Figuring Out Religion

[Pointedstick]

Isn't it an arbitrary test, though? As long as I fervently, earnestly believe that I am a sinner and that Jesus died for my sins and I accept His gift and God's forgiveness for my sinfulness, then I get into heaven. If I don't--for any reason--then I go to hell. That's the "test." Isn't that what it all boils down to? Am I wrong?

[Xan]

If you're drowning, and I offer you a lifeline, and you turn it down for any reason, you'll die.  Is that a test, or is it just the way things are?

[Pointedstick]

If you're drowning, and I offer you a lifeline, and you turn it down for any reason, you'll die.  Is that a test, or is it just the way things are?

Pulling a rope that someone throws you that you can see and feel is a different thing from having trust in an unknowable unprovable logically inconsistent theological concept.

But I get what you're saying… that's just the way it is. Well, if it's really that simple, why the equivocation about admitting it?

Trust in Jesus -> go to heaven and and experience bliss forever
Anything else -> go to hell and be tortured forever

Right?

[Xan]

I don't recall equivocating.

Trust in God to be God, and allow Him to save you in and from your sinfulness -> Heaven
Insist that you have all the answers, that you don't need salvation or God, that your own works are good enough, and reject the salvific work accomplished for you on the Cross -> Hell

[Pointedstick]

I don't recall equivocating.

Trust in God to be God, and allow Him to save you in and from your sinfulness -> Heaven
Insist that you have all the answers, that you don't need salvation or God, that your own works are good enough, and reject the salvific work accomplished for you on the Cross -> Hell

All of that is phrased from the perspective of already believing what I'm supposed to believe. I don't seem to have whatever knowledge, experience, or revelation led you to be able to write what you wrote. How am I supposed to trust in God if I don't even know if there is a God?

[Mountaineer]

Thoughts from another forum by two people on this subject of Christians down, nones up:

"I've read two article about the Pew survey this morning and both of them immediately tried to relate the issues to national politics. It think that is decidedly not the reason for these changes. I would suggest the following likely reasons:

Personal rather than political
Breakdown of families, which normally held people in churches
Church-life feels more hurtful than helpful

The one reason given in the articles that rang true to me was that people who are unaffiliated feel more comfortable saying they are unaffiliated. In other words, social norms of the past that would have caused them to claim affiliation are declining. They are comfortable saying they no longer believe. This outcome is likely the result of things that were happening a generation ago."

"I sometimes wonder whether the precipitous drop in numbers of people who profess belief accurately reflects the relative numbers of non-believers or just the relative numbers of people who are willing to be honest in expressing their unbelief.  It used to be the politically correct thing in this country to go to church on Sunday morning and society used to be more accommodating of church activity, e.g. schools not competing with churches on Wednesday afternoons and Sunday mornings.  That is no longer the case."

... Fletch

[Xan]

I don't recall equivocating.

Trust in God to be God, and allow Him to save you in and from your sinfulness -> Heaven
Insist that you have all the answers, that you don't need salvation or God, that your own works are good enough, and reject the salvific work accomplished for you on the Cross -> Hell

All of that is phrased from the perspective of already believing what I'm supposed to believe. I don't seem to have whatever knowledge, experience, or revelation led you to be able to write what you wrote. How am I supposed to trust in God if I don't even know if there is a God?

I'm afraid I really don't know.  I was just clearing up what I saw as a mischaracterization.  All I can do is sow the seeds; the rest is out of my hands.

[Mountaineer]

Thoughts from another forum by two people on this subject of Christians down, nones up:

"I've read two article about the Pew survey this morning and both of them immediately tried to relate the issues to national politics. It think that is decidedly not the reason for these changes. I would suggest the following likely reasons:

Personal rather than political
Breakdown of families, which normally held people in churches
Church-life feels more hurtful than helpful

The one reason given in the articles that rang true to me was that people who are unaffiliated feel more comfortable saying they are unaffiliated. In other words, social norms of the past that would have caused them to claim affiliation are declining. They are comfortable saying they no longer believe. This outcome is likely the result of things that were happening a generation ago."

"I sometimes wonder whether the precipitous drop in numbers of people who profess belief accurately reflects the relative numbers of non-believers or just the relative numbers of people who are willing to be honest in expressing their unbelief.  It used to be the politically correct thing in this country to go to church on Sunday morning and society used to be more accommodating of church activity, e.g. schools not competing with churches on Wednesday afternoons and Sunday mornings.  That is no longer the case."

... Fletch

So what you're saying is that there were always this many non-believers, but they were just previously afraid to admit it, and not because of the fear of Hell or the wrath of God but because of the social pressure?

That is what the two posters I quoted seemed to think. 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

I've been reading "The Theology of Martin Luther" by Paul Althaus.  This excerpt addresses some of the topics currently being discussed in recent posts.  This excerpt deals more with general revelation and not as much on special revelation (which Luther calls proper revelation).  General revelation is available to everyone - ALL of us can see death and mayhem all around us, not just mass murders and war, but birds eating worms, crops that die, people that die, gang violence, and so on.  We can appreciate the beauty of a sunrise, sunset, mountains and beaches.  We can appreciate the sound of waves crashing onto a rocky coast, the gurgles of a newborn baby, the soft whisper of our spouse, and the gentle sigh of contentment.  We know our offspring are precious, we appreciate the warm handshake of a good friend, and a hug.  Special revelation gives us knowledge of God the Father, the God-man Jesus, and God the Holy Spirit.

... Mountaineer

"The General and the Proper Knowledge of God", Chapter 3, first part

God can be known to a certain extent even where the biblical revelation, the word, and faith are not known.  For Luther, the witness of the Holy Scripture established this beyond all doubt.  And his observation of the religions confirmed it.  Luther also cited the religious views of classical authors, especially Cicero, in support of this view.

Luther reaffirms and elaborates Paul's assertion (Rom. 1:20) - that God has always been known through his works of creation - with the comment: The veneration of various gods in the idolatrous pagan religions presupposes that men carry within themselves a conceptual notion of God and of the divine being.  Without that, it would have been impossible for them to call their idols "gods," to ascribe divine attributes to them, to worship them, and to pray to them. Men have this idea of God, however, as Paul says, from God himself.  God has thus given men knowledge of himself.  And this knowledge cannot be eradicated from the human heart.  "This light and understanding is in the hearts of all men and can be neither suppressed nor put out."  The Epicureans and other atheists have tried to deny it, but they can do so only by doing violence to themselves.  Atheism is opposed by the secret voice of conscience*.  *["There are people like the Epicureans, Pliny, and others who deny it with their mouths - that there is a God.  But they must force themselves to do so; and by trying to extinguish the light in their hearts they act like men who plug their ears and close their eyes so that they may neither see nor hear.  This does not solve their problem, however, for their conscience tells them something else."  WA 19, 206.  "This basic theological 'insight of the conscience' is in every mind and cannot be obscured."  WA 56, 177; LCC 15, 24.]

All men have been given a general knowledge not only of God's metaphysical attributes, such as his onmipotence and omniscience but also of his ethical attributes.  This knowledge includes the awareness that God is the giver of all good, that he is kind and gracious, and that he is willing to help a man who calls on him in time of need.  "Natural reasson must confess that all good comes from God."  "The natural light of reason is strong enough to regard God and good, gracious, merciful, and generous; that is a strong light."  But this knowledge of God has a twofold limit.  First, although reason knows all this about God, it cannot produce the certainty that God really wants to help ME.  The experiences of life repeatedly speak against this possibility; and since the mere thought of God cannot assert itself against this experience, a man's actual situation is always one of doubt.  A man may really believe that God is ready to help others - but the same man does not dare to believe that God will help him.  Second, although reason has the idea of God, it lacks practical experience of him.  It knows THAT God is; but it does not know WHO God is.  On the contrary, it always applies the idea of God to something that isn't God at all.  It plays "blindman's bluff with God," reaches out to grab him but misses him, and grasps not the true God but idols, either the devil, or a wish-fulfilment dream of the human soul - and such a dream also comes from the devil.  Human reason does not know who the real God is.  That knowledge is taught only by the Holy Sprit. 

The foregoing is based on Luther's commentary on Jonah, but Luther's lecture on Romans 1:23 ff. expresses the same thought.  Pagan religion has the concept of God and to this extent it knows about God.  It began to err however because it did not let the God it originally knew remain in his "nakedness" and worship him as such.  On the contrary, it arbitrarily concretized him according to its own wishes and thus equated him with an idol of the kind that men seemed to need and want.  "Everyone wanted to find God in that which pleased himself."  Therewith the primal knowledge of God was corrupted and, as Paul puts it, the truth of God changed into a lie (Rom. 1:25).  Such an idolization of God occurs not only in gross idolatry but also in the "spiritual and subtle" forms of idolatry: for example, when the true God is made over to fit the pattern of one's own moralistic work righteousness.  Luther thus places Christian moralism in the same category as pagan worship of idols.  The essence of both is idolatry.

.......

[madbean]

If you're drowning, and I offer you a lifeline, and you turn it down for any reason, you'll die.  Is that a test, or is it just the way things are?

Is that your Jesus? He throws a lifeline into the water and gives you a choice of whether to take it or not and be condemned to eternal torture if you don't? Lovely. What an asshole.

My Jesus from my Christian days would jump in the water and try to save you no matter what. Why he had to only "try" if he was God  never computed but I had to hold on to some semblance of Christian doctrine.

But that's okay. We all have our own Jesus created in our own image and I think this is a very good Rorschach test of who we really are if it serves no other purpose.

Today I'm returning to Christianity because I'm actually interested in the historical record and the true facts about Jesus and about the New Testament.  It's really very interesting trying to separate fact from fiction when you can look at it critically and don't have to worry about going to hell for doing so.

[Xan]

If you're drowning, and I offer you a lifeline, and you turn it down for any reason, you'll die.  Is that a test, or is it just the way things are?

Is that your Jesus? He throws a lifeline into the water and gives you a choice of whether to take it or not and be condemned to eternal torture if you don't? Lovely. What an asshole.

Well, no; that's a description of the Arminian view, which I don't hold.  That was an example to answer PS's objection.

[sigger]

MediumTex, I ran across this thread the other day and I really enjoyed your questions and trying to derive answers for them, so first off thank you for posting them.  I thought I would go ahead and post the answers I came up with in case they are still of use for you, or for anyone else (including myself ).

On what basis can a person conclude as a factual matter that Jesus did and said all of the things attributed to him in the Gospels?  There are easily observable contradictions and embellishments in the Gospels.  If some inaccuracies can be seen by simply comparing the text of the Gospels with one another, what would make us think that there may not be other embellishments, including the time-honored practice back then of attributing miracles to very wise people (actually, the Catholic church is still doing that today).  It seems like we are talking about a matter of faith right off the bat, with a somewhat weak basis for even faith, given the contradictions among the Gospels when taken literally.

Contradictions are commonly pointed out.  I believe the issue basically boils down to two types of transference.  The first is the assumption that the authors thought, spoke, and wrote the same way as modern readers and writers do.  I believe the intention of the gospels was first and foremost to spread a message, not so much to preserve the historical record.  So the authors did so accordingly.  Matthew starts out drawing parallels between Jesus and Herod to Moses and Pharoah.  Perhaps it was factual, but I personally think it was done that way for the purpose of the message.  This is very different from the way we are used to communicating.

The second type of transference is done when we read the scriptures.  You would think that we read and form our values from what we read.  But I think that is in fact very difficult to do, it is much easier to interpret what we read based on our existing values.  Because of this, two people can draw different conclusions from the same passage.  This is even easier to do considering the symbolism, allegory, and double entendre throughout the texts.

So I would answer no, you cannot assume it is a factual accounting, but also I don't believe it was intended to be.

Not to be irreverent here, but why is so much made of the offer of forgiveness?  If God is righteous and he made us and some of us turned out not to be righteous, is an offer of forgiveness really all that special?  That almost seems like providing warranty service on the human soul when it goes haywire.  It's not a gift so much as a the same type of obligation that manufacturers assumes when they build any product.

If you can, please provide more information about the gift of forgiveness and why it's a gift?

I love this question and I really hope I do a good job answering it.  It is the basis for most of the other answers.
First a clarification of forgiveness:

One definition from dictionary.com: to cease to feel resentment against.

This is the common usage of the word - I was mad at you but now I have forgiven you.  I don't believe that is the intended use in the gospels.  I think you have to break the word up to get at its actual meaning in this context: for - give, to give beforehand.  I read it to mean, essentially, to forgive before there is anything to forgive.  When taken in this context, the difference is staggering.  If I can forgive you before any offense, no matter the offense, I have Unconditional Love for you.
Most of us experience conditional love: I love you if you love me.  I love you if you don't hurt me.  Probably the closest most of us come to unconditional love is with our children.  It is easy to find many examples of parents with conditions there, too.  It's not very difficult to imagine conditions that would test our boundaries of love, even with our children.

So why is forgiveness special?  In and of itself, it isn't.  What is special about it is that you can do it too!  You can have unconditional love for someone else, for everyone else, for yourself.  If you can love someone unconditionally, you can accept them for who they are, you no longer need to judge them on the basis of how you would live their life.  You no longer need to fear being judged by them.  If you can love yourself unconditionally, you no longer need to judge yourself, you can accept yourself as you are and you can accept love from others.  Those are the gifts of forgiveness.

If I tell God that I love him and simply want to be closer to Him, why can I not even be in God's presence without being washed in the blood of his mortal son who was murdered by a joint effort between Roman rulers and Jewish clerics? 

You can.  Jesus showed the way (among others) and he deliberately showed that temple was not required.  Following is entirely our choice.

If God is God, why is He limited to only listening to those who are aware of the Jesus story?

I think the problem is usually failing to listen to God or hearing what we want to hear, not the other way around.

More generally, why is it necessary for a supernatural being to forgive us of anything in the first place?  Why can't we forgive ourselves or have other people forgive us, sort of like the Catholics do?

It's not and we can, though I think it does absolutely nothing to have someone else forgive you unless you can forgive yourself.  Having someone else forgive may facilitate the healing needed to forgive yourself, but that is its only merit.

Again, I truly enjoyed your questions so thank you.  I realize this is an old post and you may well have found the answers you were looking for already.  I submit my responses in the hope they can be of any help to you, others, or myself.

[sigger]

Not to be irreverent here, but why is so much made of the offer of forgiveness? If God is righteous and he made us and some of us turned out not to be righteous, is an offer of forgiveness really all that special? That almost seems like providing warranty service on the human soul when it goes haywire. It's not a gift so much as a the same type of obligation that manufacturers assumes when they build any product.

If you can, please provide more information about the gift of forgiveness and why it's a gift?

I love this question and I really hope I do a good job answering it. It is the basis for most of the other answers.
First a clarification of forgiveness:

One definition from dictionary.com: to cease to feel resentment against.

This is the common usage of the word - I was mad at you but now I have forgiven you. I don't believe that is the intended use in the gospels. I think you have to break the word up to get at its actual meaning in this context: for - give, to give beforehand. I read it to mean, essentially, to forgive before there is anything to forgive. When taken in this context, the difference is staggering. If I can forgive you before any offense, no matter the offense, I have Unconditional Love for you.
Most of us experience conditional love: I love you if you love me. I love you if you don't hurt me. Probably the closest most of us come to unconditional love is with our children. It is easy to find many examples of parents with conditions there, too. It's not very difficult to imagine conditions that would test our boundaries of love, even with our children.

So why is forgiveness special? In and of itself, it isn't. What is special about it is that you can do it too! You can have unconditional love for someone else, for everyone else, for yourself. If you can love someone unconditionally, you can accept them for who they are, you no longer need to judge them on the basis of how you would live their life. You no longer need to fear being judged by them. If you can love yourself unconditionally, you no longer need to judge yourself, you can accept yourself as you are and you can accept love from others. Those are the gifts of forgiveness.

well said, this is one of the better answers/ideas presented in this thread, short, clear, and to the point (and no text wall of scripture being used to justify somebody's interpretation of scripture or text wall of some third party's preaching)

big +1 for unconditional love and for-giveness and this post...

big +1 for unconditional love and for-giveness and this post...

Thanks interactive processing!

[Mountaineer]

This might be of interest to some:

http://blogs.lcms.org/2015/ctcr-science-theology

CTCR report addresses how science, theology intersect
on May 21, 2015 in NEW THIS WEEK, REPORTER, RESOURCES
By Joe Isenhower Jr. (joe.isenhower@lcms.org)

An increasingly prevalent view that ignores God’s hand in the natural world and how confessional Lutherans might approach such a view is addressed in a new report from the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR).

The report looks at “scientism,” the belief that the scientific method is the only way to gain knowledge and genuine truth.

Titled “In Christ All Things Hold Together — The Intersection of Science & Christian Theology,” the report adopted by the CTCR in February has been mailed to all Synod congregations and rostered church workers. It also is available for cost-free download at the commission’s Web page.

“The title of the report,” said CTCR Executive Director Rev. Dr. Joel Lehenbauer, “reflects the foundational truth expressed by St. Paul in Colossians 1:16-17: ‘For by him [Christ] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible … all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.’”

In its introduction, the new report explains scientism as “a particular approach to science — the materialistic science which has become dominant since the Enlightenment, [as] the only way to gain knowledge. While a modest empirical approach sees science as a useful, but limited instrument to be complemented by the findings of other disciplines (such as literature, philosophy and theology), scientism claims that a materialistic paradigm of investigation has a monopoly on human knowledge. The consequence is that metaphysics, religion, and even traditional ethics, lose their cognitive status and appear vulnerable to replacement by more enlightened thinking.”

“Scientism is basically the view that the prevailing materialistic scientific methodology is the key to and basis for all knowledge,” Lehenbauer told Reporter.

“It’s saying that science has the ultimate truth and that puts science in the place of God and His Word,” added the Rev. Larry Vogel, the CTCR’s associate executive director.

“Scientists and non-scientists receive very different educations,” the report’s introduction also notes, “with very little by way of overlap that would facilitate dialogue between the sciences and other disciplines. … At the same time, many students in the humanities are scientifically illiterate and easily confuse ideological claims made on behalf of science with what the science itself is saying.”

“The report has a critical goal — to critique a wrong view of science,” Lehenbauer said. “And it also has a positive goal — to recover the sense of science as a vocation which glorifies God and provides beneficial services to the neighbor. We hope it’s helpful to students, teachers and investigators, pastors and others in the church.”

“The report looks at ‘God’s two books’ — the natural world (created by and through Christ) and the Bible (centered in the saving work of Christ) — and how they relate to each other,” Lehenbauer explained.

“In one way or another, the whole document keeps coming at that issue of how the two relate, from various perspectives,” Vogel added. “It’s knowing what we know as Christians and knowing what we know as those who work in the sciences and as informed [individuals].”

According to its “overview,” the report “aims to serve as a constructive resource for thoughtful Christian reflection on the complex questions arising from the intersection of science, faith and Christian theology. Each of its five chapters provides conceptual tools and examples that should aid Christians in forming a faithful response to these questions, and which it is hoped will encourage more young people to pursue scientific careers in full knowledge of the nature and significance of the scientific vocation.”

The topics of the report’s five chapters and the points they cover are:

Chapter 1: Theological Foundations. Those foundations include the authority of Scripture and the proper role of reason, the proper relationship between God’s two books, the doctrine of vocation, Christianity and culture, a Christocentric approach to creation, image of God theology and Christian anthropology, and the theological underpinnings of modern science.
Chapter 2: Historical Context — including the attack on final causes and the decline of natural theology, the rise of autonomous reason and Naturalism, the view of science as a profession rather than a vocation, and the roots of moralistic therapeutic deisim.
Chapter 3: Philosophical Issues — the philosophical basis of scientism, philosophical problems for the scientific vocation and philosophical contributions of Christianity to science.
Chapter 4: Biblical Knowledge and Scientific Knowledge — knowing as a Christian, reading God’s Word — basic principles of interpretation, and biblical exegesis and modern science.
Chapter 5: Practical Applications — for students, teachers and investigators.

“Let us pray that the ensuing conversations aid all of us in seeing that it is in Christ that all things hold together,” the report’s introduction concludes.

[screwtape]

The report looks at “scientism,” the belief that the scientific method is the only way to gain knowledge and genuine truth.

I have hung around more religious people than scientific people in my life so I could be wrong in my assertion but I don't see scientists making these kinds of absolute assertions that religious people think they do. Religious people are the ones that say they have absolute truth and it's my (His) way or the highway. I just don't see that with science. Science seems always open to new evidence if properly presented. Religion does not. Religions seems to me a totally closed system of thought.

[Mountaineer]

Tim Keller had his last session tonight on Questioning Christianity - session 6.  It should be viewable in a day or two at the website.  I'm not sure if this link will work yet, but just in case:

http://livestream.com/redeemer-nyc/even ... dium=email

Here are my somewhat cryptic notes from Session 6:

... Mountaineer

Four Reasons to Believe in Jesus

Evidence of history.  Naysayers talk about the oral tradition and how it got embellished, added to, subtracted from to end up written down as the Bible a long time after the events.  There are solid reasons to discount that naysayer narrative.  Timing of when Gospels were written is too early to be legend, still had living witnesses. 


Historical reliability the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John).  Content is too counterproductive - Gospels make the leadership of the church look bad, e.g. Peter was a coward according to Book of Mark.  All the first eyewitnesses of the resurrection were women - Jewish and Roman law at the time did not admit women’s testimony in court.  Why would you make women the eyewitnesses - because it is true.  If Gospel’s were fabricated, why is there nothing in there about circumcision?  Literary form of Gospels does not fit with legend.  Ancient epics are very high and lofty, Gospels are not and have all sorts of details that ancient epics don’t - e.g. in John the account of 153 fish.  That level of detail was only in eyewitness accounts in ancient times.  The literary form is eyewitness history.  In ancient writing, authors used the name of people in the text instead of footnotes.  For example in Mark 15 two people are mentioned that were never mentioned again - Rufus and Alexander.  Or in John, the person who had his ear cut off by Peter was Malcus - so the story could be verified.  Names of people who do not show up otherwise, are usually put there as eyewitness accounts.

Evidence of Jesus’ claims.  Jesus makes astounding claims.  Buddha and Mohammed say they are just a messenger, just a human being.  Jesus is not in that category - he claimed the authority to forgive ALL sins and you can only forgive something that is against you - the only person who can do that is God.  Jesus says he IS the truth, not just I have the truth.  He says I AM eternal life, not just he has power.  He assumed the role to judge the world.  Jesus said to know me is to know God.  Jn 5:18 Jesus called himself the Son of God - in that society that meant he was equal to God. Jesus says he saw Satan fall from heaven like lightening.  The things Jesus says are different from any other religious leader.  Jesus is either who he says he is, or he is a complete nutcase or a liar.  It is really far fetched to think billions of people are following a nutcase, many of who were willing to give their lives to keep the belief.  Thus, he is God - nothing else makes much sense.  Jews are hammered to believe that human beings can’t be God, they won’t even write God the word - how is it possible that thousands of Jews thought he is God and followed him?

 
Evidence of the resurrection.  Two things historically are solid evidence, but history can’t be proven, just like we can’t absolutely prove today that Columbus visited America over 500 years ago because there are no eyewitnesses.  We know there are lots of eyewitnesses (over 500) per Paul who wrote only about 20 years after Jesus’ death.  We know the tomb was empty.  No Jew believed you could have a resurrection in the middle of history, some believed in a resurrection at the end of time.  No Roman or Greek believed in resurrection.    Thus, Jews, Greeks and Romans would not have believed the resurrection could happen.  So, how do you explain thousands of people converted their worldview literally overnight?  The Resurrection (power of death broken) proved the cross (price paid) worked.

Point to ponder:  The only way Hamlet would know anything about Shakespeare is if Shakespeare wrote it into the play.  We don’t relate to God the way a person on the first floor relates to a person on the second floor.  We relate to God the way Hamlet relates to Shakespeare.  C. S. Lewis  Jesus wrote himself into our play to save us.  He came to earth and paid for our sins, every bad act and bad thought every human has ever committed and deserved punishment for, and offers us forgiveness for those who believe in Jesus’ promises. 

Keller addressed doubt and how we all have them.  The best way to resolve doubt is to get in a group of people to discuss and learn - believers and unbelievers and fence sitters who will challenge us.  Also discussed how it takes a leap of faith to disbelieve in God.  As long as you understand that, it is OK to discuss believing in Christ takes a leap of faith, but based on evidence, it is a bigger leap of faith to disbelieve.  Referred to Pascal’s wager. 

[screwtape]

Evidence of Jesus’ claims.  Jesus makes astounding claims.

That only works if you already believe that Jesus actually made the astounding claims that are recorded in the gospels.

The most astounding claims are made in the gospel of John which just happens to have the latest date of any of the gospels at a time when the the debate about the nature of Christ and who he was was just getting started.

The three synoptic gospels which came earlier, Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not have the same claims to deity that John does, as I'm sure you've noticed. You can find them if you look hard but they aren't as obvious and some have questionable authenticity.

Do you ever ask yourself why, if he made such astounding claims, they aren't recorded in the earlier gospels? Surely this would have been an important thing to write down, would it not? THE most important thing to my way of thinking, and yet the sayings of John are nowhere to be found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

(And just as a footnote I am kind of surprised nowadays that the Gospel of John actually made it into the New Testament Canon due to its obvious Gnostic teachings (to as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become Sons of God) when there was such a concerted effort by the proto-orthodox to purge Christianity of all traces of Gnosticism. I think the only reason it remained was because it also supported the orthodox views on Christology - but I digress). 

[Xan]

The three synoptic gospels which came earlier, Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not have the same claims to deity that John does, as I'm sure you've noticed.

Do you ever ask yourself why, if he made such astounding claims, they aren't recorded in the earlier gospels? Surely this would have been an important thing to write down, would it not? The most important thing to my way of thinking, and yet the sayings of John are nowhere to be found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2013/06/do ... us-is-god/
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/what ... rk-faq.htm
http://www.christianapologeticsalliance ... l-of-mark/

The summary from the last one, which analyzes only the first thirteen verses:

    Mark writes a “gospel” of Jesus, an honor typically reserved for the divine Emperor of Rome.
    Mark identifies Jesus as “the Christ,” a term indicating, “the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes, her liberator, the one who ushered in the reign of God and who reigns triumphantly at the right hand of God” (Garland, 23).
    Mark calls Jesus “the son of God,” a description later used by Jesus at his trial to indicate his own divine self-understanding, and on the basis of which the religious leaders accused him of blasphemy and condemned him to death.
    Mark understands the entire Old Testament as pointing to and finding their fulfillment in the ministry of Jesus.
    Mark uses the term “Lord” for Jesus, a term his contemporaries regarded “as a name reserved for God” (Comfort, 209).
    Mark tells us Jesus was baptized at the Jordan River, evoking “the expectation that God is about to liberate Israel again. But Mark emphasizes that God now acts through his beloved Son” (Garland, 53).
    Mark explains, through identifying John the Baptist as a prophet like Elijah, that Jesus’ coming represents the arrival of the “day of the LORD” (that is, of God).
    Mark says that John the Baptist, one of the greatest of God’s prophets, who is called to serve God alone, is unworthy to be a servant to Jesus.
    Mark quotes John the Baptist as identifying Jesus as the one who has the ability to provide a baptism by the Holy Spirit.
    Mark says that at Jesus’ baptism, the heavens were torn open, recollecting Isaiah 64, so that we understand Jesus is God come down to earth, making his name known.
    Mark states that God’s Spirit rested on Jesus, confirming Jesus’ Messianic status.
    Mark believes that God spoke directly to Jesus.
    Mark reports God’s words to Jesus, which identifies Jesus’ identity from God’s perspective, as God’s beloved Son. This leads to allusions of understanding Jesus as Israel, God’ substitute for Isaac, or as Israel’s king.
    Mark tells us that Jesus decisively defeats Satan.
    Mark lets his readers know that angels served Jesus.

[screwtape]

    Mark says that at Jesus’ baptism, the heavens were torn open, recollecting Isaiah 64, so that we understand Jesus is God come down to earth, making his name known.
    Mark states that God’s Spirit rested on Jesus, confirming Jesus’ Messianic status.

Mark wasn't there. Nobody even knows who Mark was except that it is believed he might have been a companion of Peter. Most scholars believe his gospel was the first one and that it is the partial source for Matthew and Luke along with something called 'Q' which nobody has ever found but which is believed to be sayings of Jesus in circulation at the time.

But back to my first point. He wasn't there. So how does he know that the heavens were open and the spirit of God rested on Jesus? How does he know that even if he was there? It is commonly claimed that the New Testament contains eyewitness testimony but in this case I do not believe this is true. You can believe that the Holy Spirit revealed this truth to Mark or you can not believe that but you can't claim that it is eyewitness testimony.

[screwtape]

I say this with all due respect because I have been both a long time and well-studied believer and now an agnostic, at least when it comes to orthodox Christianity, but you guys need to step back and do some homework before trying to convert the PP brethren to Christianity.

Especially Mountaineer. In the many of pages of this thread I saw you laying out the path of salvation, i.e., what one must do to avoid hell and go to heaven, and I must say I found it all totally incomprehensible. I saw something about the Nicene creed and I think you gave Pointedstick the impression he could do anything he wanted as long as he believed that Jesus rose from the dead, or something like that. PS obviously didn't believe a word you were saying so no harm, no foul.

Do you really think you are learned enough at this point in your Christian experience to give such advice to people about the eternal destiny of their souls? Things that other Christians have grappled with for years?

Like I said, i think you should both go and do more homework and not keep posting links to things other people have said or written because I don't think many people here really respect that though I could be wrong.

[Xan]

I merely addressed your very specific claim that Mark didn't say Jesus was God.  The goalposts seem to have sprung wings and flown away!

[screwtape]

I merely addressed your very specific claim that Mark didn't say Jesus was God.  The goalposts seem to have sprung wings and flown away!

I don't recall specifically saying that but I will accept the proposition.

Where do you think it is recorded specifically in the gospel traditionally attributed to someone named Mark that Jesus said he was the son of God?

I was very big on chapter and verse in my staunch believer days so I won't accept anything else as evidence.

(And for the record, I haven't gone back and searched the book of Mark to see if there is any such statement. I'm only stating this from memory so you have a perfect opportunity to prove I don't know what the hell I'm talking about - in which case I will have to repent in sackcloth and ashes).

[Xan]

Well, you said that the synoptic Gospels didn't have the "same" claim of divinity that John does.  Maybe I read more into that than you meant.

Where do you think it is recorded specifically in the gospel traditionally accorded to someone named Mark that Jesus said he was the son of God?

I don't think it's necessary for Jesus himself to claim it in so many words, as it's demonstrated countless times through actions and events, and Mark clearly believes it to be the case.  But here's one:

For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

[MachineGhost]

Like I said, i think you should both go and do more homework and not keep posting links to things other people have said or written because I don't think many people here really respect that though I could be wrong.

I'm breaking my silence again.  The problem is they've been continuously engaged in the confirmation bias.  If they approached the issue objectively, they would have to include secular evidence, but that would be painfully uncomfortable.  No one does that when it comes to a matter of faith unless they're more concerned with seeking truth than having a worldview/guilt absolution.

Also, let us all not forget that Jesus allegedly rising from the grave is the ultimate appeal to authority bias!

You don't need objective facts to exploit cognitive biases.  It's automatic!  Especially a notion as powerful as original Christianity.  Let's propose the alleged resurrection did not happen in actual reality but was a metaphysical event.  It still changed the world.

And back into the woodwork I go...

[screwtape]

I don't think it's necessary for Jesus himself to claim it in so many words, as it's demonstrated countless times through actions and events, and Mark clearly believes it to be the case.  But here's one:

For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

When you say that "Mark clearly believes it to be the case" I have to point out that there is no such clearly established person as "Mark" who could clearly believe anything. Nobody signed their name to the gospel that bears the name "Mark". The name "Mark" is only a tradition. Whoever wrote this gospel, clearly did not believe it was important enough to sign his name to it and clearly identify himself.

(And BTW, the same is true for ALL 4 gospels - not one single author of what would surely be considered the most important documents in the history of mankind if true bothered to identify himself - and this is not in a book where the authors traditionally don't identify themselves. Check it out for yourself. The authors clearly DO identify themselves time and time again.)

I realize Mark 8:38 wasn't written in English but if you read it in English I have to ask why the differentiation between "me" in the sentence and the "Son of Man". Why doesn't it read "For whomever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will "I" be ashamed when "I" come in the glory of "My" Father with the holy angels".

He clearly says "me" when it comes to his words in the current generation but then he shifts to another person named "the son of man".

What's going on there, pray tell? Who is the son of man that he's talking about in those verses? If it's him why is he talking in such an obscure way?

If you are asserting that Jesus is claiming to be the Son of God, i.e., divine in those verses couldn't he have made that a little more clear?