|
|
Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
01/18/2012 14:33 |
John,
I see that the words you quoted
are from the "What we Believe" section of the website.
However, I don't believe we have to sign an agreement with any doctrinal statement in order to a part of this community.
If so, I'll really miss you guys! :)
As for your question, "what is it that you have left?", I have a great deal.
As I've already said,
"He is my Brother, my Teacher, my Example,
the One who calls me to take up my own cross and follow him
in the way that leads to life,
in faithfulness to the One to whom he was faithful even unto death."
Also, I'm NOT "taking away" his cross, his blood, or even his son-ship
(except in the way I understand it).
I also said earlier,
"In the man Jesus I see God revealed as in no other man.
But he was not equal to God, and never claimed to be.
He came to point us to the One who alone is God."
As for HOW he is our savior,
I would refer you to the lengthy thread from last year -
"Jesus Christ...... Example or Sacrifice?"
http://www.dailyaudiobible.com/Forums/Messages.aspx?ThreadID=1000030151&page=1
Blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins
is a barbaric concept which even the later prophets rejected
and which is certainly not a part of modern Judaism.
And while the writer of Hebrews says
"there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood,"
the writer is clearly wrong!
Time and time and time again in the Old Testament,
we see people seeking and receiving forgiveness
"simply" through repenting and asking for it.
In the New Testament,
Jesus began his ministry echoing John the Baptist,
"Repent, and believe the good news."
And the good news wasn't that people would be forgiven someday
after he died on the cross.
The forgiveness he offered time and again
was offered freely to those who repented.
(As an analogy, if OUR children sin against us,
do we demand that blood be shed before we forgive them?
Of course not! There might still be consequences for their wrong choices.
But forgiveness is freely offered.
Can we really expect that our Father God is less forgiving
and more brutal than we mere mortals?)
Still, the cross IS central to our faith;
but not because he was somehow "paying the price" for our sins
or "ransoming us from the devil."
The cross was the sign of His love for God and for us,
something he could have avoided,
but only be being untrue to God and his message.
If he stopped talking about and demonstrating love
for enemies, sinners, and outcasts,
if he had accepted the rebuke of the religious and political leaders
and c hanged his message and his ways,
he could have been spared the cross.
But then he would have totally failed in his mission.
Instead he was faithful to the message of love
even though it cost him his life.
And it is the attractive power of that witness
which makes the cross salvific.
As He says,
"If I be lifted up [on the Cross], I will draw all people to myself.
And no "random nice guy" has ever had that kind of power.
|
| |
Catholica
|
01/18/2012 16:21 |
Hi Lanny, these are some good questions.
I have no theological degree or anything of that kind, so I hope that I have come to an understanding of the Catholic faith enough to explain what we believe with regard to the Trinity. I respect your many years of training and experience as a pastor and certainly I have nothing like that, so if I explain things simplistically please don't interpret that I am somehow trying to "condescend" in any way but rather am simply explaining it in a way that I personally can understand and also to hopefully create some simple common ground to converse between us.
The Trinity is something we refer to as a "mystery", a term which you probably are familiar with, but just to explain, this sort of "mystery" is one not like solving a crime where we search for clues, but rather like a topic which one could study for ever and ever and never explain it fully, yet rather come to a deeper and deeper understanding of who God is.
I will try to address each question individually. Unfortunately this particular forum implementation isn't the easiest to maintain complicated discussion tracks in, but God willing we can make due.
First question Lanny asked me:
----
Jesus was a man of prayer, and was frequently praying to the Father.
But if he was God, to whom was he praying?
Was he talking to himself?
----
The understanding of the Trinity is that it is one divine nature with three person, who have been revealed to us and whom we can refer to under the titles "Father" "Son" and "Holy Spirit". The Father is not the Son, but they are of one substance, a divine substance, yet they remain "persons" meaning that they have some manner of separateness. These are not human persons such as you and I, but yet they are not unlike persons such as you and I in that they have a relationship with each other. Thus when the Bible says that Jesus prayed to his Father, that as you and I agree, even in our different understandings, that Jesus is not the Father, but rather someone who is in communion with the Father. Similarly we say the same thing about the Holy Spirit, that he is a separate person as well. Yet there is only one divinity. A trinity "tri-unity" suggests a unity of three, still unity, still three, and they share the nature that is God.
Second question that Lanny asked me:
----
Further, when Jesus prayed to the Father,
and taught the disciples to pray, "OUR Father,
was he playing word games?
Or wasn't he actually saying that his Father is our Father as well?
----
No, Jesus was not playing word games. But we need to recognize that there are two ways for people to be able to call another Father: by being born to them (per John 3:16, Jesus is God's "only" begotten son) OR by adoption as we are (Romans 8:14-16). Jesus is clearly different from us, being a begotten son of God, and we are adopted sons and daughters.
More specifically, when we are baptized, we become members of his body, and in that way, we are even in a closer relationship than simple adoption, but mystically part of Jesus' body. Still we are not on the same substance of Jesus; we are not one with Jesus in his divinity. Rather have simply a human nature that through the power of God, yet as we are sanctified, can "share" in the divine nature, but that does not attribute to us the divine nature.
So in short, Jesus WAS saying that His Father is our Father as well, but yet taking the whole NT into account, God is our Father by adoption, and He is Jesus' Father, well, in a different way, begotten yet eternal too. I am of the understanding that Jesus describes this relationship between He and the Father in this way to help us understand that we can understand that God loves us as a Father when we are IN Christ Jesus.
Thirdly Lanny noted:
----
Yes, the Gospel of John uses a lot of "I AM" statements.
But we have to remember that this Gospel was quite different than the Synoptics,
less a retelling of events and teachings of Jesus
and more a theological treatise.
----
That is one way to interpret John, but I have come to believe that it is not quite that simple. John certainly wanted to emphasize different aspects of Jesus' reality than the synoptic writers did, but I don't think that in doing so he necessarily resorted to changing details of stories or basically writing a fanciful a-historic account to prove a theological point. Regardless, if we regard John in the sense of a theological treatise, that degrades nothing from the I am statements in it. John is still an inerrant gospel, we believe at least, and John 1 still makes it pretty clear that Jesus IS the eternal Word who is God.
Then:
----
And even in John's Gospel,
we find the message that what Jesus was
is what we are also meant to be, and can be.
I've frequently cited his charge to the woman caught in adultery
to "Go, and sin no more," a cruel thing to say
if she was in fact incapable of sinning no more.
The Spirit that was in Christ is also within us,
and he came to call us to live by the power of the Spirit
and to do even greater things than he did!.
----
I agree that Jesus portrayed to us what it means to be human, and that through God's grace we are able to "Go and sin no more". This is a important Catholic teaching which may differ from some Protestant denominational teachings, but we are in agreement on these issues I believe. BUT we are only able to "do greater things" when we are IN Christ Jesus, that is, mystically connected to that body. God then works through us to accomplish his will on Earth through gifts he gives to each of us.
Finally:
----
As for the quotes from the early Church Fathers,
you know as well as I do that there were also early Christians
who held different views, views later condemned as heresy
by those who were on the "winning" side,
but viable alternatives at the time.
----
I think that you are speaking of the Arian heresy in particular, which espoused that Jesus was not divine. Yet the heresy itself was named after Arius, who was a 4th century deacon. The fact that this heresy was called "Arianism" is itself a confirming statement that previous heresies did not hold a likewise central tenet, that being that Jesus was not divine. If you read accounts of Church history I believe you will find that this was a 4th century novelty.
Anyone who has taken part in various internet forums can recognize that heterodox beliefs always exist. Yet I believe strongly in Jesus' promise when he said to his apostles "I will send the Holy Spirit, and He will lead you into all truth" and also that the Holy Spirit would remind (the church) "of everything I taught you". If the Arian heresy was a novelty at one point that contradicted previous understandings, then it is always a novelty, and therefore a heresy, because the Church is being protected by the Holy Spirit, and understanding of God of as central importance as the divinity of Jesus would not be possible while the promise of Jesus to send the Holy Spirit is true.
You haven't dealt with Jesus' failure to rebuke those apostles who worshiped him in Matthew 28, nor truly the first chapter of John, both of which are pretty important counterpoints to the idea that Jesus is not divine.
|
| |
wesrman
|
01/18/2012 17:01 |
Great post Catholica. :)
I agree with you, but as a 'new" follower of Jesus i've been working through some of these issues lately.
How do you answer those who say that Jesus spoke in parables in the synoptic gospels, but in long monologues in John, and therefore we can't take the gospel of John seriously?
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
01/18/2012 20:21 |
Andre,
Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful response.
Though we disagree, you have done a good job explaining your understanding of your tradition, and I appreciate that.
Though I may have more to say later,
you're right, I did not address the question of worship in Matthew 28.
I think it's important to note that the verse in question is found only in Matthew
(the parallel verse in Luke is in a footnote, as it is not present in most transcripts). As for the Greek word itself, worship doesn't always refer to what we mean when we speak of worshiping a deity. It generally means to prostrate oneself, to kneel down, and pay homage and respect to another. In that sense, people in the ancient world were said to "worship" or bow down in homage to the king. And it's interesting that the very same word is used earlier in the same Gospel to describe the magi who knelt before Jesus after offering their gifts. They fell down and worshiped him. I doubt that they were worshiping him as a deity. They had followed a star foretelling the birth of a new king, the King of the Jews. And this is the primary perspective of Matthew's Gospel - he is writing to show Jesus as the new Moses (hence the Sermon on the Mount cf. the Law on Mt. Sinai,the calling of his son out of Egypt, etc.) and the fulfillment of
the prophecies regarding the Messiah, the King sent to liberate the people, a role Jesus fulfilled, though not in the way they expected, not as a political leader to set the people from bondage to a foreign ruler but as a spiritual leader leading them to the freedom of a renewed relationship to God. I find it interesting that the Gospel begins with the Magi "worshiping" him and concludes with the disciples "worshiping" him. In that case, why would Jesus reject their "worship"? I have no trouble worshiping Jesus in that sense - I do call Him Lord, not because he is God but because He reveals God to me as no one else does and leads me into a deeper relationship with our Father.
As for John 1, I know I haven't really dealt with that,
and it deserves a more thoughtful response than I could give off the top of my head. I WILL try to get back to that later.
Grace and Peace,
Lanny
|
| |
howard
|
01/18/2012 22:11 |
Lanny,
Thank you for the "Human One discussion.
I have been working my way thru the diety of Jesus for over a year.
I have bounced many of my question about Jesus off a theological teacher at a christian school and a Jehovah witness.
I have found that one of the main reasons I believe Jesus is God is the fact that the Jehovah Witnesses only hope they will be good enough to enter into the Kingdom Of
God.
The disciples and Paul knew for certain they were saved by grace and they knew for certain they would be with Christ for eternity. I believe all of us can have that certainty.
Maybe this is an odd way to know for certain Jesus is God but it is what it is.
Howard
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
01/19/2012 16:10 |
Wesrman,
In answer to your question about the difference in the Synoptics and John,
and whether that means John shouldn't be taken seriously,
I think it's important to remember that there were no tape recorders in the 1st Century, and as far as we know Jesus had no stenographer, so we'll never know verbatim what Jesus actually said. I believe the writers were striving to be faithful in their accounts, but they were writing from their own unique perspectives and with their own personal agenda, and this is reflective in the way the material is written and how is organized.
(This helps explain, too, why in Matthew we DO have a long discourse, namely the Sermon on the Mount. Throughout his Gospel, Matthew compares Jesus to Moses, and it is fitting that just as Moses received and passed on the Law from a mountain (Mt. Sinai), Jesus is depicted as preaching his interpretation of the Law from a mountain; much of what he says there is found in the other Gospels, just in different places and in a different format.)
True, there are no parables in John and there are many long discourses.
But I believe this author, too, was striving to be faithful
to his understanding of who Jesus was and what Jesus taught,
and the discourses were a literary device for doing so.
It has also been suggested that his Greek audience
might have been more receptive to that literary form.
Yes, John is different in many ways,
stylistically, theologically, historically.
But that doesn't mean he is to be taken any more or less seriously.
Each Gospel needs to be taken on its own merits.
|
| |
Catholica
|
01/19/2012 16:35 |
wesrman,
I think that I would say to them, by that same reasoning, how do we know we can take the synoptics seriously? The synoptics could have all been expounding on a single source.
But better yet, I would bring up that St. Irenaeus, who was the biggest proponent of John's inclusion in the canon, and St. Irenaeus learned the gospel from St. Polycarp, who actually learned the gospel directly from St. John. I would say that Irenaeus' understanding of the gospel message was good enough, having a pedigree going back only one extra hop to the Apostle himself, to know that John's gospel faithfully propounds the gospel message and is inspired.
As a Catholic, I find that the best argument for the inspiration of all the books of scripture is that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church into all truth, and said that the Holy Spirit would remind the Church of everything Jesus said and did, and also that Paul called the Church the pillar and foundation of truth. The Church determined which scriptures were inspired, and I believe the Holy Spirit protected that determination.
Oh and another thought, it is said that John was an active opponent of the Gnostic heresy. I can't state this for sure, but perhaps the symbolism of the parable was being exploited by the Gnostics, and so John decided to promote more of the discourses of Jesus. One indication that John opposed Gnosticism is that the Gnostics loved the transfiguration and saw that as evidence of the truth of Gnosticism, but John leaves it out completely, and he is the only author to do so. You can also see John's opposition to Gnosticism, I understand, in his first and second letters.
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
01/19/2012 17:00 |
Andre,
I could never hope to address the Prologue in John fully or satisfactorily,
but I do have some thoughts to share.
First, we know that John was writing from the perspective of Greek metaphysics -
the concept of the Logos was not unique to him, but was borrowed from Greek philosophy.
Second, the idea of the Logos being the eternal creator was written
in response to the Gnostics, who looked upon the world as evil
and ascribed its creation, not to the Eternal God,
but to the demiurge, a lesser power.
John's Gospel emphatically repudiates this idea.
Further, the idea of the Word becoming flesh
was a further repudiation of the Gnostics who believed
that Jesus only appeared to be human.
In a sense, the Prologue was intended to insist on the HUMANITY of Jesus -
yes, he was FLESH - at least as much as it was to assert his divinity!
John also insists that the God we see in Jesus
is the same God who has always been.
God is eternal and never changes.
As William Barclay says, "God has always been like Jesus."
[The Daily Study Bible Series:The Gospel of John, Vol. 1, p. 38)
And this truth has profound implications for how we deal with the problems
many here encounter when reading the Old Testament.
As Barclay says,
"We may well ask,
'What then about some of the things that we read in the Old Testament?
What about the passages that speak about commandments of God
to wipe out whole cities and to destroy men, women and children?
What about the anger and the destructiveness and the jealousy of God
that we sometimes read of in the older parts of Scripture?'
The answer is this - it is not God who has changed;
it is men's knowledge of him that has changed.
Men wrote these things because they did not know any better;
that was the stage which their knowledge of God had reached...
It was only when Jesus came that they saw fully and completely
what God has always been like." (p. 38)
I found that extremely profound,
and one of the most important thoughts we find in John's Prologue.
Finally, I have no problem with saying "the Word became flesh."
No, I don't believe that Jesus was "literally" God -
metaphysically, I'm not even sure what that would mean!
But I DO believe that the Word became manifest in Jesus -
became visible so it could be seen -
when the man Jesus accepted and lived out his divine mandate
to live faithfully and fully in the light and power
of the Spirit which is within him,
and to call and empower us to do the same.
I'm not suggesting, of course,
that this is the only way the Prologue can be understood,
or even that this is exactly what John intended,
writing as he did with a 1st century mindset.
But certainly this is one way of interpreting him today,
it's a way that makes sense to me,
and it's a way which I hope you can understand,
even if we still don't fully agree.
|
| |
wesrman
|
01/20/2012 08:01 |
Thanks. :)
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
01/20/2012 22:58 |
Andre,
Earlier today I was reading my copy of Hans Kungs, "On Being a Christian."
As you undoubtedly know, his right to teach Catholic theology was rescinded,
but he was never excommunicated, and still retains his ordination and his right to perform priestly duties.
Anyway, though he was not the source of my ideas,
I rediscovered how much his writings and my ideas are in agreement,
including on the issues of the virgin birth, the nature of Christ, etc.
And I understand that today he is very much involved with the interfaith dialogue
I so strongly support.
I hope this thread continues a while longer,
and that I'll hear from you again.
Grace and Peace,
Lanny
|
(page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9)
|
