|
|
Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion
| |
Catholica
|
01/26/2012 12:08 |
Hi Lanny, Sorry about the delay. I am spending less time these days in conversations in forums.
The things you say about the first chapter of John, being in response to the gnostics very well may be true, however there are is still the fact that John says "the Word _was_ God". It is not saying that Jesus was "filled by the spirit of God" or that God "became manifest in Jesus" but rather John says that Jesus _was_ God. If one would not say that Jesus is "the Word" spoken about John 1:1, clearly this "Word" in John 1:1 is personified as "he" in John 1:2. And not only that, but following on to John 1:3 we see that this same "he" becomes a "him" as in, the creator: "All things came to be through _him_."
If Jesus was a mere man who was simply filled with the spirit of God, John would not have said that this "he", a person, "was God" and then gone on to said that he created all things. It is a sin to lie about one thing to prove another. Either John was lying about "the Word was God" or Jesus was actually God. At least that is the only way I can understand it. Furthermore John bore witness to this "Word" person who is God, in John 1:14-15.
I'm not sure how you can say that you have no problem with saying "the Word became flesh" if this "Word" is not Jesus himself. If simply "God became manifest" in Jesus, it would not be as flesh, but rather as a spirit within a flesh person. But the Bible is plain, it seems: the Word became flesh and the Word was God, and the only way to reconcile that is that the Word is Jesus, who is God.
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
01/27/2012 17:36 |
Andre,
Thank you for your response.
You may remember a couple of years ago
I introduced the community to BeliefNet's Belief-O-Matic quiz,
which shows how closely some of your major beliefs matched those
of 27 different religious traditions.
Not a perfectly scientific instrument, it was still fun and interesting.
I took the quiz again, and among my results were:
2- Liberal Quakers - 93%
5- Sikhism - 85%
10- Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants - 78%
21- Mainline to Conservative Christian Protestants - 39%
25- Roman Catholic - 36%
So, I'm not a COMPLETE heretic!
But that does show why you and I,
and my son (who converted to Catholicism a few years ago)
disagree on so many things!
It also explains our disagreement over this issue.
You may be right in your interpretation of what John was saying.
And perhaps it made sense to those who shared his Greek concepts.
But metaphysically, it just doesn't make sense to me
to simply say "Jesus was God."
Simply from the standpoint of logic,
if God literally became flesh,
we would then be talking about God being in two places at once,
and whatever verbal gymnastics we try to use,
we can't avoid the fact that we are ultimately talking about two gods!
Of course, in reality God is not a person as we understand it -
God isn't a being, God IS Being, the Ground of Being,
the source and sustainer of all that is.
God is therefor a spiritual reality that is present everywhere all the time.
"In God we live and move and have our being," Paul said,
quoting the Roman poets.
So what does it even MEAN to say that God became flesh?
To me, the way I understand it is,
is that the man Jesus had a higher God-consciousness,
was more deeply aware of the presence and the purpose of God,
and so lived in unity with the One he called Father,
and tells us to call our Father,
that we can see and know the Creator more deeply and clearly through him.
Or another way of thinking about it -
if I have an idea, and you put my idea into practice,
making it visible in what you say and do,
I could say that my idea became flesh in you,
but it wouldn't mean that you ARE my idea.
The idea (the Word, the logos) is still MY idea,
but you have made it known,
which is precisely what the Gospel of John says God did in the man Jesus!
I know, it may sound like we're playing word games here.
But I realize we are approaching this question from quite different perspectives
and with quite different concepts and conclusions.
But in the end,
for me Jesus is the One who helps me understand God most clearly -
and as I said earlier, defines how I MUST approach the pre-Christian ideas
we read in the Old Testament.
And I think we can at least agree on that.
I'm really not saying these things to be contrary.
I respect you and this community,
and I would not be so presumptuous as to suggest
that I'm right and everyone else is wrong.
In the end, we have to recognize that God is beyond human understanding
and that all our ideas and our doctrines are always limited and imperfect.
But I am striving to grow deeper in my faith this year,
and putting these thoughts into words and sharing them with others
is really a part of the growth process.
Thanks for allowing me to share,
and for sharing your thoughts as well.
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
01/27/2012 17:37 |
http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Quizzes/BeliefOMatic.aspx
|
| |
Saint Grogan
|
01/28/2012 03:29 |
Hi Lanny
May I suggest that you look up what is called the “Hypostatic union” which explains the two natures of Christ. The link I provided is a simplified explanation however, you may wish to do a deeper study of it on your own.
http://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
01/28/2012 14:50 |
Thank you for your comments, Grogan.
For me,
these words from the article you cited help to illustrate the problem.
"The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain
how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time.
It is ultimately, though, a doctrine we are incapable of fully understanding."
First, hypostasis is a "doctrine,"
a statement of belief we are simply supposed to accept.
However, it is secondly an "attempt to explain" -
to explain what? -
the doctrine of "the two natures of Christ"!
(Do you see the problem?
We start with the conclusion,
then we come up with an explanation to justify the conclusion,
to justify what we already believe.
Even though, third, we admit that it is
"a doctrine we are incapable of fully understanding"!
In other words, we start with something we say we absolutely believe.
Then to justify our belief, we come up with an explanation and justification
and then admit we can't understand our own explanation!
The fact is, this issue is one which has been argued and debated
from the very beginning,
with many very different and conflicting positions taken.
The issue wasn't "settled" until a series of Church Council
came up with ever more complicated formulas to define
what Christians have to believe,
with conflicting views rejected as "heresy,"
(meaning they were not in keeping with what the winning side
defined as the "truth.")
I believe that ultimately GOD is beyond human understanding.
And while we use human words to talk about God,
because words are all we have,
our words and concepts can never fully explain
what is beyond comprehension.
So to use words to then insist that our words are somehow are "the truth"
is a dangerous position to take.
Much blood has been shed in "religious" wars and inquisitions
over the words and beliefs of us puny little creatures
on this little dust speck in the universe.
(I wonder if other creatures on other planets
are having similar debates and conflicts
over how the Infinite has been revealed in their finite space?!)
If the idea of Jesus as ontologically a "God-man"
makes sense to you, who am I to say you are wrong?
But to me, it's a concept that no longer makes sense.
Personally, what does make sense to me
is that Jesus was fully human,
that as a human being he lived in such commitment to and unity with
the divine which dwells in all of us and in everything
that we can see more clearly what it means to be fully human
and what God created us all to become,
and what it means for all of us to be children of the one he called Father.
I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone else.
Again, I'm simply trying to grow deeper in my own faith and understanding
(I was active in ministry for over 30 years,
so obviously this isn't the first time I've thought about these things,
but neither do I think I have it all figured out or that I have all the answers)
and putting my thoughts into words,
is a part of my own thought process
and a way of maybe helping others who are dealing with similar issues.
Grace and Peace,
Lanny
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
01/28/2012 15:11 |
A quick disclaimer -
I am NOT saying that it doesn't matter what we believe.
As a Christian, Jesus is the lens through which I view God,man,the Bible, etc.
So any idea which claims to be the truth
(that claims that God is on our side,
or that uses God to justify violence or hatred,
that justifies bigotry, etc.)
I have to reject.
Just thought I needed to clarify that point!
|
| |
John T
|
01/29/2012 15:20 |
Hi Lanny, I know you're not a complete heretic, but shouldn't the 85% Sikhism in your profile worry you just a bit?!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism
I searched the page for the word Jesus - not in there, not once. This faith is not based on our Savior, and I would therefore need to say it's a false religion.
Food for thought.
John
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
01/29/2012 16:17 |
You're right,
the name "Jesus" isn't anywhere in the wikipedia article.
But he can be found on Sikh sites.
One article I found on one Sikh site
discusses their understanding of Jesus,
and I find it agrees with much that I have said in this thread
about the full humanity of Jesus,
while also recognizing the special role he plays.
Here is a paragraph from that article which deals in part
with the Prologue in John:
"In addition, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we have seen his glory: the glory of an only son coming from the Father filled with enduring love” (John 1:14). This verse makes a clear distinction between the Word and the Father. In no way does it argue for the divinity of Jesus. The Word comes from God, and thus reflects the glory of the Creator. This understanding is confirmed by the fact that throughout the Gospels, Jesus emphasizes that he did not speak on his own, that God told him what to say. This clearly indicates that Jesus delivered the Word of God, not that he was God. Here is an illustration, “whatever I say is spoken just as he instructed me" (John 12:44-50). In John 8:40, Jesus describes himself as "a man who has told you the truth which I have heard from God”. Thus again we see that Jesus delivered the Word of God."
http://www.realsikhism.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1248371105&ucat=7
This page presents some of the similarities and differences
between Sikhism and Christianity,
and indicates why I do have much in common with their beliefs.
Sikhism & Judaism & Christianity
http://www.sikhs.org/relig_se.htm
Also, as I have mentioned at other times in other threads,
when I attended Spirit Fest last September,
an event attended by people from many traditions
but primarily by Sikhs,
I wore a cross all weekend
and spoke openly of my being a retired United Methodist pastor,
and never encountered anything that wasn't positive.
Also, a few of the songs at the event
either mentioned Jesus or were old Christian spirituals.
Having said all that,
I am not a Sikh and have no desire or intention to become a Sikh,
nor do any Sikhs I know expect me to!
I can respect some of the teachings of some of the founding Gurus,
though I haven't read much Sikh scripture
and don't know everything they taught.
But Jesus is MY "Guru," my teacher,
the one through him I see God and man most fully.
At the same time, I really have trouble calling a religion like Sikhism,
with its belief in One God,
its high ethical and moral standards,
and its positive impact on so many lives,
a "false religion."
Jesus says we are known, not by our doctrines, but by our fruit.
And I see so much good fruit in the Sikhs I know
that I cannot deny its rootedness in the same God I serve
and that I see in Jesus.
|
| |
John T
|
01/29/2012 16:28 |
Paragraph three misses the whole point. The message of John clearly states that the Word was "in the beginning", that he was God (v1) that he made all things (v3 - ie: he was there at the creation, and was not created himself but DID the creating!) This paragraph is a horrible example of what you call prooftexting and always speak out against.
Yes, it is possible to wear a cross and not offend people, even unbelievers have done that for so called "good luck". It is not the cross, but the belief in the Bible as the bedrock and cornerstone of truth that would offend people that don't believe.
As for other religions - just look in the Bible. Christ is the door, all must come through him. He is the way and the truth and life, no one comes except through him. He is the one that died on the cross for us, and no one can be washed from their sins except through him. No other, non Christ-based religion is going to lead anywhere. The Bible clearly states that Lucifer (Satan) presents himself as a deceiver, as an angel of light. Of course he wants to believe in a falsehood, and if he can make that alternate reglion look "almost" true, then he's doing his deceiving well. See CS Lewis and his teachings, he explains it so very well.
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
01/29/2012 17:24 |
You're right about prooftexting. My apologies.
I should not have ignored the first verse of the Prologue,
and the paragraph right before the one I quoted does address them:
"The result of human errors and the misinterpretation of the Bible lead many Christians to believe that Jesus is God. Errors in translation has taken its toll and resulted in many Christian denominations to have different interpretations and beliefs from the same respected Holy Bible. The first verse of John is very challenging to interpret as it talks about the word of God. “In the beginning was the Word; The Word was in God's presence, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). An objective reading of this verse raises the question: If the “Word” was in “God's presence”, how could it be God? When something is in your presence, it has to be, by definition, separate from you. The logical understanding of these lines is that the “Word” originated from God, or represents God."
http://www.realsikhism.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1248371105&ucat=7
As for the offense of the cross,
no, it's not the Bible that offends people.
As Paul said,
"We preach crucified,
a stumbling block to Jews and folly to the Gentiles."
The idea of a crucified Messiah,
or a crucified leader being an example,
is what is offensive.
"If you would come after me, take up your OWN cross and follow me,"
that is offensive to many people.
Of course, some people wear the cross as jewelry
or as a good-luck charm,
and I find that offensive.
But no one at that event thought that's why I was wearing it.
I wore it to make clear my identity as a Christian,
and I'm sure those who saw it knew that.
And if they didn't, so be it.
As for the verse from John which you quoted -
I understand it a little differently than you do.
The WAY of Jesus, the TRUTH about God's love which he taught,
the LIFE he lived and demonstrated for us -
these ARE the way, the truth, and the life which leads to the Father.
But that's not doctrinal exclusivism,
it's - for lack of a better word - lifestyle exclusivism.
Again, we are known by our fruit.
Many call him "Lord, Lord," but don't bear the fruit
of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, self-control, etc.
which shows that they are following his way, truth, and life.
At the same time, there are others
(for example the Hindu Gandhi who lived by the Sermon on the Mount,
and influenced Martin Luther King;
the Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh who is a living example of Peace,
and who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Martin Luther King;
and others of other traditions to numerous to name)
whose lives clearly bear the fruit Jesus calls us to bear.
(You raised the issue of the atonement,
and we could get into that,
but I would refer you again to the earlier discussion of this topic,
the thread, "Jesus Christ...... Example or Sacrifice?"
http://www.dailyaudiobible.com/Forums/Messages.aspx?ThreadID=1000030151&page=1 )
As for C.S. Lewis, with whom I am quite familiar,
I found this in an article about his beliefs:
"Lewis felt it was atheism that wrote off all religious claims as false, while he was free to affirm truth wherever it was found. He accepted truths in other religions. He recognized the similarities - as well as the significant differences between religions. A commitment to Christ does not necessitate the denial of truth in other religions."
" When it came to other religions, Lewis was an inclusivist - he believed that the only way to be saved is through Christ, but a person does not necessarily need a conscious knowledge of Christ in order to be saved. In one letter, Lewis wrote, 'I think that every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god [...] is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know Him” (Letters 247).'"
He wasn't a universalist, but he was certainly more inclusive than many who claim exclusivity for Christianity.
|
(page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9)
|
