|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Tension of Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
jar writes: So now I am in need... hmmmm
I do not mock people but I do try to help those in need.jar writes:
You keep repeating that statement without addressing the point that I have raised more than once including the post to which you are responding. What part of "I believe the Nicene Creed but do not take pieces parts of it out of context and am a Confirmed Member of a Recognized Chapter of club Christian." are you have problems understanding? And you still have failed to point out anything that differentiates your beliefs from that of a secular humanist except that you attend a Christian church and call yourself a Christian. The Nicene Creed is made up of numerous statements of faith that stand alone. Just what is it that you don't take out of context. Help me understand.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
GDR writes: The Nicene Creed is made up of numerous statements of faith that stand alone. Just what is it that you don't take out of context. Help me understand. A good start. The Nicene Creed is a series of statements of "beliefs" not of faith. The Nicene Creed in toto is a Statement of Faith. It even says "I(We) believe..." And in Message 371 did you or did you not post:
GDR writes: Do you believe this part of the Nicene creed?
quote: Is that not taking pieces parts out of the Nicene Creed? Had I not already said on many occasions that I believe the Nicene Creed? Is the Nicene Creed a Statement of Faith of "Ghandians" whatever they are? It really is simple. Belief is not synonymous with Know or Fact or Truth or Reality. It is irrelevant whether or not the things that Christians believe are based on fact or reality. The vast body of evidence show that religions, faith, regardless of which specific one is examined, are simply wrong. There is no reason to think Christianity is any different. But that has nothing to do with what someone believes or what makes them a Christian. Believing the Nicene Creed is an element of Trinitarian Christianity. But there are also Unitarian Christians. Or are you still wanting to play the "True Christian Game"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I found this on the internet which explains far better than I can what is meant by resurrection in the Bible, so I thought I'd send it along as well.
Resurrection 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
jar writes:
The Nicene Creed is a series of statements of "beliefs" not of faith. The Nicene Creed in toto is a Statement of Faith.It even says "I(We) believe..." And in Message 371 did you or did you not post: GDR writes: Do you believe this part of the Nicene creed? quote: jar writes: Sure, but you say that by doing that I’m not taking it in context. What’s the context that says that it is not to be taken as historical?
Is that not taking pieces parts out of the Nicene Creed?jar writes: Yup
Had I not already said on many occasions that I believe the Nicene Creed?jar writes: Nope
Is the Nicene Creed a Statement of Faith of "Ghandians" whatever they are?jar writes: It is not synonymous with know, it might be fact and it might be reality. It really is simple. Belief is not synonymous with Know or Fact or Truth or Reality.jar writes: If you are looking at it strictly as a matter of what God wants from us then I agree. It is the heart that he is interested in. I also agree that an atheist or a secular humanist can have a heart that is more consistent with my signature than many Christians. I’m not talking about who is going to be on the right side of God at the end of this life.
It is irrelevant whether or not the things that Christians believe are based on fact or reality.The vast body of evidence show that religions, faith, regardless of which specific one is examined, are simply wrong. There is no reason to think Christianity is any different. But that has nothing to do with what someone believes or what makes them a Christian.
What body of evidence is there that says the resurrection is not an historical event? The only evidence we have one way or the other is the NT and we can either choose to believe what is in there or not.In the Nicene Creed we are stating that I (we) believe what I quoted above. You aren’t prepared to say that you believe those things to be historical. Obviously they were meant to be understood as historical. They may have gotten it wrong but I believe they got it right and you apparently don’t and say that it is immaterial. jar writes: I agree.
Believing the Nicene Creed is an element of Trinitarian Christianity.jar writes: As I understand Unitarianism it is as much about semantics as anything else, and probably both of us could find some common ground with them.I don’t get your point, but I don't think that it's relevant. But there are also Unitarian Christians.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
GDR writes: In the Nicene Creed we are stating that I (we) believe what I quoted above. You aren’t prepared to say that you believe those things to be historical. Obviously they were meant to be understood as historical. They may have gotten it wrong but I believe they got it right and you apparently don’t and say that it is immaterial. Learn to read. It really is a necessary first step. No where do I say I don't believe the things to be correct. Sheesh. I do say that it is immaterial whether or not they are factual, true, correct or reality based. People believe lots of things that are NOT factual, true, correct or reality based.
GDR writes: What body of evidence is there that says the resurrection is not an historical event? The only evidence we have one way or the other is the NT and we can either choose to believe what is in there or not. Too funny. There is NO body of evidence that Jesus even existed. The New Testament stories are all contradictory and show ALL the classic signs of evolving folk tales. You are back with the evidence nonsense. Belief is not based on evidence. Edited by jar, : fix quote box
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: Sorry to be so long in replying. I get tied up with life. You missed the part about Matthew 27:51 in Aussie’s Message 399. Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
jar writes: And yet again, learn to read, comprehend and actually think. As a persuasive technique, this must rank near the bottom. Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
jar writes: But there are also Unitarian Christians. I’m not sure we Unitarians should be considered Christians. I know that historically Unitarianism has been accepted as a branch of Protestantism, but given the direction Christianity in general has taken over the past century or two it seems almost as if Unitarianism is better viewed as a separate species. We don’t believe in the Trinity, nor in the resurrection, nor in the ascension, nor that Jesus was anything other than a man inspired by God. It gets a little complicated after that. There’s a patchwork of Christian beliefs that Unitarians do accept, such as the moral teachings, but they also accept Jesus as savior, leaving open the question of savior from what, since Unitarians don’t believe in original sin. I think it’s fine for anyone to accept Unitarianism as a branch of Christianity, certainly that’s where its roots lie, but the differences are very significant. In the 1950’s (I think) the Unitarians merged with the Universalists, and the result is not recognizably Christian, at least to me. Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I think it is a great example of how religions evolve. After all the whole concept of the Trinity was created as a means of labeling some Christians as "Not Real Christians" and so not in the Club.
It is evolving dogma and as is usually the fact, more political than theological. Even Unitarianism itself continues to evolve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Sorry. Forgot this one. Thanks Percy.
Aussie writes:
Actually it all fits. Because of the resurrection the early Christians had to sort out what that meant to them by going back to their Scriptures and to what Jesus had told them both before and after being resurrected. This account is written only in the Gospel of Matthew and it is typical of early Jewish apocalyptic writing. It is the one Gospel that was specifically pointed at a Jewish audience. Whoah! Wait a minute... The saints coming out of their graves at Jesus' death is only metaphorical? Matt 27:51 "At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."That is just a metaphor? Really? So was the veil being rent in two also a metaphor? Because that appears in the exact same tiny cluster of verses. Please answer. Was Judas hanging himself also metaphorical? It's in the same chapter. What about Jesus' conversation with Pilate? What about His death? Was the securing and guarding of the tomb by the Roman soldiers a metaphor? This is an important point. Why did you pick this one thing out of one chapter and suddenly decide it doesn't mean what it clearly says? The point was that because of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus it met certain things. The Jews had believed that God could only be met behind the veil behind which was the holy of holies in the Temple, and then only by the chief priest. Matthew is saying that God was now not just accessible to the chief priest but was accessible to all. Many Jews believed that there would be a resurrection of the righteous at the end of time. Matthew is saying that because of the resurrection of Jesus it meant that the saints had been raised with Jesus. It is Matthews attempt at understanding what the resurrection of Jesus meant to and for his Jewish readers.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
I'm not saying that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't different from the resurrection of Lazarus. I'm saying that your quibbling about the meaning of the word is wrong. Paul may have added a different spin to Jesus' resurrection but he doesn't get to dictate what English words mean.
It wasn't simply rising form the dead to only continue aging and die again later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
I really don't care how some people interpret resurrection in the Bible. As I said, just Google "resurrection of Lazarus". You'll find that other people do use the word "resurrection" in reference to Lazarus.
I found this on the internet which explains far better than I can what is meant by resurrection in the Bible, so I thought I'd send it along as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aussie Member Posts: 275 From: FL USA Joined: |
Matthew is saying that because of the resurrection of Jesus it meant that the saints had been raised with Jesus. It is Matthews attempt at understanding what the resurrection of Jesus meant to and for his Jewish readers. Could you be a little more specific for me please? I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I think this is an important point in terms of how we approach Scripture. By "Matthew's attempt at..." do you mean "Matthew deliberately inserted a solitary metaphor right in the middle of an otherwise purely factual account", or by "Matthew's attempt at..." do you mean in the sense of "Matthew did his best but got it wrong here." ?
The Jews had believed that God could only be met behind the veil behind which was the holy of holies in the Temple, and then only by the chief priest. Matthew is saying that God was now not just accessible to the chief priest but was accessible to all. I get the typology behind the rending of the veil as God opening the way for believers to approach the formerly off-limits Holy of Holies, and I'm surprised you didn't mention it was rent from top to bottom, usually said to signify that is was God-toward-man. But this whole act is steeped in type and shadow and metaphor, whereas it seems to be a reasonably straighforward statement following that states in essence, "After this, the graves opened and many of the dead saints came out alive." Could you please explain your approach to interpreting Scriptural metaphor vs, Scripture as fact? Edited by Aussie, : No reason given."...heck is a small price to pay for the truth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
ringo writes: Fair enough. I meant to make the point that the Bible and other Jewish books have a more specific understanding of what resurrection means. I really don't care how some people interpret resurrection in the Bible. As I said, just Google "resurrection of Lazarus". You'll find that other people do use the word "resurrection" in reference to Lazarus. Edited by GDR, : typoHe 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Aussie writes: Could you be a little more specific for me please? I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I think this is an important point in terms of how we approach Scripture. By "Matthew's attempt at..." do you mean "Matthew deliberately inserted a solitary metaphor right in the middle of an otherwise purely factual account", or by "Matthew's attempt at..." do you mean in the sense of "Matthew did his best but got it wrong here." ? 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. From the time of the resurrection onward the bulk of the NT is a case of the writers and others studying Jesus' life and words within the context of the resurrection to better understand the nature of God, what He wants of us and what He has planned for the future. I think that this is a case of that happening. Possibly there was an earthquake that that caused things like graves being opened and the veil being torn but it is my opinion that it was a case of Matthew using Jewish apocalyptic wring in metaphor or parable form to tell a spiritual truth.
Aussie writes: Could you please explain your approach to interpreting Scriptural metaphor vs, Scripture as fact? Firstly I understand the Scriptures this way. God inspired, (not dictated) men to write down their stories. In the Gospels Jesus is constantly referring to what was written in the Hebrew Scriptures, sometimes confirming them and sometimes correcting them. In order to understand Jesus in His Jewish context as told in the NT, the OT is indispensable. In order to understand the OT it has to be done through the lens of what Jesus taught. The key to it all is the resurrection. It is fundamental to the Christian faith. It is written about extensively in all of the Gospels and the book of Acts as well as being taken as a given in the Epistles. In this case the take away message that Matthew is giving to his readers is what I outlined above and as long as the message is understood, then whether he is talking in parables as Jesus so often did or describing an historical event is a matter of opinion. It seems to me that it is so much like other Jewish apocalyptic language that it is very reasonable to assume that it is a metaphor.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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024