Question for the Evangelical Community

[Terrywoodenpic]

Metis and Terrywoodenpic,
Then we don't have a common enough foundation to have much of a meaningful discourse.

@e.r.m. Said…...

“Then we don't have a common enough foundation to have much of a meaningful discourse. “

You have raised an interesting few questions with that statement.

Do you not believe that all Christians, of what ever denomination. have more in common than they have differences?

Do you feel that your faith is so routed in the absolute veracity of the Bible, that it would be destroyed, were you to find that that were not the case?

The reverse position that I and others hold… Is that the scripture in the various bibles were written and gathered by imperfect people like ourselves, who like us were struggling to find the truth. This Leads us to the belief that that the Bible scriptures never were perfect, but are the best that we have.

They relate to the pre Christian Jewish scripture, to the times of Christ's mission on earth, and to the church's subsequent growth during the apostolic period. All of this new material was written and compiled in it’s present form, from memory, or in the case of Paul’s teaching by inspiration alone.

Faith is strengthened by finding truth when none is presupposed. Those things that can not be confirmed or are proved to be non factual. Can still be used as lessons in behaviour, ethics and faith.

There is no down side in regarding the bible in this way.

An inerrant view of the Bible can, and often does lead to complete loss of faith, when a believer finds that there are passages in the Bible that are not Literally true, or indeed factually untrue.

This Inerrant view is a dangerous and unsafe belief that leads to eventual loss of faith in God.

 

[metis]

This Inerrant view is a dangerous and unsafe belief that leads to eventual loss of faith in God.

An excellent post overall, imo, but I think you went a tad too far with the last sentence. Yes, it can be true as I've seen for myself, but certainly not always.

But I do believe your point is generally valid largely because a belief in inerrancy puts a blind faith in something without realizing the complexity of the issue of "divine inspiration", so what can happen with a person who believes in inerrancy is that once they may realize that it's an untenable position, they could possibly lose their faith altogether-- iow, "the bigger they are, the harder they fall".

Also, even if we pretend that the Bible is inerrant, is our ability to comprehend it inerrant? Anyone who has spent even one hour in Bible study should well know that two intelligent and believing people can disagree as to how a narrative is to be interpreted.

Is any Bible translation today inerrant? If so, which? When asked this question, some come back and say that the original manuscripts were inerrant. However, how could anyone possibly know this since we don't have any original manuscripts? Also, the earliest versions that we do have contain "variations".

Throughout the Bible we see what theologians call "variations", iow narratives that simply don't match, and there are myriads of these, such as how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, where were he/they located, and what did he/they say? No two gospels match. Now does this mean that the resurrection couldn't have possibly happened? Of course not.

Anyhow...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

An excellent post overall, imo, but I think you went a tad too far with the last sentence. Yes, it can be true as I've seen for myself, but certainly not always.

But I do believe your point is generally valid largely because a belief in inerrancy puts a blind faith in something without realizing the complexity of the issue of "divine inspiration", so what can happen with a person who believes in inerrancy is that once they may realize that it's an untenable position, they could possibly lose their faith altogether-- iow, "the bigger they are, the harder they fall".

Also, even if we pretend that the Bible is inerrant, is our ability to comprehend it inerrant? Anyone who has spent even one hour in Bible study should well know that two intelligent and believing people can disagree as to how a narrative is to be interpreted.

Is any Bible translation today inerrant? If so, which? When asked this question, some come back and say that the original manuscripts were inerrant. However, how could anyone possibly know this since we don't have any original manuscripts? Also, the earliest versions that we do have contain "variations".

Throughout the Bible we see what theologians call "variations", iow narratives that simply don't match, and there are myriads of these, such as how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, where were he/they located, and what did he/they say? No two gospels match. Now does this mean that the resurrection couldn't have possibly happened? Of course not.

Anyhow...

I did think of altering the last sentence to "sometimes" or to "can" but in the end I am quite sure that it does lead to loss of faith. I was careful not to add or suggest that it always did so......

 

[Phantasman]

@e.r.m. Said…...

“Then we don't have a common enough foundation to have much of a meaningful discourse. “

You have raised an interesting few questions with that statement.

Do you not believe that all Christians, of what ever denomination. have more in common than they have differences?

Do you feel that your faith is so routed in the absolute veracity of the Bible, that it would be destroyed, were you to find that that were not the case?

The reverse position that I and others hold… Is that the scripture in the various bibles were written and gathered by imperfect people like ourselves, who like us were struggling to find the truth. This Leads us to the belief that that the Bible scriptures never were perfect, but are the best that we have.

They relate to the pre Christian Jewish scripture, to the times of Christ's mission on earth, and to the church's subsequent growth during the apostolic period. All of this new material was written and compiled in it’s present form, from memory, or in the case of Paul’s teaching by inspiration alone.

Faith is strengthened by finding truth when none is presupposed. Those things that can not be confirmed or are proved to be non factual. Can still be used as lessons in behaviour, ethics and faith.

There is no down side in regarding the bible in this way.

An inerrant view of the Bible can, and often does lead to complete loss of faith, when a believer finds that there are passages in the Bible that are not Literally true, or indeed factually untrue.

This Inerrant view is a dangerous and unsafe belief that leads to eventual loss of faith in God.

Agreed. Constantine invited 1800 church leaders throughout the Empire (alone) to justify where the Gospel (or religion of Rome) stood in an all in one ideology. Only 300 showed up. Even the division in these 300 found Constantine exiling those who didn't agree with the early catholic ideology. Heresy was identified at Nicaea and punishments issued. The 300 had identified the other 1500, and the cleaning began.

Again, the church of Peter wins over the church by Paul.

It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict. -Edict of Thessalonica

Again, tying the Incident at Antioch, showed that the Pharisee's once again instituted the office of "Priests" to control the church and the veil was repaired allowing the Holy of Holies to exist. Priests became celestial authority on earth by their own declaration, not that of Gods.

Matthew:
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Colossians:
2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Paul knew that the emerging catholic ideology was following a flesh path over spiritual gnosis, gnosis being the mystery of God explained by the spiritual knowledge Paul exclaims. The catholic idea was a return to Doctrines of Men that Christ referred to. The Nicene Creed and edicts were the doctrines of men. And Paul saw it coming.


8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:


16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?

(all from Colossians 2 and to the Laodiceans)

 

[metis]

Again, the church of Peter wins over the church by Paul.

Paul was part of the "one" faith under the leadership of the apostles after Jesus was crucified. He did not operate independently and he made that abundantly clear.

Again, tying the Incident at Antioch, showed that the Pharisee's once again instituted the office of "Priests" to control the church

Huh?

Matthew:
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Which is most likely a reference to what is called in Judaism the "Oral Law" used by the majority of Pharisees, but not all.

Jesus seems to oppose that, instead pushing back on the expansion of Torah that included additional stipulations. OTOH, Jesus himself actually instituted his own "oral law" based on simpler, but also very liberal, demands.

The catholic idea was a return to Doctrines of Men that Christ referred to. The Nicene Creed and edicts were the doctrines of men.

The Nicene Creed has literally nothing to do with the Oral Law, and its entirety comes from the church's interpretation of the scriptures that was used to try and combat teachings from "heretical" churches that were using different books.

 

[Phantasman]

Paul was part of the "one" faith under the leadership of the apostles after Jesus was crucified. He did not operate independently and he made that abundantly clear.

Huh?

Which is most likely a reference to what is called in Judaism the "Oral Law" used by the majority of Pharisees, but not all.

Jesus seems to oppose that, instead pushing back on the expansion of Torah that included additional stipulations. OTOH, Jesus himself actually instituted his own "oral law" based on simpler, but also very liberal, demands.

The Nicene Creed has literally nothing to do with the Oral Law, and its entirety comes from the church's interpretation of the scriptures that was used to try and combat teachings from "heretical" churches that were using different books.

James led the apostles. Paul did what James "asked" of him. Paul was NOT taught by men but by the Spirit.

Paul:
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Paul tells us that what we read isn't (always) truth. We know the Gospels have been tainted by men. Only the Holy Spirit can reveal, not words written.

Paul:
Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

People who see every word of the "Bible" as all truth, are misled, by men and ink. Both can become corrupt.

Gospel of Philip:
Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way. There is a rebirth and an image of rebirth. It is certainly necessary to be born again through the image. Which one? Resurrection. The image must rise again through the image. The bridal chamber and the image must enter through the image into the truth: this is the restoration. Not only must those who produce the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, do so, but have produced them for you. If one does not acquire them, the name ("Christian") will also be taken from him.

Unless words are restored through the Spirit of Truth, they are judged by ignorance.

The Holy Spirit is the mother of Jesus, yet through ignorance, the church turns to flesh as a mother, through ignorance. The flesh profits "nothing" (John 6 and 8). The church teaches flesh (things).

He called out, saying: "Whoever has ears to hear about the infinities, let him hear!"; and "I have addressed those who are awake." Still he continued and said: "Everything that came from the perishable will perish, since it came from the perishable. But whatever came from imperishableness does not perish but becomes imperishable. So, many men went astray because they had not known this difference and they died."- Sophia of Christ



It's not who wrote what, it's what the Spirit reveals (to us as individuals). There IS no "one size fits all" religion.

 

[metis]

James led the apostles. Paul did what James "asked" of him. Paul was NOT taught by men but by the Spirit.

Except that Paul and James were at some odds with each other, at least for a while, and James was the CEO of the early church but not the spiritual head, which was Peter.

The Holy Spirit is the mother of Jesus, yet through ignorance, the church turns to flesh as a mother, through ignorance.

Mary was Jesus mother, and the rest of the sentence doesn't make one iota of sense.

Anyhow, take care.

 

[Phantasman]

Except that Paul and James were at some odds with each other, at least for a while, and James was the CEO of the early church but not the spiritual head, which was Peter.

Mary was Jesus mother, and the rest of the sentence doesn't make one iota of sense.

Anyhow, take care.

Truly an orthodox belief.

The mistakes Peter made were listed for a reason. One Gospel saying he was some sort of "rock" was taken to an extreme. Fact is, Peter struggled in understanding, proof in Canon Gospel as well as non Canon Gospels.

(12) The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."- Gospel of Thomas

One can see the reasons the emerging catholics accept some gospels while excluding others. If it didn't fit their view, it was heresy, even though more than half of Thomas can be found word for word in the synoptics and John.

It's all perspective. But many times, people "want" something to be true, rather than accepting a different view that is foreign to "what most people follow". They all believe that they are on the narrow path, even if it's the widest path.

You take care as well.

 

[Muffled]

If the question is one of "location" then indeed God can save anyone anywhere through Jesus Christ. I knew of someone who believed and was baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:26-27) in a makeshift tub "in jail" which broke apart and spilt water everywhere after he arose from the water.

If the question is that God can save anyone in whichever "way", then it's really not a question if God can, God "can" do all things. The question is what is God's "will" on the matter. God never never laid the the precedent that everyone is saved in the manner of their own choosing. Confessing/Accepting Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9-10, Colossians 2:6) are in Scripture, but the "add-on" getting saved method known as "Accepting Jesus as savior" is nowhere in scripture. One cannot "make up" their own way of getting saved and then put that under the umbrella of God's power or will. Making up one's own way does not provide one with assurance of salvation.

Eph 2:8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

This verse says that salvation is a gift
A gift has to be accepted otherwise it is compulsion or a person simply doesn't get it.

 

[Muffled]

This is an instruction, not an event. And a generic statement of invoking Jesus's name does not indicate they were performing "Accepting Jesus as savior" prayers.

The gospel of the kingdom is part of "the gospel". Paul's gospel included the gospel of the kingdom
Acts 28:23,30-31 They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus. [30] For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. [31] He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ---with all boldness and without hindrance!

To not preach the gospel of the kingdom to the lost, because they don't like it as much, is wrong.

I believe I have no trouble believing that Paul preached the gospel of Jesus of the Kingdom and eternal life but He did not include it in his gospel in I cor.

I believe that is illogical because a calling is an event. I suppose one can say it is advice which might seem like instruction to someone who believes the advice amounts to instruction because of the reliability of the source.

I believe you are trying to read between the lines but I fail to see what your reasoning can be. For me one does not call on the name of Jesus without understanding what that is all about. So it is not as generic as one might think. And certainly one is not apt to call upon the name of one he does not accept. Would an atheist call upon God?

 

[Muffled]

Why is that?
Salvation is not something you can go after, predict or do anything about, that is, according to most teachings.
Christianity is in reality about Loving God, Your fellow man and looking after God's creation in the way that Jesus taught.
It is not about looking for or earning rewards. even gifts as great as Salvation.
Salvation is not held over our heads as a sort of punishment gift, that will be withheld if we do not believe or misbehave.

All men are open to Salvation, Christian or not in, the next life.
There is absolutely no way to buy your self a free ticket...

We behave the way we do in this life because we love God, not because of a potential reward.

I believe that is not true. If one wishes a gift one may ask for it. It helps that the giver has already promised it to a person wishing to have it.

I believe this statement is false because it misleads one from the truth. The truth is that Christianity is all about salvation and loving God is the result of becoming a Christian.

I believe you could not be more wrong about that. There is definitely a punishment if the person does not receive the gift. There will be no entrance into the Kingdom of God and no eternal life if the gift is not accepted and in the end that person will be sent to Hell.

I believe the door will remain open until the last judgement. At that time the only thing left for a person is to be sent to Hell.

I believe one does not have to buy this free ticket since it is freely given.

 

[Phantasman]

I believe that is not true. If one wishes a gift one may ask for it. It helps that the giver has already promised it to a person wishing to have it.

I believe this statement is false because it misleads one from the truth. The truth is that Christianity is all about salvation and loving God is the result of becoming a Christian.

I believe you could not be more wrong about that. There is definitely a punishment if the person does not receive the gift. There will be no entrance into the Kingdom of God and no eternal life if the gift is not accepted and in the end that person will be sent to Hell.

I believe the door will remain open until the last judgement. At that time the only thing left for a person is to be sent to Hell.

I believe one does not have to buy this free ticket since it is freely given.

You don't get punished for not receiving a gift. The gift of imperishable is so as not to perish.

Now a difference existed among the imperishable aeons. Let us, then, consider (it) this way: Everything that came from the perishable will perish, since it came from the perishable. Whatever came from imperishableness will not perish but will become imperishable, since it came from imperishableness. So, many men went astray because they had not known this difference; that is, they died.- Sophia of Jesus Christ

John:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


Perish:
1. suffer death, typically in a violent, sudden, or untimely way.
2. suffer complete ruin or destruction.
3. lose its normal qualities; rot or decay.

The orthodox "hell" is not taught in gnosis.

The world came about through a mistake. For he who created it wanted to create it imperishable and immortal. He fell short of attaining his desire. For the world never was imperishable, nor, for that matter, was he who made the world. For things are not imperishable, but sons are. Nothing will be able to receive imperishability if it does not first become a son. But he who has not the ability to receive, how much more will he be unable to give?- Gospel of Philip

John:
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The power is the Holy Spirit, that made Jesus son of God, and that he gave to us to do the same. (the Chrism).

One does not receive the Chrism then teach destruction of others (as the priests did).

 

[Muffled]

You don't get punished for not receiving a gift. The gift of imperishable is so as not to perish.

Now a difference existed among the imperishable aeons. Let us, then, consider (it) this way: Everything that came from the perishable will perish, since it came from the perishable. Whatever came from imperishableness will not perish but will become imperishable, since it came from imperishableness. So, many men went astray because they had not known this difference; that is, they died.- Sophia of Jesus Christ

John:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


Perish:
1. suffer death, typically in a violent, sudden, or untimely way.
2. suffer complete ruin or destruction.
3. lose its normal qualities; rot or decay.

The orthodox "hell" is not taught in gnosis.

The world came about through a mistake. For he who created it wanted to create it imperishable and immortal. He fell short of attaining his desire. For the world never was imperishable, nor, for that matter, was he who made the world. For things are not imperishable, but sons are. Nothing will be able to receive imperishability if it does not first become a son. But he who has not the ability to receive, how much more will he be unable to give?- Gospel of Philip

John:
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The power is the Holy Spirit, that made Jesus son of God, and that he gave to us to do the same. (the Chrism).

One does not receive the Chrism then teach destruction of others (as the priests did).

I believe you don't have a big enough imagination. A man on death row can refuse a pardon and die for his sins.

I don't believe I care what gnosis teaches since I consider it the bad idea of men.

I do not believe that is logical. An all powerful God can get whatever He wants. What He can't do is have His cake and eat it too.

I believe that is an assumption.

I believe that is definitely non-Biblical and insupportable.