mind at all Belle. Thank you, that's very kind.
I'm not sure what to make of your question Allen. Are your seriously asking what I see as contradictory, or merely implying that I'm too carnal to understand it? lol
To present the contradictions to your satisfaction may be impossible but it would surely throw the whole thread off topic. But since the can has been opened, I'll start a new thread and try to summarize the problem as I see it. But not tonight. I'm still tired from being up too late last night and I still have cookies to buy for a company cookout tomorrow. :-)
Peace
JerryB
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Jerry,
He's implying no such thing. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Hi Jerry..I wasn't 'implying' anything nor 'stating' anything except to say this is how I go about reading and living the Word. To me, someone who spends their life trying to figure out exactly what salvation is or how it happens (when for example we have romans 10:9,10) and does not 'appropriate it' is very foolish.
To me Jerry, if Romans 10: 9,10 is NOT the answer, then there is NO answer. Again..this is how (I) read and live the Word, Bless ya !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Hi Jerry -in terms of the later, canonical version of "Luke", your sharp observations certainly do apply, gathered from my familiarity with the earlier Marcionite version of this gospel these past few years.
This disjointedness you describe is especially apparent in such cases as the reversal of the Capernaum and Nazareth episodes (=Luke 4); amidst the saying spoken by Jesus to those in the synagogue at Nazareth ("Physician, first heal yourself...all that you did in Capernaum - do here likewise!"), it makes little sense in the canonical version which commences Jesus' ministry at Nazareth (followed by Capernaum), while in the Marcionite version Jesus commences with healings at Capernaum before proceeding to Nazareth. That's just the tip of the iceburg (lol).
A 19th century scholar exclaimed his bewilderment as to why - had he the four canonical gospels before him to choose from - Marcion had not picked the Fourth gospel! There certainly is a lot contained within that writing which appears to reverberate Pauline/Marcionite ideas, which has caused me on a many occassions to wonder the same thing as this scholar and others. Interestingly, I haven't encountered the same emphasis or underscoring of any connection to the "Luke" figure in the Marcionite tradition as with the orthodox. In fact, the salutations at the end of Colossians which mention "Luke the physician" appears only as "Luke" with the Marcionite text. The Marcionite canon did not contain "Acts"; they had an entirely different history and tradition concerning Paul. The Marcionites in "Adamantius" apparently believed that Paul had been present at Jesus' crucifixion and had even penned "The Gospel". I've been entertaining the possibility that Paul may have been among "the seventy" new disciples that Jesus had chosen in Luke 10, to offset the failure of "the twelve", being blinded by the old religion.
As you said, it's all "one big puzzle".
But it makes our explorations all that more fun.
Danny
P.S. Thanks Belle - glad you don't mind my rambling. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Allan, if that's so then why do you bother mucking up the doctrinal forum? You apparently have no serious doctrinal statement to make. That's fine by me and I have no wish for you to be otherwise. But I do wish you'd refrain from coming in and taking potshots & posting useless non-sequitors to a serious discussion.
But I'll try again just to see if you want to discuss: Simply put, if Rom. 10:9,10 is THE answer, what is the queston?
Edited by TheEvanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.