Figuring Out Religion

[jafs]

Ehrman was raised Christian, and became a born-again fundamentalist, believing the Bible was all literally true, and only after learning ancient languages and studying more, came to understand it differently.  He went to Moody's and Wheaton, and then got both a masters in divinity and a PhD in New Testament studies at Princeton.

If anything, his emotional need was for it to be true, and he thought that further study would solidify his faith/understanding.  But as he learned more, he couldn't be a fundamentalist any more, but continued to be a Christian.

He was also a minister for a short time, but lost his faith due to the problem of suffering/evil, which is a very difficult problem to sort out and retain belief in traditional theology.  And now he's agnostic.

[Fred]

Ehrman has a has a new book coming out in march that is going to be titled, "Jesus Before the Gospels, How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior". On his website I learned that his original title was just the first part - "Jesus Before the Gospels" and the publishers added the rest to make it more provocative and thus sell more books. With a title like that I suspect the publishers will have succeeded pretty well.

Should be very interesting. There is no question that early Christians made up stories about Jesus because there are lots of writings available that never made it into the Bible, including some about his early childhood that are hilarious. The question is did any of the made up stories make it into the New Testament? When you look at the different birth narratives in the synoptic gospels I think it's hard not to conclude that somebody must have been making some of this stuff up. So Like I said, this should be an interesting read. I'll be looking for when I can get it for free at the library.

[Maddy]

I have a little more time this morning, so I thought I'd just sum up the most salient points pertinent to my earlier post relating to my skepticism of Paul's claim to authority and Mountaineer's question about Acts 9:

Paul's "meeting" with Jesus involved a personal revelatory experience in which he saw a flash of light and heard a voice claiming to be Jesus while traveling on the road to Damascus.  According to the account in Acts 9, Paul's two traveling companions "heard the voice but saw no one."  (In a separate account in Acts 22, the two companions saw the light but did not hear the voice.)  It is upon this single revelatory experience that literally everything Paul teaches is based, since Paul never met the historic Jesus nor, apparently, showed any interest in learning about Jesus and his teachings from the 12 men who had traveled and discipled with him for the better part of three years.  By his own admission, Paul's knowledge came from none of the apostles--indeed, from "no man."  (Galatians 2:6.)

During his ministry, Jesus warned his disciples that after his death there would be imposters that would come in his name or that would claim to be him.  (Luke 21:8.)  These imposters would come in the "wilderness" and would perform "great signs and wonders," causing many to be deceived.  (Matthew 7:21-23; 24: 24-27.)  Jesus warned his disciples not to be deceived, making clear that his next appearance on earth would be a plain and unmistakable fact, observable universally "from east to west."  (Matt. 24:4-6, 26-27; see also Luke 17:24 and Rev. 1:7, both confirming that Jesus' next earthly coming would be unmistakable and visible to all.) 

Thus, Jesus' warning made clear, first, that he would not appear in the manner claimed by Paul, and second, that we are to summarily reject the claim of anyone who would purport to have had an experience such as Paul's.  Jesus stated:  "Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There!' do not believe it.  For false christs and prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.  See, I have told you beforehand.  Therefore if they way to you, 'Look, He is in the desert!' do not go out; or 'Look, He is in the inner rooms!' do not believe it."  (Matt. 24:23-26.)

Jesus further emphasized to his disciples that "signs and miracles" (such as those later attributed to Paul as proof of the genuineness of his experience) should be given no significance in discerning the truth of such a claim.  In fact, Jesus stated that the ability to do "signs and miracles" would be one of the defining characteristics of the imposters that would come claiming to be him or to be speaking in his name.  It is significant that when confronted with doubts about the veracity of Paul's claims and the source of his authority, Paul invoked as proof of his (self-declared) apostleship his ability to perform "signs and wonders" in Jesus' name.  (2 Cor. 12:12; Romans 15:19.)  Moreover, the one other characteristic by which Jesus stated that these imposters could be identified--that they would work the negation of the Law given to Moses and teach others to break it--is perhaps the most defining feature of Paul's teachings, and the feature which most distinguishes his teachings from those of Christ.

Some interesting scriptural parallels:

- The road to Damascus is specifically referred to in the Old Testament as "wilderness."  (Kings 19.15.)

- The reference to "wilderness" in scripture is often a metaphor referring to the area occupied by Satan.

- We are told that as a result of the flash of light he experienced in the wilderness of Damascus, Paul later became blind.  Throughout the Bible, blindness is used as a metaphor to describe spiritual emptiness.  Throughout Jesus' ministry, he uses metaphors about "seeing" and "blindness" to refer to the understanding (or lack of understanding) of spiritual things.  Jesus stated that he came to earth to "restore sight to the blind," and his miracles often paralleled that theme.  Conversely,  we find several examples in the Old Testament where God inflicts blindness as punishment for refusal to obey his law.  (See Genesis 19; Deuteronomy 28.)  Paul's experience of being physically blinded in connection with a supposed conversion experience runs directly counter to this well-entrenched pattern.

[Fred]

It's interesting to me to see the lengths we will go at times, to try to undermine the Bible.  I used to do it myself, with the previous generation of writers.  Now Ehrman and others have stepped up to continue the assault.  Fortunately we have equally or better educated scholars who do a great job of pointing us back to reality.  But at some point, the critics should look inside their hearts and try to figure out why they need the Bible to be untrue.

I think the Bible does an excellent job of undermining itself without the help of scholars like Ehrman. He just puts the icing on the cake.

And I can throw the same question right back at you about looking inside of yourself to figure out why you need the Bible to be true.

(And BTW, I had already read the piece by Mike Licona that you linked to. Every time I read a book by Ehrman or someone like him I always do some Googling to see what others have to say. As for Mike Licona, he seems like a pretty fair guy but I don't consider him a "critical scholar". He's not allowed to be one. If he criticizes the Bible he will lose his job. I think he already got himself in trouble once for even suggesting that there might be an error it).

[Maddy]

I don't know if you are a Messianic Jew or not, but if you are then I think you are probably much closer to what early Christianity was like than are any Christian group striving for the same thing.

No, just somebody trying to get to the truth.  However, near the top of my reading list are some books by D. Thomas Lancaster which explore the gospel from the messianic angle.  I think it's important to understand the cultural context in which the gospel arose, but that's about as far as it goes.  Perhaps the thing that most propels me to understand the messianic viewpoint is the fact that it's one of the few renditions that have not been thoroughly subsumed by Pauline doctrine.

[jafs]

Well, suffering is just a part of life, for agnostics, most likely.

The difficulty is in reconciling suffering, especially what looks like needless suffering or the suffering of innocents, with a loving God.

[Greg]

Well, suffering is just a part of life, for agnostics, most likely.

The difficulty is in reconciling suffering, especially what looks like needless suffering or the suffering of innocents, with a loving God.

Goes back to who is innocent. We've all done bad things and from a justice standpoint, should have to pay for what we have done wrong. One person might be "better" than another, but we're all terrible and deserve the punishment for being terrible. I look at God is just over God is love. God wants us to be in heaven with him due to love but can't due to his purity and that we need to pay for our sins before being able to be with him.

[Fred]

It's interesting to me to see the lengths we will go at times, to try to undermine the Bible.  I used to do it myself, with the previous generation of writers.  Now Ehrman and others have stepped up to continue the assault.  Fortunately we have equally or better educated scholars who do a great job of pointing us back to reality.  But at some point, the critics should look inside their hearts and try to figure out why they need the Bible to be untrue.

I think the Bible does an excellent job of undermining itself without the help of scholars like Ehrman. He just puts the icing on the cake.

And I can throw the same question right back at you about looking inside of yourself to figure out why you need the Bible to be true.

(And BTW, I had already read the piece by Mike Licona that you linked to. Every time I read a book by Ehrman or someone like him I always do some Googling to see what others have to say. As for Mike Licona, he seems like a pretty fair guy but I don't consider him a "critical scholar". He's not allowed to be one. If he criticizes the Bible he will lose his job. I think he already got himself in trouble once for even suggesting that there might be an error it).

That's a good practice, googling to find the other side.  I've begun trying to do that more recently as well. 

The term "critical scholar" is an interesting one.  It seems like I could easily claim something like "the majority of critical scholars believe that the Bible is bunk."  But if the definition of "critical scholar" is someone that believes the Bible is bunk, is that a useful claim?  In other words, I don't care if a scholar is critical or not, I care about the merit of his/her arguments.  And in this case, I think Licona has a much better argument than Ehrman.  And yes, I'm a critical scholar as well.  I'm just critical of the critical scholars. 

I'm defining "critical scholar" as someone who is free to go where the evidence takes him. I'm no more of an expert on Greek and Hebrew linguistics or textual criticism than I am of global warming and it actually sounds like pretty boring stuff to me. Ehrman at least makes it interesting. With Licona, on the other hand, I already know what conclusions he is going to come to about the authenticity of books in the Bible so I wasn't holding my breath in suspense before reading his article.

[Mountaineer]

Well, suffering is just a part of life, for agnostics, most likely.

The difficulty is in reconciling suffering, especially what looks like needless suffering or the suffering of innocents, with a loving God.

Goes back to who is innocent. We've all done bad things and from a justice standpoint, should have to pay for what we have done wrong. One person might be "better" than another, but we're all terrible and deserve the punishment for being terrible. I look at God is just over God is love. God wants us to be in heaven with him due to love but can't due to his purity and that we need to pay for our sins before being able to be with him.

Something to ponder:

Jesus took away the sin of the world. When we see this as ontological, Jesus takes our sin (no easy task, it caused Him a great deal of suffering) and took it to hell where it belongs with the devil and left it there when He was raised from the dead thus able to declare "Peace" to mankind as he did to the disciples gathered in the upper room.  He has the power and the promise to separate us from sin finally.... unless we choose to hang onto our sin....in which case He allows us to go to hell with it. That is what human free will accomplishes--it gives us the opportunity to go to hell.

... Mountaineer

[Fred]

When we see this as ontological...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4 ... e=youtu.be

[Mountaineer]

Blessings to all as we prepare to celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  My hope is that all will be ready for his second coming.

I don't have a faith family.  I am a member of One Holy Christian and Apostolic Church, and it is the desire of the Only True God to have all of us be members of the same through baptism and teaching, just as Christ Jesus instituted.

The fact is the Muslim God is false and does not exists. They call him Allah.  He is not the God of the Old Testament or the New.  This god is an idol.  Religious Jews do not confess Jesus as Lord.  They do not worship or call upon His name.  They are unbelievers in the real true and living God - the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  Heathens have other gods.  Of course these gods do not exist.  They are images of wood and stone and of their imaginations.

Salvation is found in no one other than the one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.  He died for the sin of the world and by His Gospel, the Holy Spirit works faith where and when He pleases.  Apart from faith in Jesus Christ there is no salvation or eternal life.  There is no mania.  It is simply the truth which the Scriptures and confessions reveal.  This truth does not do damage to the human family, but rather saves it.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

The fact is the Muslim God is false and does not exists. They call him Allah.  He is not the God of the Old Testament or the New.  This god is an idol. 

... Mountaineer

And you know this as fact [rather than opinion] how?

Apart from faith in Jesus Christ there is no salvation or eternal life. 

... Mountaineer

And you know this as fact [rather than opinion] how?

I confess what Christians have confessed, God's Word, for almost two thousand years.  You can say it is opinion if you like ... several billion opinions.  Peace be with you and a very Merry Christmas. 

... Mountaineer

[Fred]

Blessings to all as we prepare to celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  My hope is that all will be ready for his second coming.

I don't have a faith family.  I am a member of One Holy Christian and Apostolic Church, and it is the desire of the Only True God to have all of us be members of the same through baptism and teaching, just as Christ Jesus instituted.

The fact is the Muslim God is false and does not exists. They call him Allah.  He is not the God of the Old Testament or the New.  This god is an idol.  Religious Jews do not confess Jesus as Lord.  They do not worship or call upon His name.  They are unbelievers in the real true and living God - the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  Heathens have other gods.  Of course these gods do not exist.  They are images of wood and stone and of their imaginations.

Salvation is found in no one other than the one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.  He died for the sin of the world and by His Gospel, the Holy Spirit works faith where and when He pleases.  Apart from faith in Jesus Christ there is no salvation or eternal life.  There is no mania.  It is simply the truth which the Scriptures and confessions reveal.  This truth does not do damage to the human family, but rather saves it.

... Mountaineer

What Mountaineer is really trying to say....

[ZedThou]

My hope is that all will be ready for his second coming.

When do you predict this will occur, exactly? Will any of us still be alive, in order to be ready?

Edit - nevermind. Mountaineer has lost all grasp on reality.

Something to ponder:

Jesus took away the sin of the world. When we see this as ontological, Jesus takes our sin (no easy task, it caused Him a great deal of suffering) and took it to hell where it belongs with the devil and left it there when He was raised from the dead thus able to declare "Peace" to mankind as he did to the disciples gathered in the upper room.  He has the power and the promise to separate us from sin finally.... unless we choose to hang onto our sin....in which case He allows us to go to hell with it. That is what human free will accomplishes--it gives us the opportunity to go to hell.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

My hope is that all will be ready for his second coming.

When do you predict this will occur, exactly? Will any of us still be alive, in order to be ready?

Edit - nevermind. Mountaineer has lost all grasp on reality.

Something to ponder:

Jesus took away the sin of the world. When we see this as ontological, Jesus takes our sin (no easy task, it caused Him a great deal of suffering) and took it to hell where it belongs with the devil and left it there when He was raised from the dead thus able to declare "Peace" to mankind as he did to the disciples gathered in the upper room.  He has the power and the promise to separate us from sin finally.... unless we choose to hang onto our sin....in which case He allows us to go to hell with it. That is what human free will accomplishes--it gives us the opportunity to go to hell.

... Mountaineer

Suggest reading Matthew 24 for those who wish to know a few details about timing of Christ's return.  It is not my prediction that matters in the least, only God's Word.  Everything you need to know has been revealed.  Just be ready and avoid false prophets.

For those who accept the authority of Scripture, everything is a gift from God - faith, repentance, material goods, life, even suffering and temporal death, etc.  Thus, I think the unrepentant sinner is in dire danger as they have rejected the gift of repentance.  The question is, who is going to be God - God, or man (putting faith in fleeting human reason instead of the Eternal One, the Word)?  Unfortunately, I also believe that those who do not understand unrepentant sin and its implications are unable to do so, regardless of their own efforts or their fellow man's effort to help them understand; only really hearing and internalizing God's Word can do that.  All others can do is continue to scatter the seeds; it is God's work to grow and nurture them as He chooses.

Have a most blessed day and remember all your gifts - there is always hope. 

... Mountaineer

[jafs]

There are two ways to understand atheism/religious belief.

One is that each group is making a "claim" about "factual" things/events.  In this case, each group could reasonably be asked to "prove it".  The other is that each group believes differently - atheists believe there is no God, and religious believers believe there is one.

In that case, no proof is required of either, and each are free to believe as they wish.

But, it's not reasonable to apply different standards to the different groups, ie. to require that one side "prove their case" and that the other side gets to merely believe what they like, which seems common to me.  And, it's somewhat difficult, perhaps impossible, to "prove a negative", so requiring atheists to prove there is no God is a bit funny.

My own understanding/view is that belief is not knowledge, and we have belief for those things that aren't capable of being known.  So it's perfectly fine with me for people to either believe in God or not, since either stance is supportable through experience/observation, and we can't know for sure either way. 

I just wish that more people were ok with believing as they do, and allowing others to believe differently, rather than feeling the need to impose their view on the rest of us.

[barrett]

Mountaineer, your posts on religion really creep me out. So passive aggressive. Whatever it is that you believe in, all I can say is no thank you. It's a vile choice you put forward and all I can hope is that you are not in a position to influence (too many) young minds.

[Fred]

Doug Wilson responding to Dawkins:

https://dougwils.com/s21-atheism-and-ap ... =hootsuite

As Samuel Leith once pointed out, here are three kinds of agnostics. One says he doesn’t know, but wishes he did. The answer to him is the promise of Christ. Seek and ye shall find. He won’t be an agnostic long. The next is the agnosticism of someone who spends all his time in nightclubs cruising for sex. “I don’t know and I don’t care.” This guy doesn’t require an answer. It is not an intellectual stance.

But then there is the dogmatic agnostic. “I don’t know, you don’t know, and nobody can know.”

Given the three choices I would probably best be categorized as the second kind of agnostic but I have not yet degenerated to the level of cruising nightclubs looking for sex. At my age it would probably be pointless any way.

But for those who seek and find Christ's redemption from the evils of the nightclub scene, there is still this temptation:  http://www.charismanews.com/us/45671-sh ... -into-porn

And speaking of Douglas Wilson, there is also this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthro ... in-moscow/

Although I regard myself as an agnostic as far as belief in God, or at least in something mystical and unknown beyond the material universe, I consider myself a hard core atheist as far as belief in the Biblical God. No, I cannot prove that he doesn't exist, but I'm certain enough.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer, your posts on religion really creep me out. So passive aggressive. Whatever it is that you believe in, all I can say is no thank you. It's a vile choice you put forward and all I can hope is that you are not in a position to influence (too many) young minds.

Pray for me. 

... M

[Mountaineer]

There are two ways to understand atheism/religious belief.

One is that each group is making a "claim" about "factual" things/events.  In this case, each group could reasonably be asked to "prove it".  The other is that each group believes differently - atheists believe there is no God, and religious believers believe there is one.

In that case, no proof is required of either, and each are free to believe as they wish.

But, it's not reasonable to apply different standards to the different groups, ie. to require that one side "prove their case" and that the other side gets to merely believe what they like, which seems common to me.  And, it's somewhat difficult, perhaps impossible, to "prove a negative", so requiring atheists to prove there is no God is a bit funny.

My own understanding/view is that belief is not knowledge, and we have belief for those things that aren't capable of being known.  So it's perfectly fine with me for people to either believe in God or not, since either stance is supportable through experience/observation, and we can't know for sure either way. 

I just wish that more people were ok with believing as they do, and allowing others to believe differently, rather than feeling the need to impose their view on the rest of us.

Re. the statement I bolded:  That sounds like a statement I could get on board with.  Unfortunately, it is not what the Triune God says in his Word.  I humbly suggest, go with God's Word, not mine.  I am a sinner in need of a Savior .... as are all of us. 

... M

[jafs]

And there it is.

You want to convince me and others that your belief system is the correct one, and that we should adopt it.

That's the beginning of conflict and leads to things like "holy wars". 

It's really too bad it's not enough for you to believe it.

[Fred]

Re. the statement I bolded:  That sounds like a statement I could get on board with.  Unfortunately, it is not what the Triune God says in his Word.  I humbly suggest, go with God's Word, not mine.  I am a sinner in need of a Savior .... as are all of us. 

Who is the tirune God? Care to elaborate? And have you talked to him?

I'm guessing you probably have. What did he have to say (I mean, beyond "I AM the triune God"), Does he like Donald Trump or does he prefer one of the other candidates?

[Greg]

Back to the topics of figuring things out. This is one thing I've come across lately that I'm having trouble with figuring out what seems "correct". I have attached a pro non-trinitarian and a trinitarian article. Also there is a book by Kermit Zarley (http://servetustheevangelical.com/tract ... sus_4.html) about this topic as well. Any thoughts on this? I realize this gets into the weeds of Monotheism/Christianity but that why we're trying to all figure things out in a polite and respectful manner. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

Nontrinitarian
http://www.truthortradition.com/article ... be-saved-2

Trinitarian
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-formul ... he-trinity

also on the subject of figuring things out, medical artist Richard Neave has figured out what Jesus would have looked like (more or less).. using anthropology and forensics

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3359548/Is-real-face-JESUS-Experts-use-forensics-reveal-Christ-looked-like.html



interesting article..

[Mountaineer]

Re. the statement I bolded:  That sounds like a statement I could get on board with.  Unfortunately, it is not what the Triune God says in his Word.  I humbly suggest, go with God's Word, not mine.  I am a sinner in need of a Savior .... as are all of us. 

Who is the tirune God? Care to elaborate? And have you talked to him?

I'm guessing you probably have. What did he have to say (I mean, beyond "I AM the triune God"), Does he like Donald Trump or does he prefer one of the other candidates?

Fred, what is it that you believe?  What is it you are trying to accomplish with your current line of thought?  What is your, dare say I, obsession with talking to God and why would you ever ask me that (assuming you have read my previous posts)?  You honestly sound like someone who is very afraid of something, perhaps in being wrong in your beliefs, perhaps you just like being defensive, perhaps you had some very unpleasant experiences with the judgmental types?  Anyway, perhaps if you stated you beliefs, why you hold them, are you sure of them, what ifs, etc. rather than so much of what you don't believe it would help .... at least might help in advancing this discussion .... if you have interest in doing so.  I'm hoping you have interest in building up rather than tearing down and we can have a fruitful conversation.  You seem like there could be some interesting material hiding underneath all the bravado.  I apologize if I've read what you've written incorrectly and read in more than you intend.

Have a wonderful evening,  .... M

[Maddy]

I have attached a pro non-trinitarian and a trinitarian article. Also there is a book by Kermit Zarley (http://servetustheevangelical.com/tract ... sus_4.html) about this topic as well. Any thoughts on this? I realize this gets into the weeds of Monotheism/Christianity but that why we're trying to all figure things out in a polite and respectful manner.

Is an LLC with three members One or Three?

I have a hard time understanding the debate, much less the "die in a ditch" need to be on the winning side.  Each view attempts to reduce to concrete, physical terms something that by definition defies being pinned down by the usual metaphysical constraints of the world we live in.  Are the three "persons" three separate beings?  Three separate aspects of the same being?  Or three different names for the same being?  Each of these characterizations, it seems to me, is simply a construct of the human mind by which we attempt to recreate God in our own image.