Figuring Out Religion

[jafs]

That's a very loaded way to word it, from my perspective.

It implies somehow that the "deity of Christ" is a fact, and some people deny that fact.

A better way to phrase it would be perhaps that they don't believe that Christ was God.

[Xan]

That's a very loaded way to word it, from my perspective.

It implies somehow that the "deity of Christ" is a fact, and some people deny that fact.

A better way to phrase it would be perhaps that they don't believe that Christ was God.

Sounds like the same thing to me.

In any case, the word "Unitarian" was created in opposition to "Trinitarian".  The founding belief of Unitarians is to deny the divinity of Christ.

[Mountaineer]

That's a very loaded way to word it, from my perspective.

It implies somehow that the "deity of Christ" is a fact, and some people deny that fact.

A better way to phrase it would be perhaps that they don't believe that Christ was God.

Sounds like the same thing to me.

In any case, the word "Unitarian" was created in opposition to "Trinitarian".  The founding belief of Unitarians is to deny the divinity of Christ.

Maybe they all use the Jefferson Bible. 

... M

[Fred]

Wow, that was surprising.  The message was far more religious than I would have guessed.  I think I hit the jackpot with this message; she covered some historical information regarding the Universalist church, constrasted with Calvinism, etc.  Overall though, I was surprised by how much theology she discussed.  I had a different picture of Universalism.

I read some Universalism on my path towards atheism (which doesn't speak very well of it, if you're an orthodox believer, I guess).

I thought the scriptural case that Christ died for ALL was very good. Obviously, you can find Bible verses to shoot it down if you're into that sort of thing but I think the idea that the Bible is very clear on the subject is completely wrong. One thing I often hear hell dogmatists say that really confounds me is that Jesus was very clear about the subject of hell and spoke more about it than he did about heaven. I don't know of any where in any of the gospels that Jesus spoke about hell. He used some of the words that are translated as hell like gehenna and tartarus when speaking metaphorically and in parables or in passing when speaking on another subject but where did he actually preach a sermon discussing the subject of hell, what it is like, who goes there and why? I don't see any place and you have to ask yourself why not? Wouldn't that be a very important thing to talk about and make perfectly clear while you were God taking a sojourn on planet earth?

Likewise Paul. Where do you find anything in his writings on the subject?

The Old Testament doesn't say anything about it so it just seems like it's something everybody is supposed to already know and take for granted when it is mentioned in the New Testament, but why - where is the actual source of the doctrine?

[Fred]

To me that is all fine.  If you have experienced no evidence in your life that there is a God, then your beliefs are rational and justified.  My father and husband are like you.  Since I experienced something that made me think there may indeed be a very loving God and read books and stories about other peoples' experiences, I decided there is certainly no harm in believing.

I actually had many many experiences with God when I was a Christian - some that you would probably find quite astounding if I were to describe them for you.

For the most part I don't see any harm in believing but it depends on what you believe. If it was Allah that spoke to you and you became a devout Muslim and a member of Isis I think that would be generally harmful.

[Fred]

That's a very loaded way to word it, from my perspective.

It implies somehow that the "deity of Christ" is a fact, and some people deny that fact.

A better way to phrase it would be perhaps that they don't believe that Christ was God.

Sounds like the same thing to me.

In any case, the word "Unitarian" was created in opposition to "Trinitarian".  The founding belief of Unitarians is to deny the divinity of Christ.

Do you think Jesus gets pissed off at the Unitarians for denying his divinity?

[jafs]

I haven't seen any evidence from the Gospels that Jesus claimed to be God.

Or the only son of God, for that matter.

He speaks of God as a loving father, but as "our" father, not "his" father.  And, in one sermon, he says in essence "Do this, and this and this so that you will become like your Father in Heaven."  It doesn't seem at all like an exclusive view to me.

Similarly, there's nothing in his preaching/teaching/ministry that portrays him as "dying for our sins".

[Michellebell]

I haven't seen any evidence from the Gospels that Jesus claimed to be God.

Or the only son of God, for that matter.

He speaks of God as a loving father, but as "our" father, not "his" father.  And, in one sermon, he says in essence "Do this, and this and this so that you will become like your Father in Heaven."  It doesn't seem at all like an exclusive view to me.

Similarly, there's nothing in his preaching/teaching/ministry that portrays him as "dying for our sins".

This sounds right to me.  If I were to find a church I really liked, it would focus mostly on the lessons Jesus taught, so it would be Christian.  But it would focus mostly on how he told people to live their lives.  It would focus on the benefits of living that way, for the sake of making ourselves and the people around us happier, rather than focusing on our deaths and saving us from Hell.  I really don't like to think about Jesus's death very much because I think it was so sad.  I don't honestly understand why he felt he had to do that.

I know the Protestant churches talk about the symbolism of him dying for our sins, but to me that makes no logical sense (I'm sure many would disagree).  I just figure we are all created by God so even our sins are part of our natural selves.  That doesn't mean we can't learn from some of the lessons that Jesus taught though.

Sorry if I'm not making any sense.  I guess I'm just saying, I have a lot of trouble believing a lot of the traditional Christian claims.... But of all the religions I've studied, Jesus's messages resonate the most with me. 

[Libertarian666]

I haven't seen any evidence from the Gospels that Jesus claimed to be God.

Or the only son of God, for that matter.

He speaks of God as a loving father, but as "our" father, not "his" father.  And, in one sermon, he says in essence "Do this, and this and this so that you will become like your Father in Heaven."  It doesn't seem at all like an exclusive view to me.

Similarly, there's nothing in his preaching/teaching/ministry that portrays him as "dying for our sins".

This sounds right to me.  If I were to find a church I really liked, it would focus mostly on the lessons Jesus taught, so it would be Christian.  But it would focus mostly on how he told people to live their lives.  It would focus on the benefits of living that way, for the sake of making ourselves and the people around us happier, rather than focusing on our deaths and saving us from Hell.  I really don't like to think about Jesus's death very much because I think it was so sad.  I don't honestly understand why he felt he had to do that.

I know the Protestant churches talk about the symbolism of him dying for our sins, but to me that makes no logical sense (I'm sure many would disagree).  I just figure we are all created by God so even our sins are part of our natural selves.  That doesn't mean we can't learn from some of the lessons that Jesus taught though.

Sorry if I'm not making any sense.  I guess I'm just saying, I have a lot of trouble believing a lot of the traditional Christian claims.... But of all the religions I've studied, Jesus's messages resonate the most with me.

If something is true it does not matter who said it.

[Fred]

I haven't seen any evidence from the Gospels that Jesus claimed to be God.

Or the only son of God, for that matter.

He speaks of God as a loving father, but as "our" father, not "his" father.  And, in one sermon, he says in essence "Do this, and this and this so that you will become like your Father in Heaven."  It doesn't seem at all like an exclusive view to me.

Similarly, there's nothing in his preaching/teaching/ministry that portrays him as "dying for our sins".

I think the gospel of John has some pretty strong verses that were meant by the author, whoever that was, to be staking out claims of divinity (I and my my father are one. Before Abraham was I am. I am the way, the truth, and the life).

It is very interesting that you don't find any of these sayings in the earlier, synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke however.

[MediumTex]

I haven't seen any evidence from the Gospels that Jesus claimed to be God.

Or the only son of God, for that matter.

He speaks of God as a loving father, but as "our" father, not "his" father.  And, in one sermon, he says in essence "Do this, and this and this so that you will become like your Father in Heaven."  It doesn't seem at all like an exclusive view to me.

Similarly, there's nothing in his preaching/teaching/ministry that portrays him as "dying for our sins".

I think the gospel of John has some pretty strong verses that were meant by the author, whoever that was, to be staking out claims of divinity (I and my my father are one. Before Abraham was I am. I am the way, the truth, and the life).

It is very interesting that you don't find any of these sayings in the earlier, synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke however.

John is obviously the Gospel with the most embellishments.

John is where the huge earthquake happens when Jesus dies and the saints' bodies pop up out of their graves like they did at the end of Poltergeist.  I always wondered why none of the other gospels bothered to mention these seemingly VERY important events.  Answer: because they didn't actually happen, other than in the mind of "John".

[Fred]

John is where the huge earthquake happens when Jesus dies and the saints' bodies pop up out of their graves like they did at the end of Poltergeist.  I always wondered why none of the other gospels bothered to mention these seemingly VERY important events.  Answer: because they didn't actually happen, other than in the mind of "John".

You gotta study your Bible more MT. I believe the earthquake is in Matthew and I'm not even looking it up but going by memory which I am very impressed with right now as an old fart until somebody tells me I'm wrong.

[MediumTex]

John is where the huge earthquake happens when Jesus dies and the saints' bodies pop up out of their graves like they did at the end of Poltergeist.  I always wondered why none of the other gospels bothered to mention these seemingly VERY important events.  Answer: because they didn't actually happen, other than in the mind of "John".

You gotta study your Bible more MT. I believe the earthquake is in Matthew and I'm not even looking it up but going by memory which I am very impressed with right now as an old fart until somebody tells me I'm wrong.

You're right, that story is in Matthew.

Sorry guys.  I guess Matthew made up the earthquake story. 

[Fred]

Sorry guys.  I guess Matthew made up the earthquake story. 

Gee, I am shocked to learn that you think the Bible has a made up story in it.

[Michellebell]

Sorry guys.  I guess Matthew made up the earthquake story. 

Gee, I am shocked to learn that you think the Bible has a made up story in it.

I have a hard time believing that even fundamentalist Christians believe every part of the bible.  The wording and stories can be interpreted in so many different ways as well.  It seems like most people pick and choose which parts resonate the most with them and which parts are dismissed as a reflection of the attitudes and setting of the time.  Please correct me if I'm wrong though.

[Fred]

Sorry guys.  I guess Matthew made up the earthquake story. 

Gee, I am shocked to learn that you think the Bible has a made up story in it.

I have a hard time believing that even fundamentalist Christians believe every part of the bible.  The wording and stories can be interpreted in so many different ways as well.  It seems like most people pick and choose which parts resonate the most with them and which parts are dismissed as a reflection of the attitudes and setting of the time.  Please correct me if I'm wrong though.

You haven't hung around the kind of Christians I did if you don't think some of them believe all the stories are true and literal. I don't want to speak for anybody else but I believe some of them can even be found in this forum.

[Mountaineer]

Sorry guys.  I guess Matthew made up the earthquake story. 

Gee, I am shocked to learn that you think the Bible has a made up story in it.

I have a hard time believing that even fundamentalist Christians believe every part of the bible.  The wording and stories can be interpreted in so many different ways as well.  It seems like most people pick and choose which parts resonate the most with them and which parts are dismissed as a reflection of the attitudes and setting of the time.  Please correct me if I'm wrong though.

Excellent book for understanding how to interpret Scripture.  Some key learnings: context is EXTREMELY important; cherry picking verses is frequently misleading as is taking everything literally; thinking the Scriptures are about you is a very common error, that is reading yourself into the Scriptures instead of understanding the Scriptures are about Jesus - both OT which points to Jesus and NT which is about Jesus and His teachings and what is yet to come.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Revised-Conc ... +this+mean

... M

[Mountaineer]

Interesting episode on the proverbial fool.  It is worth a few minutes of your time.  Don't be a fool and miss it. 

http://www.worldvieweverlasting.com/201 ... bial-fool/


...M

[Fred]

Gee, I am shocked to learn that you think the Bible has a made up story in it.

I have a hard time believing that even fundamentalist Christians believe every part of the bible.  The wording and stories can be interpreted in so many different ways as well.  It seems like most people pick and choose which parts resonate the most with them and which parts are dismissed as a reflection of the attitudes and setting of the time.  Please correct me if I'm wrong though.

Excellent book for understanding how to interpret Scripture.  Some key learnings: context is EXTREMELY important; cherry picking verses is frequently misleading as is taking everything literally; thinking the Scriptures are about you is a very common error, that is reading yourself into the Scriptures instead of understanding the Scriptures are about Jesus - both OT which points to Jesus and NT which is about Jesus and His teachings and what is yet to come.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Revised-Conc ... +this+mean

... M

According to most of the reviews of this book it is geared towards seminary students and several said that some prior knowledge of Greek and Hebrew would be helpful.

So I was wondering if you could simplify things for us in regards to the question raised about the event that MT thought was in John but was actually in Matthew, i.e., the earthquake that occurred when Jesus died on the cross accompanied with many righteous people rising from the dead and going into the city of Jerusalem and appearing to many. According to your rules of interpretation is that to be taken as a literal, historical event or not?

[Mountaineer]

I have a hard time believing that even fundamentalist Christians believe every part of the bible.  The wording and stories can be interpreted in so many different ways as well.  It seems like most people pick and choose which parts resonate the most with them and which parts are dismissed as a reflection of the attitudes and setting of the time.  Please correct me if I'm wrong though.

Excellent book for understanding how to interpret Scripture.  Some key learnings: context is EXTREMELY important; cherry picking verses is frequently misleading as is taking everything literally; thinking the Scriptures are about you is a very common error, that is reading yourself into the Scriptures instead of understanding the Scriptures are about Jesus - both OT which points to Jesus and NT which is about Jesus and His teachings and what is yet to come.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Revised-Conc ... +this+mean

... M

According to most of the reviews of this book it is geared towards seminary students and several said that some prior knowledge of Greek and Hebrew would be helpful.

So I was wondering if you could simplify things for us in regards to the question raised about the event that MT thought was in John but was actually in Matthew, i.e., the earthquake that occurred when Jesus died on the cross accompanied with many righteous people rising from the dead and going into the city of Jerusalem and appearing to many. According to your rules of interpretation is that to be taken as a literal, historical event or not?

In my opinion, there is nothing (using the hermeneutics I use to interpret Scripture discussed previously) to suggest it is anything other that a report of the events that happened at Christ's death on the cross.  It seems the writers of the TLSB notes agree with me.  See below for the meaning.

... M

RELEVANT SCRIPTURE

MATTHEW 27:51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. 54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

HEBREWS 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

NOTES

MATTHEW—NOTE ON 27:45–56 After Jesus cries in agony at His abandonment, He dies. His death is followed by supernatural signs. His cry shows the abandonment that we should have experienced. But by His death, He destroyed the power of death and removed the barrier that separated us from God.

MATTHEW—NOTE ON 27:51–53 Earthquakes were often associated with manifestations of God. Moreover, they were considered a sign of the end and the final judgment. The destruction of the temple’s veil and the resurrection of the dead also point forward to the end.

MATTHEW—NOTE ON 27:51 curtain of the temple.  See notes Mk 15:38

MARK—NOTE ON 15:38 Tearing of the curtain, which separated the Most Holy Place of the temple from the Holy Place, symbolized the opened fellowship between God and people through Christ (cf Heb 10:19–22).

MATTHEW—NOTE ON 27:52–53 bodies of the saints … coming out. Their resurrection demonstrated the purpose of Christ’s death: to bring eternal life to those doomed to die.

MATTHEW—NOTE ON 27:54 centurion. Truly this was the Son of God! Gentile centurion sensed what the unbelieving leaders of Israel did not.

Scripture and Notes from the The Lutheran Study Bible (TLSB), Concordia Publishing House (2009-10-31).

[Fred]

I think this is a great debate that recently took place between Bart Ehrman and Michael Bird on Ehrman's book "How Jesus became God". Michael Bird co-authored the book published on the same day to counteract it called "How God became Jesus". He was put in a bad position from the beginning because he went second and he had to agree that most of the historical facts that Ehrman presented were indisputable, leaving him with not much to disagree with except for Ehrman's fundamental premise, but I thought he was gracious and did a good job any way.

Unlike a lot of debates there is more light than heat and you can actually learn something from both sides. And unlike other debates I've seen Ehrman in I think he's really in his element here despite the whiny voice that Desert doesn't like. He quotes chapter and verse as well as any preacher I've seen. I think I would have liked being a student in one of his classes.

https://youtu.be/RtkeNuCwinc

[Fred]

In my opinion, there is nothing (using the hermeneutics I use to interpret Scripture discussed previously) to suggest it is anything other that a report of the events that happened at Christ's death on the cross.  It seems the writers of the TLSB notes agree with me.  See below for the meaning.

Thanks for the definitive answer (I think). I was reasonably confident that you did believe the story to be literally true but was just trying to make the point for Michelle that there are Christians on this forum who believe such things. I believe you subscribe to the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy so you aren't really allowed to say that a story in the Bible is made up. If you do, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. That's just the way the doctrine works and I understand this very well from my own Christian experience.

It's the ultimate thinking inside the box and stepping outside of it truly is a slippery slope. I'm a perfect example of that and I know you don't want to end up like me.

[Mountaineer]

In my opinion, there is nothing (using the hermeneutics I use to interpret Scripture discussed previously) to suggest it is anything other that a report of the events that happened at Christ's death on the cross.  It seems the writers of the TLSB notes agree with me.  See below for the meaning.

Thanks for the definitive answer (I think). I was reasonably confident that you did believe the story to be literally true but was just trying to make the point for Michelle that there are Christians on this forum who believe such things. I believe you subscribe to the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy so you aren't really allowed to say that a story like this isn't true. If you do, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. That's just the way the doctrine works and I understand this very well from my own Christian experience.

It's the ultimate thinking inside the box and stepping outside of it truly is a slippery slope. I'm a perfect example of that and I know you don't want to end up like me.

Actually, I'd say it is Christianity that is thinking outside the box.  Without faith, no humanist or materialist with all their marbles would say anything supernatural is possible.  Isn't it interesting what you would view as the slippery slope, I view as solid ground and what I view as the slippery slope, you would probably think is solid.  It really is fascinating.  Actually, I respect your views as you have a firm position; I think you are missing out on a lot, but at least you believe what you believe, and I further believe there is always hope for repentance and re-belief.  I think you also are thinking outside the box, just in a different direction than I.  It is those who pick and choose the parts of Scripture that fit their personal agendas that I wonder about - the lukewarm types described in Revelation 3:16.  "So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." 

... M

[Fred]

I think you also are thinking outside the box, just in a different direction than I.  It is those who pick and choose the parts of Scripture that fit their personal agendas that I wonder about - the lukewarm types described in Revelation 3:16.  "So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." 

That's a cool way of looking at it. Neither one of us is lukewarm. Reminds me of scene in the movie Patton where he wouldn't drink with the Russians but he finally agreed to it as one son of a bitch to another.

[Mountaineer]

I think you also are thinking outside the box, just in a different direction than I.  It is those who pick and choose the parts of Scripture that fit their personal agendas that I wonder about - the lukewarm types described in Revelation 3:16.  "So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." 

That's a cool way of looking at it. Neither one of us is lukewarm. Reminds me of scene in the movie Patton where he wouldn't drink with the Russians but he finally agreed to it as one son of a bitch to another.

I like that movie a lot.  Good old General Patton was damn sure of what was right and wrong in the military sense.  George S. did a great job of playing George P.  I wonder how George P. would be handling the middle east mess, or his jello in chief? 

... M