|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 15:49:49 GMT -5
You know, you are literally all over the map. First you say that Mark, Matt, Luke didn't understand Jesus deity, and later John came to understand it more fully and wrote about it. To Mark, Matt, Luke the apple was green. To John the apple was red. In other words, writers describing Jesus' humanity were correct. Writers describing Jesus' deity were also correct. duh. Yep, that's what I said first. And second. And third. How am I all over the map? Here's the problem: Three of our gospels think Jesus was not God. One of them thinks Jesus is. If you choose and read only one in isolation, there will be no question in your mind: Either you'll know Jesus is God, or you'll know he isn't. But when you put them together, you have to make a decision. Is he God, or is he not? The sheer weight of the synoptics will make MOST people assume he is not. So many passages show them as separate entities! But now, if we add to the other side the sheer weight of 2000 years of tradition, we'll assume he is. A person reading ONLY the Bible will, far more often than not, conclude that jesus is not God. That's my hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 15:59:09 GMT -5
You asked if the workers have some inside track to understanding scripture due to their void of understanding the early church teaching. hmmm, sorry, I sometimes forget how important this topic is to you, zorro. "inside track"...omg, no!!!! That would imply apostolic succession, or even more unlikely, a revelation from God himself. "understand scripture"...I took this to mean uncovering the TRUTH about Jesus, perhaps implying universal agreement within scripture, but perhaps you meant only what I mean when I say such things: "understanding what the authors meant to say." However, in my opinion, the mere fact that the workers think the scriptures are in agreement proves they do not understand what the authors meant to say. So, "understand scripture" is out of the question. "void of understanding early church doctrine" (I assume you mean early centuries after the Bible was written)...that sounds too much like "inability to understand early church doctrine" when what I meant was "lack of knowledge of early church doctrine"
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 5, 2009 15:59:55 GMT -5
You know, you are literally all over the map. First you say that Mark, Matt, Luke didn't understand Jesus deity, and later John came to understand it more fully and wrote about it. To Mark, Matt, Luke the apple was green. To John the apple was red. In other words, writers describing Jesus' humanity were correct. Writers describing Jesus' deity were also correct. duh. Yep, that's what I said first. And second. And third. How am I all over the map? Here's the problem: Three of our gospels think Jesus was not God. One of them thinks Jesus is. If you choose and read only one in isolation, there will be no question in your mind: Either you'll know Jesus is God, or you'll know he isn't. But when you put them together, you have to make a decision. Is he God, or is he not? The sheer weight of the synoptics will make MOST people assume he is not. So many passages show them as separate entities! But now, if we add to the other side the sheer weight of 2000 years of tradition, we'll assume he is. A person reading ONLY the Bible will, far more often than not, conclude that jesus is not God. That's my hypothesis. For many centuries people have read the Bible and concluded that Jesus was BOTH God AND Man. An apple can be BOTH green AND red (I'm taking about man's understanding of Jesus, here. One man can believe that Jesus was a man and be correct. Another man can believe he was God and also be correct. However, if one says the other is wrong, then he's no longer correct)
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 16:11:26 GMT -5
For many centuries people have read the Bible and concluded that Jesus was BOTH God AND Man. You mean, people listened to their pastors and went to their seminaries and learned that Jesus was God. First-century Jews surely never imagined that God would come in the body of a man. Like f&w's, they were indoctrinated to believe the Messiah would be someone other than God. Does the N.T. provide enough evidence to overturn this assumption? 100 years of experimentation within f&w ranks says no.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 5, 2009 17:15:07 GMT -5
For many centuries people have read the Bible and concluded that Jesus was BOTH God AND Man. You mean, people listened to their pastors and went to their seminaries and learned that Jesus was God. First-century Jews surely never imagined that God would come in the body of a man. Like f&w's, they were indoctrinated to believe the Messiah would be someone other than God. No, I mean they were taught by the first century fathers that Jesus was God. John, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etal all taught Christ's deity. In the first century Polycarp was especially influential. Does the N.T. provide enough evidence to overturn this assumption? 100 years of experimentation within f&w ranks says noI don't even know how to respond to this. Do you actually consider the mess that is 2x2 doctrine to be equated to empirical evidence against the entire body of belief of Christians over 20 centuries? Wow.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 17:29:49 GMT -5
I don't even know how to respond to this. Do you actually consider the mess that is 2x2 doctrine to be equated to empirical evidence against the entire body of belief of Christians over 20 centuries? Wow. Worse than that, zorro! I'm crazy enough to believe even the f&w doctrine is wrong, and that only a handful of diligent scholars are uncovering what John REALLY meant. I do not think my point is getting across. Time to drop it. I will say this: the f&w's are probably pretty much on schedule to reach the same conclusion as the early church, in about the same amount of time...again, with a little help from outsiders, as the orthodox Christians of the first and second centuries had from the Johannine community. For, surely, it would take a genius to come up with the idea that Jesus is God all on one's own.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 5, 2009 17:35:03 GMT -5
You know, you are literally all over the map. First you say that Mark, Matt, Luke didn't understand Jesus deity, and later John came to understand it more fully and wrote about it. To Mark, Matt, Luke the apple was green. To John the apple was red. In other words, writers describing Jesus' humanity were correct. Writers describing Jesus' deity were also correct. duh. Yep, that's what I said first. And second. And third. How am I all over the map? Here's the problem: Three of our gospels think Jesus was not God. One of them thinks Jesus is. If you choose and read only one in isolation, there will be no question in your mind: Either you'll know Jesus is God, or you'll know he isn't. But when you put them together, you have to make a decision. Is he God, or is he not? The sheer weight of the synoptics will make MOST people assume he is not. So many passages show them as separate entities! But now, if we add to the other side the sheer weight of 2000 years of tradition, we'll assume he is. A person reading ONLY the Bible will, far more often than not, conclude that jesus is not God. That's my hypothesis. Zorro's experience seems to corroborate that. Borg's point is that the pre-Easter Christ is not God, and the post-Easter (risen) Christ is.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 5, 2009 17:36:45 GMT -5
You mean, people listened to their pastors and went to their seminaries and learned that Jesus was God. First-century Jews surely never imagined that God would come in the body of a man. Like f&w's, they were indoctrinated to believe the Messiah would be someone other than God. No, I mean they were taught by the first century fathers that Jesus was God. John, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etal all taught Christ's deity. In the first century Polycarp was especially influential. Does the N.T. provide enough evidence to overturn this assumption? 100 years of experimentation within f&w ranks says noI don't even know how to respond to this. Do you actually consider the mess that is 2x2 doctrine to be equated to empirical evidence against the entire body of belief of Christians over 20 centuries? Wow. Except that the "entire body of belief of Christians over 20 centuries" has been turned on its head by 20th century scholarship, not just by the F&W.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 5, 2009 18:08:14 GMT -5
Because of their relative separation from the Christian world, it seems to me that the f&w movement provides us with a unique test case for studying christianity. Most of us know the story: A man, or men, rejected much of Christianity's historical teachings, chopped them right in half, refusing to consider as reliable anything that wasn't written in the Bible. A conscious decision was made to start completely over, using only the Scripture. Some of these men are and were quite intellectual, incredibly well-versed in the Bible. Far from idiots, in my opinion, they just are not influenced by post-biblical religious thinking. Can the f&w movement, then, give us a clue as to how Christians initially interpreted the New Testament writings? Is this 100-year sample the best possible environment today for a live test run of a new start-up christianity, using only the Bible? The fascinating result: For the most part, 100 years later, it still has never crossed anybody's mind that Jesus is God. I think it's an intriguing question, DC. I think part of the confusion in the reading of your question is that you start from a neutral POV (at least for the purpose of this question) regarding the validity of current orthodox Christianity's interpretation of scripture, and of the F&W interpretation of scripture. Others who read your question start with a very firm opinion as to the validity of each. But if one starts with a neutral POV, then one can ponder the scenario you set forth. F&W could be considered, in some ways, a microcosm of the early church--- in the sense that they use very little other than scripture itself to construct and refine their doctrine. HOWEVER.... and this is where I think your scenario fails.... the F&W founders were likely quite well versed in the doctrine of the churches and this knowledge is likely to have influenced their interpretation of scripture. "The false churches believe Jesus is God. They're all hell-bound. That belief is false." etc.....
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 18:40:00 GMT -5
HOWEVER.... and this is where I think your scenario fails.... the F&W founders were likely quite well versed in the doctrine of the churches and this knowledge is likely to have influenced their interpretation of scripture. "The false churches believe Jesus is God. They're all hell-bound. That belief is false." etc..... I will have to think about this. Perhaps I give our early "f&w fathers" more credit for sincerity than I should. I think the conclusion that others churches are hell-bound comes from the cart following the horse...the conclusion that Jesus is not God, etc. Not a determination to believe differently, just for the sake of being different. It is possible you are right, though! If a person is thoroughly disgusted with their own church, they may search for reasons to believe differently. I have read books and thought to myself, "this author hasn't really thought this through, he is presenting this far-out interpretation merely for its shock value."
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 5, 2009 18:44:51 GMT -5
I don't doubt their sincerity -- but I do think if a person is thoroughly fed up with his church -- and virtually all of Christendom -- ALL of the traditional teachings would fall under the microscope and anything that seemed remotely suspect would be subject to being jettisoned. I'm just saying that the F&W founders did not start from a pure position of knowing nothing but scripture. They knew the established doctrines and were likely predisposed against much of it.
True, most workers in our day have little knowledge of theological tradition -- but they DO have the influence of those early F&W fathers who came out of the churches they later condemned.
|
|
|
Post by rjs on Jun 5, 2009 19:03:19 GMT -5
No. They are not idiots. Just influenced by wrong beliefs that haven't been examined or questioned for so long. Generations have internalized these beliefs only to pass them on to others. Separations from others produces a lonely isolated person who can't reach out to others. Wonderful people. Bad system.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jun 5, 2009 19:03:26 GMT -5
Take a look at the difference between yourself and clearday. Toss in Nathan, Bert, Jesse, lin, freespirit, gem.... All of them I consider to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. They may worship differently than I do, but they BELIEVE. This list of names seems deficient somehow, as though notable persons were omitted...
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jun 5, 2009 19:12:32 GMT -5
Take a look at the difference between yourself and clearday. Toss in Nathan, Bert, Jesse, lin, freespirit, gem.... All of them I consider to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. They may worship differently than I do, but they BELIEVE. This list of names seems deficient somehow, as though notable persons were omitted... I thought the same thing GIC.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 5, 2009 20:43:15 GMT -5
I have trouble making this Jesus is God thing add up. For example, if God forsook Jesus on the cross did he forsake himself? If Jesus descended into Hell did God go into Hell? If Jesus is sitting at God's right hand, is God also sitting at his own right hand. Are we seeing double. Is God then sitting at Jesus left hand, or at his own left hand. So then God is sitting at his own left hand and also at his own right hand.
What does 'is' mean anyway? When the word 'is' is stuck between two entities doesn't it mean they are an identity. Perhaps we need a special 'is' that applies only to heavenly entities. One that means they are the same and not the same. Perhaps we should say, Jesus is God, which means that Jesus is God and is not God, all at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 20:48:04 GMT -5
What does 'is' mean anyway? When the word 'is' is stuck between two entities doesn't it mean they are an identity. Perhaps we need a special 'is' that applies only to heavenly entities. One that means they are the same and not the same. Perhaps we should say, Jesus is God. Yes, this are what I am thinking. Maybe "is" aren't the most accurate word. Are Zorro around? Didn't he say "Jesus is God" aren't the best way to describe the Trinitarian relationship?
|
|
|
Post by lin on Jun 5, 2009 20:51:48 GMT -5
which is the biggest hurdle. The f&W don't accept others or others don't accept the f&w. If the f&w are living a lie,don't worry about it. They'll wither on the vine and you'll have it all to yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 5, 2009 20:57:02 GMT -5
Take a look at the difference between yourself and clearday. Toss in Nathan, Bert, Jesse, lin, freespirit, gem.... All of them I consider to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. They may worship differently than I do, but they BELIEVE. This list of names seems deficient somehow, as though notable persons were omitted... That's what ellipses are for... to indicate continuation, or an incomplete list. Note the three dots after gem...
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 5, 2009 22:30:17 GMT -5
This list of names seems deficient somehow, as though notable persons were omitted... That's what ellipses are for... to indicate continuation, or an incomplete list. Note the three dots after gem... I'm pretty sure I'm the second dot, maybe the first one. But back to the topic. You're correct, Gene. It really wasn't the kind of experiment DC envisions because much of the early fellowship doctrine seems purely reactionary. However, I always enjoyed the testimonies of these older rural types who ran a farm, and read only the Bible and maybe the newspaper on Saturday. They are a dying breed. Man, some of them knew their Bible and they sought to understand it and apply the teachings of Jesus in their lives. They didn't worry too much about whether Jesus was God or not. It's interesting to contrast the scholarly approach to understanding the Bible to just reading the thing for yourself. I'm not sure you can say one is better than the other. However, if someone was starting from scratch, here is what I would suggest. Read the Bible and only the Bible until you've read it a few times, before you consider a study Bible and some early church history and other material. Here is a paraphrase of something I read in Borg which applies to DC's question. The nature of our relationship with God matters much more than the nature of our belief. If you're trying to understand Jesus as a real and living example, which means working his teaching into the issues of daily life, how much does the question of the Trinity matter by comparison? How much of your energy should you spend on the first question and how much should you spend on the second? I'm not sure that the answer to the second question gets us anywhere that matters. Still, I admit I personally find the second question quite interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 5, 2009 23:51:01 GMT -5
I've asked two times already for someone who doesn't believe in Jesus' deity to explain this verse. Maybe the third times a charm:
Titus 2:11For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2009 0:01:43 GMT -5
or what
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 6, 2009 0:09:12 GMT -5
Except that the "entire body of belief of Christians over 20 centuries" has been turned on its head by 20th century scholarship, not just by the F&W.
Not really. There's not much really all that new and different being introduced currently. The postmodern, emergent movement is very much like the wave of liberalism that took place in the late 1900s. Panentheism and process theology (your current read, Borg is a panentheist) has also been around since the 1900s. Orthodox beliefs have been challenged as far back as the days when the Apostles and early church fathers dealt with "false teachers" of Gnosticism. The emergent movement seems to be gaining more of an ear for universalism, but as for any "20th century scholarship" turning orthodoxy "on its head"? Nah.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Jun 6, 2009 0:09:17 GMT -5
LOL! That was funny, Bert. ;D
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 6, 2009 0:40:34 GMT -5
Careful there, bert.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jun 6, 2009 0:42:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jun 6, 2009 0:45:33 GMT -5
Take a look at the difference between yourself and clearday. Toss in Nathan, Bert, Jesse, lin, freespirit, gem.... All of them I consider to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. They may worship differently than I do, but they BELIEVE. This list of names seems deficient somehow, as though notable persons were omitted... Yea yea that's right cuzzie
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 6, 2009 0:50:45 GMT -5
Except that the "entire body of belief of Christians over 20 centuries" has been turned on its head by 20th century scholarship, not just by the F&W.Not really. There's not much really all that new and different being introduced currently. The postmodern, emergent movement is very much like the wave of liberalism that took place in the late 1900s. Panentheism and process theology (your current read, Borg is a panentheist) has also been around since the 1900s. Orthodox beliefs have been challenged as far back as the days when the Apostles and early church fathers dealt with "false teachers" of Gnosticism. The emergent movement seems to be gaining more of an ear for universalism, but as for any "20th century scholarship" turning orthodoxy "on its head"? Nah. Do you mean the late 1800s above? I think that what has undermined orthodoxy is that the means and methods of selling ideology are much better understood, through the work of philosophers such as Derrida, Foucoult and Barthes. I don't pretend to know a lot about these guys, but the ideas of marginalization, binary oppositions and cultural constructs have permeated every academic area; no less so in religious studies. I've seen this influence in a few interesting books I've read which do seriously challenge commonly accepted beliefs, and I think, in a refreshing way. And, I guess I have to look up "panentheism" now do I? Anything like "pantheism"? Hmm. Ralph Waldo Emerson was one. I'll have to get my head around that one later.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 6, 2009 0:53:10 GMT -5
I've asked two times already for someone who doesn't believe in Jesus' deity to explain this verse. Maybe the third times a charm: Titus 2:11For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. And there are others. What I find is that I can't take all the verses I read that would impact on the question of Jesus divinity and make a tidy package out of them.
|
|