Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Tension of Faith
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 421 of 1540 (822795)
11-01-2017 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by GDR
10-31-2017 10:38 PM


Re: Evolving theology
In order to understand the OT it has to be done through the lens of what Jesus taught.
That sucks for the pre-Jesus Jews who thought they were God's chosen people but couldn't even get the whole story so were doomed to misunderstand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by GDR, posted 10-31-2017 10:38 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by GDR, posted 11-01-2017 4:22 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 447 by Faith, posted 11-02-2017 5:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Aussie
Member
Posts: 275
From: FL USA
Joined: 10-02-2006


(2)
Message 422 of 1540 (822804)
11-01-2017 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by GDR
10-31-2017 10:38 PM


Re: Evolving theology
Your post did not in any way address my questions though.
It is my belief that Matthew is telling his Jewish readers what the resurrection means to them and told in the way things were usually told in that day and that culture. His point was that as Jesus was resurrected this is what it means. His view point was that it meant that God was accessible to everyone and that death had been defeated and that physical death is not the end.
I'm really sorry, but your personal beliefs about points made of someone else's personal beliefs add no value at all to anything! You kept repeating lines such as "It is my belief..." "I think that..." "I understand this way..." "Understanding through certain lenses..." "Keys to understanding..." "Possibly there was..."
I truly get where you are coming from, but do you see from my perspective that this is deeply unsatisfying? You certainly have to have your understanding of Scripture, the problem is that every believer has their own understanding of Scripture. It reminds me of that verse, I don't remember where it it, "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?"
The "Sound" that we get from Scripture is so incredibly uncertain that it allows for hundreds of thousands of "personal understandings" that are mutually exclusive, with Christians running in every imaginable direction, yelling "Not true Christians" to the vast majority of the other believers. The uncertainty is to such a high degree that despite the account of Jesus' Resurrection, the only remaining observable Body of Christ has been torn into ten thousand tiny denominational pieces by the believers themselves. So what you personally believe is of no personal interest to me.
What I asked is, independent of you just making stuff up because it sounds good inside your own head, was there a specific methodology that you used to conclude that the seemingly straightforward and factual accounting of graves being opened, and long dead saints being resurrected out of them to be seen by many is simply metaphor, while the stone rolled away is literal?
I'm really not trying to be a smart ass, but I spent my entire childhood and youth listening to people make shit up about the Bible, and I would genuinely love to see someone be brave enough to apply some rigor to their methodology. Maybe you?

"...heck is a small price to pay for the truth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by GDR, posted 10-31-2017 10:38 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by GDR, posted 11-01-2017 5:17 PM Aussie has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 423 of 1540 (822805)
11-01-2017 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by New Cat's Eye
11-01-2017 3:14 PM


Re: Evolving theology
GDR writes:
In order to understand the OT it has to be done through the lens of what Jesus taught.
New Cats Eye writes:
That sucks for the pre-Jesus Jews who thought they were God's chosen people but couldn't even get the whole story so were doomed to misunderstand it.
Yes and no. The thing is they already had the message that Jesus brought. For example when asked which commandment is the most important commandment Jesus said it was to love God and neighbour which is Jesus referring back to the Torah. If you notice my signature is an OT quote. There were also many cases in the OT of people acting out of love.
I don’t see it as necessarily a case of them not getting the whole story but more about them more often than not getting it wrong. To a very large degree Jesus brought clarity. Now when we see a story about Yahweh ordering genocide we can look at through the lens of Jesus who told us to love our neighbours and we can know that they got it wrong.
As I said, I don’t think it has changed all that much today in our own cultures. We still very often look for a warrior god, and we still very often approach God with the idea of what is in it for me. I used to have a thing on the fridge that said: most people want to serve God but only in an advisory capacity.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-01-2017 3:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by ringo, posted 11-01-2017 4:35 PM GDR has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 424 of 1540 (822809)
11-01-2017 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by GDR
11-01-2017 4:22 PM


Re: Evolving theology
quote:
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8
So nothing about Jesus at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by GDR, posted 11-01-2017 4:22 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by Phat, posted 11-01-2017 4:38 PM ringo has replied
 Message 428 by GDR, posted 11-01-2017 5:19 PM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 425 of 1540 (822811)
11-01-2017 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by ringo
11-01-2017 4:35 PM


Re: Evolving theology
Oh stop! You know darn well what the implication is. Besides, to you the whole term Lord is irrelevant.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by ringo, posted 11-01-2017 4:35 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by ringo, posted 11-01-2017 4:48 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 429 by jar, posted 11-01-2017 5:47 PM Phat has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 426 of 1540 (822812)
11-01-2017 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Phat
11-01-2017 4:38 PM


Re: Evolving theology
Phat writes:
You know darn well what the implication is.
And you know darn well that I don't put any stock in "implications". I just go by what the Bible says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Phat, posted 11-01-2017 4:38 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 427 of 1540 (822816)
11-01-2017 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Aussie
11-01-2017 4:15 PM


Re: Evolving theology
Aussie writes:
I'm really sorry, but your personal beliefs about points made of someone else's personal beliefs add no value at all to anything! You kept repeating lines such as "It is my belief..." "I think that..." "I understand this way..." "Understanding through certain lenses..." "Keys to understanding..." "Possibly there was..."
But what else do you expect. I don't have knowledge in the same sense that I know that the sun is out today. I make a point of saying that "I believe" or "I think" to make the point that I am not claiming absolute knowledge. It is the Christian faith.
I try to present my rationale as best I can for why I believe as I do but I can’t do better than that. In one sense it is no different than the atheist who believes there is nothing beyond the material. They can’t have absolute knowledge of that either, as the atheists that I have had discussions with are honest enough to point out, and yet it seems you expect me to be less honest.
Aussie writes:
I truly get where you are coming from, but do you see from my perspective that this is deeply unsatisfying? You certainly have to have your understanding of Scripture, the problem is that every believer has their own understanding of Scripture. It reminds me of that verse, I don't remember where it it, "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?"
The "Sound" that we get from Scripture is so incredibly uncertain that it allows for hundreds of thousands of "personal understandings" that are mutually exclusive, with Christians running in every imaginable direction, yelling "Not true Christians" to the vast majority of the other believers. The uncertainty is to such a high degree that despite the account of Jesus' Resurrection, the only remaining observable Body of Christ has been torn into ten thousand tiny denominational pieces by the believers themselves. So what you personally believe is of no personal interest to me.
But to a large degree that is what we should expect. I think that one thing that jar, Faith and myself can agree on is that what God ultimately wants of us is that we live as per my signature which is that we actively and humbly love, kindness and mercy, and that we act justly. Yes we all might differ as to how to apply that but the fundamental idea is consistent. That is the essence of the faith. Jesus said that we are to love God, which is where the humility comes in with the admission that it is God’s love that enables us to love, and that we are to be reflectors of that love to our neighbours and for that matter the whole world. That is the essence of the Christian faith, and of course it isn’t just Christians that believe that to be true, particularly the second part.
The differences come in our theology. I doubt I could find another Christian in the world who has spent time considering Christian theology where there wouldn’t be areas of disagreement. I have no doubt that some things that I’m quite convinced about are wrong, but of course I don’t know which things they are. I have changed my mind on a number of issues over the years. Again, it is a belief or faith and not absolute knowledge.
Aussie writes:
What I asked is, independent of you just making stuff up because it sounds good inside your own head, was there a specific methodology that you used to conclude that the seemingly straightforward and factual accounting of graves being opened, and long dead saints being resurrected out of them to be seen by many is simply metaphor, while the stone rolled away is literal?
I'm really not trying to be a smart ass, but I spent my entire childhood and youth listening to people make shit up about the Bible, and I would genuinely love to see someone be brave enough to apply some rigor to their methodology. Maybe you?
I have gone through this before but I’ll try again. I start out with two beliefs that I treat like absolutes. The first is that God is and was always good and the second is that God resurrected Jesus confirming Jesus’ life and message.
With that is mind I regard the Bible as a library of books written by men who were inspired to preserve their cultures, beliefs, experiences etc. That does not mean that they always got it right. I don’t worship an inerrant Bible, but an inerrant Jesus, and the two just aren’t compatible. I’ve already given examples where that is evident.
When I read through the Gospels it is clear that Jesus was very much a part of His 1st century Jewish culture. He obviously had tremendous knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, (in all likelihood had them memorized), as He so often references them in His teaching. This is important when it comes to understanding the theology. For example, Jesus often refers to Himself as The Son of Man. Why does He do that? If we look at the book of Daniel Chap 7 we can get a very good idea of why He did that. So again to understand the theology of the NT we need the OT.
However, it is a symbiotic relationship. In order to form a theology around the OT we need to do it through the lens of what Jesus taught and how He lived. As I said earlier, when we read about Yahweh commanding genocide and public stoning we can understand that it is an act of evil that is contrary to His will by looking at Jesus and His command that we are to love our enemy.
Hopefully this answers your questions. I appreciate the way they were asked BTW.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Aussie, posted 11-01-2017 4:15 PM Aussie has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 428 of 1540 (822817)
11-01-2017 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by ringo
11-01-2017 4:35 PM


Re: Evolving theology
ringo writes:
So nothing about Jesus at all.
Jesus' life confirms that passage. It is one verse from the Bible. I'm afraid I don't get your point.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by ringo, posted 11-01-2017 4:35 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by ringo, posted 11-02-2017 11:39 AM GDR has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 429 of 1540 (822820)
11-01-2017 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Phat
11-01-2017 4:38 PM


Re: Evolving theology
Phat writes:
Oh stop! You know darn well what the implication is.
Oh stop! You do know that Micah was supposedly written about 700 years before Jesus was even born and so does not refer to Jesus?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Phat, posted 11-01-2017 4:38 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by Phat, posted 11-02-2017 8:43 AM jar has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 430 of 1540 (822828)
11-02-2017 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 429 by jar
11-01-2017 5:47 PM


Re: Evolving theology
Yet one cannot walk with an unknowable God very well.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by jar, posted 11-01-2017 5:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by jar, posted 11-02-2017 8:53 AM Phat has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 431 of 1540 (822829)
11-02-2017 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 430 by Phat
11-02-2017 8:43 AM


Re: Evolving theology
Phat writes:
Yet one cannot walk with an unknowable God very well.
Which is why every religion and every flavor of every religion makes up a knowable God. That is why the God in Genesis 1 is entirely different than the God in Genesis 2&3 or all the other Biblical Gods found in the stories. Each generation, each Chapter of Each Club makes up a God and evolves the God they create to make it knowable and comfortable for them.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by Phat, posted 11-02-2017 8:43 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by Phat, posted 11-02-2017 12:40 PM jar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 432 of 1540 (822836)
11-02-2017 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 428 by GDR
11-01-2017 5:19 PM


Re: Evolving theology
GDR writes:
Jesus' life confirms that passage.
Why does it need confirmation?
GDR writes:
I'm afraid I don't get your point.
The point is right in your own signature: God doesn't require you to believe in Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by GDR, posted 11-01-2017 5:19 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by GDR, posted 11-02-2017 11:50 AM ringo has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 433 of 1540 (822838)
11-02-2017 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by ringo
11-02-2017 11:39 AM


Re: Evolving theology
ringo writes:
Why does it need confirmation?
There are a lot of views out there about the nature of God and what He wants of us.
ringo writes:
The point is right in your own signature: God doesn't require you to believe in Jesus.
What do you mean by require. Required for what?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by ringo, posted 11-02-2017 11:39 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by ringo, posted 11-02-2017 12:24 PM GDR has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 434 of 1540 (822840)
11-02-2017 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by GDR
11-02-2017 11:50 AM


Re: Evolving theology
GDR writes:
What do you mean by require. Required for what?
It's your signature. You tell me. If your own signature says that Jesus isn't required, why do you claim He is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by GDR, posted 11-02-2017 11:50 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by GDR, posted 11-02-2017 12:35 PM ringo has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 435 of 1540 (822842)
11-02-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by ringo
11-02-2017 12:24 PM


Re: Evolving theology
ringo writes:
It's your signature. You tell me. If your own signature says that Jesus isn't required, why do you claim He is?
My signature just tells us what God wants of us. I agree that belief in Jesus isn't necessary for that, although I do believe that it sure helps. Is that your point?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by ringo, posted 11-02-2017 12:24 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by ringo, posted 11-02-2017 12:41 PM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024