R.C.Sprouls Teaching On Reformed Theology

so who do you say that the Jesus character was? And how does your answer compliment your understanding and belief in the Nicene Creed?Will you conclude that Jesus was a fallible human and nothing more? Does the Creed conclude the same?As you teach this as your informed opinion on the matter, do you feel good about what you are in fact teaching about Jesus?Aside from the statement that Jesus was made man, does the Creed emphasize His failures and human characteristics?Is there any particular reason that you have brought this up more than once?

I don't Phat. We've been over that many times before. I do report what the Bible tales say. Yes. While Jesus was alive and and teaching he was a fallible human being and nothing more. Yes, the Creed says the same thing. Yes, I feel very good about what I report since I am reporting what is actually written about Jesus in the Bible. Creeds are short summaries and not detailed reports Phat. Nor did I mention failures. Yes, I bring it up because most popular caricatures of Jesus make Jesus the individual pretty much trivial, worthless, pointless, useless, insignificant and picayune.

In the story, some men would have said that Jesus was a preacher. Some men might have said that Jesus was the Messiah - and they would have been disappointed when He died without accomplishing anything that the Messiah was supposed to accomplish. Maybe a few men would have said that Jesus was the Son of God; no doubt many of them would have been disappointed too when He died.Is there any reason to think He was was something other than another preacher? Is there any reason to think He existed at all?

Jesus praised Peter for saying He was the Messiah, that he could only have known that by the Holy Spirit.They were all disappointment when He died because they were still laboring under the false idea that He was to liberate them politically, and that hope was dashed completely by His death. It wasn't until the Holy Spirit came upon them at Pentecost that they understood that it had nothing to do with earthly liberation, but liberation from sin, a spiritual kingdom that is "not of this world."

It's things that you say like this that cause me to dismiss your so-called plain reading of the text while having no concept of belief in the character described in the book except when it furthers your arguments.As Faith says, the story plainly centered on Jesus asking Pilate what truth was and of Jesus asking Peter who Peter thought that He was. The story did not end with a failed Messiah...I don't even want to speculate on what demons inspire you to question the existence of Jesus, but hopefully, you inadvertently give Him spare change without knowing who you gave it to....you will pull out of this faux pax.

That's a handy copout. When something isn't fulfilled you claim that the scriptures mean something completely different from what they say. "Ask and ye shall receive" might as well mean that you'll receive spiritual benefis after you die of starvation.

Yes it did. The story does quite literally end with Jesus as a failed Messiah (if He was ever even supposed to be one). There is nothing in the plain text to suggest that Jesus succeeded as a Messiah. Even the part that is added on by your fundie commentators leaves the success to some mythical "Second Coming". I don't need any belief to be able to read. You, on the other hand, have to park your reading ability at the door in order to swallow the rubbish that your commentators are feeding you.Feel free to dismiss the text if you must - but remember that without the text there would be no Jesus for you to believe in.Edited by ringo, : Format
ing.

Some believe that Jesus was in the beginning with God...long before any books even existed. You are portraying Him simply as a character within a book. Lacking evidence, neither of us know for sure.I maintain, however, that I can very much believe in Jesus without the book...I just would have had to find out about Him some other way.

Without the book, how would you ever have heard of him? What "other way" do you suggest?

the same way the authors of the stories heard of Him.

Sorry Phat but that is just silly. How could you hear about Jesus if it were not for the existence of the written stories AND the adoption and forced marketing of Christianity?

In the streets of Jerusalem 2000 years ago? How are you going to pull that off?

See? This is the whole reason that you never became a believer. Your entire mental thought process requires hard evidence before you even entertain the idea of belief. Since you have yet to find satisfactory evidence for a God or for Jesus being a living Spirit today, you resort to the only evidence you have...the book which describes it all (except for later added dogma) and you limit any possibility of belief by the common error of "putting God in a box" or book, as it were.I have no counter argument to convince you otherwise, but I can see why your arguments are framed the way that they are.Socialism without woo is worse than the gulag, I swear. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

The question was "How would you even have heard of Jesus if it had not been for the written stories codified in the Bibles?"The authors of the stories heard about it locally, they were on site at the times Jesus lived or very shortly after his death.But that was two thousand years ago.How would you even have heard of Jesus if it had not been for the written stories codified in the Bibles?

This is another thing that I can keep repeating as long as you keep getting it wrong. We should always, always, always require hard evidence before even entertaining the possibility of belief. That includes you. Otherwise you'll believe every UFO and Bigfoot and bat-baby story you hear. It isn't "resorting" to the book. You need to understand that the book is the only real source that you have for your belief. In Message 129 I asked you how else you would even know anything about Jesus. In Message 130 you said you'd use the same method as the authors of the book. But they were there. At least they heard the stories second-hand and third-hand from people who were there. You are not hearing the stories twentieth and thirtieth hand from people who were there. You're only hearing them from the book.So don't be so quick to throw the book away just because you don't like what it says. Clearly not. You keep getting it wrong every time. That's just a really stupid thing to say. You should apologise for wasting my time with that.