|
|
Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
02/01/2012 19:27 |
Thanks, Grogan.
As I mentioned in an earlier post,
it had been my intention for some time to start a separate thread on the Trinity,
but the issue was raised here,
so I went ahead and discussed it here.
But I thought, too, that a separate thread would probably get others involved
who have not taken part in this thread.
I haven't read the entire article to which provided a link,
but just skimming it, I notice that they recognize, too,
the problems inherent in the use of the particular word "person."
We were gone all day today with a doctors appointment in Sioux Falls,
and we have to go for Connie's IV in a few minutes,
so I won't be able to do much tonight,
but I'll try to get to it tomorrow.
Grace and Peace,
Lanny
|
 |
Saint Grogan
|
02/02/2012 03:14 |
At your convenience. I'm pretty busy these days myself.
|
| |
John T
|
02/02/2012 17:50 |
Hi Lanny,
I've been away for the week, an have a lot of reading to do here, so I'll post as I go along. As I was driving I was listening to the Daily Audio Bible - the reading from January 25th hit this conversation right on the nail:
Mat 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
Mat 16:14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
Mat 16:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
That's a pretty clear statement of Jesus stating that he is the Son of the Living God. He congratulates him on having the correct answer.
I don't see how you can argue away that Christ is not the son of God. I mean, the scriptures say many times that he was. Here's another piece of proof - his mother, Mary, was a virgin - and this is critical. He was not born of the seed of Joseph, but of God, for Joseph's seed was in sin, as in Adam. Yes, I know, you've said that you don't believe in the virgin birth nor in Adam being real, but I tell you they are both very true - the Bible says it is so, and it is not in error.
A nice-guy Jesus, who was just a good example of a Christian wouldn't get us anywhere close to heaven, only a Jesus who is the son of God who died in our place. Paul states that the cross is the main thing, that it was his primary focus. Your writing seems to indicate that you could take or leave the cross and it wouldn't make a difference. Paul disagrees, and so do I, without the cross, without Jesus sacrificial death - yes, without his blood, we would not be covered. Remember the old testament - what covered the doorposts and sides? The blood of the lamb. That's how it is with Christ. Believe it, he says, and be saved. We must not excuse away his death, his cross, his place as the Son of God and also Son of Man.
Also, you state that there is no proof that we have a God. Wow, that is quite wrong, we have the proof of God all around us. We have his laws written on our consciences, we have the evidence of his creation all around us, and we have miracles happening even today. When you look at a house, can you say, well there's no proof that there was a builder? When you look at a painting, can you say that there was no proof that there was a painter? We have a creator, Savior, and friend - and the proof is all around us. Look at the Word - it is the oldest surviving work in the world, passed down and written in various forms from the beginning of time - is not this marvellous book's survival, His word, proof enough? What more can you possibly need? We indeed have much proof. We listen to it here at the Daily Audio Bible every day.
Be blessed, but listen and read the Word - it's all in there. You're relying far to much on this Buddhist guy - listen to the Word of God, not this guy who doesn't believe in the word.
Respectfully, lovingly, firmly,
John
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
02/02/2012 19:27 |
John T,
Taking a break here while watching Jeopardy, so I'll just do this a bit at a time.
As for there being no proof of God's existence,
you don't need to convince me.
Of course I believe in a Creator,
and I have a hard time imaging that this incredible universe "just happened."
So when I said "there is no proof,"
I wasn't saying anything anyone disputes -
I was simply citing the well known fact
that none of the philosophical "arguments for God"
constitute what can be called proof.
Besides, if we had proof, we wouldn't need faith.
(Also, as I stated, atheists can't prove there is no God, either!
That takes at least as much faith as NOT believing!)
-----------------------
As for "Son of God,"
you need to remember that this was used in the Old Testament
as an honorific title, applied to the anointed king of Israel.
Most famously, in Psalm 2,a coronation Psalm, the king says,
"I will declare the decree of Jehovah.He has said to Me,
You are My Son; today I have begotten You." vs. 7
In Matthew's account of the baptism of Jesus,
this verse is combined with one of the Servant Songs in Isaiah 42:1
“This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”
So at his Baptism, Jesus is being identified as the Messiah,
the one who was expected to restore the throne of David to Israel.
Of course, Jesus wasn't going to be the KIND of Messiah they were expecting;
he didn't come as a warrior king but as the Prince of Peace.
But the verse in Matthew indicates that he was the chosen one.
And though the portion of Ps 2:7 which says,
"today I have begotten" you is not included,
it is at his baptism that the spirit is said to have descended upon him,
just as the servant in Isaiah was given the spirit,
and it can be argued that according to the Gospel writers it was at his baptism
that he was "begotten," or adopted, as the son of God.
(Yes, adoptionism was rejected by the church councils,
but I don't ascribe the authority to the Councils some do,
and the idea is certainly there.)
As for the Virgin Birth,
we know that the concept is found only in Matthew and Luke;
Mark never mentions it, John doesn't mention it,
and Paul in all of his letters never mentions -
odd, if the idea was considered essential to the faith!
I love the Christmas story, and sing the carols joyfully,
for they are indeed beautiful poetry.
But as far as I am concerned, that is what they are.
Christianity isn't the only religion
with stories of a miraculous birth for their founder
(including the Buddha!), but we see those stories as legends,
not as "historical fact,"
so why do we put so much emphasis on the birth of Jesus,
when the earliest church doesn't seem to think it was important.
In fact, it was commonly believed that Jesus was the "carpenter's son,"
that he had "brothers and sisters',
and that he was well known by the people in the town where he grew up.
As for the Cross, I CERTAINLY never said we can "take it or leave it"!!!
If Jesus hadn't been willing to die for what he taught,
we would have no reason to give him a second thought.
The cross is central to our faith,
and the cross of JESUS is central to our faith.
It's called "Christianity," not "nice-guy-anity"!
It was JESUS' life and teachings that give us the clearest picture
of what God is like and what we were created to be.
HOW the cross is salvific has from the beginning been understood
in many different ways.
Personally, I do not accept the substitutionary theory of the atonement -
despite what the writer of Hebrews says, he/she is wrong
when stating in Hebrews 9:22 that without the shedding of blood
there is no forgiveness of sin.
The Psalms are filled with examples of people repenting and receiving forgiveness;
the prophets elevated justice and mercy over sacrifice.
Jesus preached a call to repentance and was always forgiving sins
long before his blood was shed.
A good article I cited earlier presents a good description
of six different models of the atonement,
including the "Moral Influence" model to which I ascribe.
http://www.plts.edu/docs/ite_models_atonement.pdf
Well, I've just given you more reading to catch up on!
Grace and Peace,
Lanny
|
| |
John T
|
02/02/2012 19:44 |
Hi Lanny,
I read that document earlier - it's extremely slanted, and something I'm sure you like very much like that Buddhist guy who's name I can't spell. Seriously, now you've just said above that the Bible is wrong - is that really what you believe? Where does it end? Do you think that this stuff is going to be a help or a hindrence to new believers trying to listen to the word and join the community? To have the beginnings of their faith torn apart as false? The Bible is the inerrant Word of God - take it at it's word, the buck stops there. Yes, I'm frustrated I suppose, and I was discussing with my wife how a person who doesn't believe in so many of the things in the Bible - Adam and Eve, Noah, Satan, Hell, Heaven, Jesus Blood washing us clean, that Jesus was the Son of God, that he will come back to judge the world, etc. How can you write off all these things, say the Bible is wrong, and still consider yourself a Christian? I just don't know where else to go. Of course I'm frustrated. You're ripping the Bible apart and calling it faith.
Saddened, yes, among everything else,
John
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
02/02/2012 21:00 |
John,
I'm frustrated, too.
First, the article to which I gave you the link
isn't slanted at all!
If anything, its rather conservative in its point of view,
especially in the three pre-thoughts.
But I like it because it does such a good job of laying out clearly
the various ways the atonement can and is understood by devout Christians.
It certainly isn't my intention to tear anyone's faith apart,
just as I hope you're not trying to tear my faith apart.
Your last post makes me wonder if you even READ my last post,
in which I affirm the idea of sonship
as reflected in the Old Tesdtament tradition in which Jesus walked;
and I affirm the cross of Jesus as of utmost importance,
just not in the way you understand it.
What more can I say to explain the Biblical basis of my faith?
I accept the teachings of Jesus,
and where else can I find those except in the Bible?
To argue for the "innerancy" of the Bible, however,
is a discussion in which I really don't want to engage.
I'm sure you realize that this was a very divisive issue
during the latter part of the last century,
and it's hardly a universal belief.
If anything, to claim innerancy for the Bible
is to make the Bible equal to God,
and is a form of idolatry known as Bibliolatry.
I cannot and will not worship the Bible!
I've been a part of this community for over 5 years.
In the early years, I dropped out and stopped expressing my beliefs
because a few people were saying I wasn't a Christian because of my views.
In recent years, the atmosphere here has much more cordial.
I have felt that I have been heard and understood,
even if people didn't always agree
(and sometimes they did agree with some point I made,
and expressed appreciation for my sharing).
I have also tried to be respectful of other people's views,
and have never suggested that anyone wasn't a Christian
because they didn't agree with me!
This is a COMMUNITY,
as Brian so rightly points out in his book.
And sometimes family members disagree,
and have to agree to disagree.
I've never suggested that I am right and everyone else is wrong.
I have shared my faith openly and honestly,
and if that threatens and frustrates you, I'm sorry.
Do you want me to pretend we agree on everything,
or do you want me to just shut up and leave?
If you don't think this community is strong enough
for true diversity in Christian thought,
perhaps that's what I should do!
As for being a help or a hindrance,
why should we give new believers the impression
that everyone has to agree about everything
in order to be a Christian?
Those who do have sincere questions and concerns
might be afraid to raise any issues
because they're afraid they'll be slapped down
if they think outside the box.
|
| |
John T
|
02/02/2012 21:17 |
I read what you wrote - you said that Christ wasn't God's son. You say it's just a cordial title. And that's not at all how it's written - Peter proclaims "You are the son of the living God!" - this isn't a title, this is a shouting of the truth. The Son of God came down to earth. Even if we give up the other issues, this one is so critical that I can't imagine how we can't agree on this, Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God. Did he have brothers and sisters - yes of course? They were of the same mother, but a different father - Joseph.
And you said that you don't believe in the virgin birth since only two of four of the synoptic gospels mention it. How many times does the Bible have to say something for it to be true? Reading the Bible isn't worshipping it, it's drawing near to God's word, the revealed word of God. Yes it's important. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us the Bible says. The whole mission of DAB is to read the word, to breath it into our lives.
If you believe I'm worshipping the Bible, then are you worshipping this Buddhist guy? You seem to mention and turn to him far more than any other, why is that? I just don't see it. God's word vs man's word. Yes, I believe there are wonderful writings and I love to read, but if the readings don't agree with the Bible, then it is the Bible that is the truth, the rock, the firm foundation of God's word that we must stand on.
I know that you believe very sincerely in what you're saying, and I know that you've been a minister of the word for many years - but I just don't understand how you can rip into some of the most core beliefs that any Christian should have - Jesus is not God? Why do we follow him then? That is the heart and soul of the message.
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
02/02/2012 23:09 |
I wasn't planning to post again,
but something needs to be clarified.
1.
In Matthew, Peter says, "“You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
In Mark, Peter says, "“You are the Christ.”
In Luke, Peter says, "“You are the Christ of God.”
In the Old Testament, "The Messiah" ("Christ" in Greek)
was called "the son of God."
Peter was acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah,
and "Son of God" in Matthew's version was the Jewish title for the Messiah.
Never did the Jews expect the Messiah to BE GOD, but one anointed by God,
as Jesus was in at his baptism.
The fact that Peter held to the traditional understanding of the Messiah
is obvious when immediately after this,
Jesus tells of his crucifixion and Peter denounces him.
The Messiah was expected to be a conquering king.
I'm not making this up.
The Bible has to be read in context,
and in the Jewish context, this is clearly what is being said,
even if it later came to be interpreted differently.
I'm not saying you have to agree with me,
but I'm saying that this is a perfectly legitimate way
of reading and understanding that passage in the Bible.
2.
As for the Virgin Birth,
the point isn't that it's only mentioned two times.
The point is that if it was widely believed
and was felt to be essential to the faith,
surely Paul or one of the other letter writers would have mentioned it,
but they don't. (It also seems strange that if this was such a commonly held notion, his neighbors in Nazareth would still call him the carpenter's son
and not believe anything he said or did.)
3.
As for the Bible, I didn't say READING the Bible is worshiping it.
I said that attributing inerrancy to a book when only God is perfect
is making the Bible equal to God, and that's what I called idolatry.
4.
As for other readings, I've said many, many times
that JESUS is the lens through which I see everything.
If the readings don't agree with what I see in Jesus,
I need to defer to Jesus. But Jesus isn't the Bible and God isn't the Bible.
And no, I'm not worshiping this "Buddhist guy,"
who I haven't cited in quite some time.
But I'm not claim inerrancy for him, either!
5.
Finally, "the heart and soul of the message"
is that in Jesus we see what God is like and what we are intended be like.
However we interpret all of this theologically,
unless we are following him and bearing th fruit he bore,
I believe we are missing the point.
|
| |
Saint Grogan
|
02/03/2012 03:11 |
I have to agree with John T, Lanny. You have some serious misunderstandings about the atonement of Christ and Salvation. If I had read this entire thread from the beginning, I wouldn’t have wasted any time with it because it seems that you just want to dismiss anything that you don’t understand or agree with. I pray that you will take this in good faith and explore the possibility that you are wrong about this.
God Bless
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
02/03/2012 08:50 |
Grogan,
I'm sorry you feel that I've wasted your time.
However, I am hurt and offended that you feel
I have been "dismissive".
I have never simply said, as you have, "you are wrong."
I don't believe I've even used the words "right" or "wrong"!
I have been careful to explain why I disagree,
to state what I do believe,
and to go into great detail Biblically and hiatorically
to explain why I believe what I believe as a Christian.
I don't see that you have taken the time to
"explore the possibility that you are wrong about this,"
dismissing everything I've written as "serious misunderstandings,"
without "exploring the possibility" that yours is not
the only way these matters can and have been understood.
Devout Chrstians have always had differences of opinions,
and much blood has sometimes been shed over those disagreements.
I've always seen this community as different,
a place where we can openly and honestly state and explain and discuss our views
without being dismissive or insulting.
I could say more, but I don't want to waste any more of your time.
I'm just sorry you feel that way.
Grace and peace,
Lanny
|
(page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9)
|
