Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So if Jesus said the only way to heaven is to climb Mt Everest you are free to not do so and claim to be on your way to heaven and that we are free to interpret "Mt Everest" any way we wish. That's very convenient and about the most irrational approach to theology I can imagine. As histories greatest experts on testimony and evidence Greenleaf and Lyndhurst the Gospels are reliable testimony. The canonization is a minimalistic criteria. It set up standards to only keep the most reliable even if it meant some teachings were left out of the Bible, as the Apocrypha demonstrate. Revelations was scrutinized for over 300 years before inclusion. This was done to make sure that what was "official" was reliable. That is not to say there may be other truth but other truths cannot be inconsistent with the Bible and be true as well if the bible's claims are true. So if the Bible says X and a non-canonical work says not X then both cannot possibly be true. You must pick one or none. The most reliable being the cannon is what I chose and to even my astonishment it was rewarded with objective confirmation. That confirmation is objective to me but not objectively available to everyone else. That is why it is called "faith" not "known". In the far more reliable cannon Jesus emphatically states that we must be born again. I have been. I offer that (and a thousand other lines of evidence) as the defense of my faith. You are free to ignore it, amplify uncertainties, dismiss, or change the subject as you wish but it is still a rational undefeatable defense of what Christ claimed.
When Jesus says we must be born again in many verses and hundreds of millions claim to have been born again and I am included in that claim then no that is the issue. You asked me once what the mark was. It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the human heart as a permanent possession. The outward signs of this depend on the co-operation with that new spirit. You can be changed almost instantly and completely like Paul, (really all the disciples), George Foreman, Mother Theresa, or Billy Graham. You might say others did big things but I would counter with very few transformed their lives instantaneously (or virtually that quick) as many Christians have. That is why it is a part of so many great plans to conquer chemical dependence and the most generous demographic on earth. Christianity by necessity does not odder proof but it does offer endless evidence. However any evidence can be dismissed with enough initiative and grease.
There are a few very very significant differences in my claim that the average theological claim of faith.
Your like trying to put a cat in a trash can. That is the one place he will not go and has no idea why. I did not interpret his words. I quoted them directly. I can do so in Hebrew if you want. He spells out what he means in language so emphatic and clear no interpretation is possible or necessary. I noticed how you had to res-state my statement in order to make it ambiguous so you could say I am being ambiguous. That is intellectual dishonesty. Both Christ's word's and my metaphor were emphatic. Please leave them as they are.
Christ's words were the issue. You suggested they were decided ambiguous standards. I showed they were decided by the most exacting standards possible.
There is one heck of a disconnect here. My position is Christ's words themselves. I did not interpret them as my position. They need no interpretation. They are as clear as climbing Mt Everest and like you did with my comment your subtracting Everest (born again) and suggesting that ambiguity exists.
Again it is not my doctrine. Let's try this again.
Most Christians (and you will note how few orthodox Christians are in debate forums.) Generally they do not like contention and will not speak about contentious things. If you know any actual Christians and they do not communicate exclusive beliefs then they are probably doing so for your benefit or to avoid an argument. However it was your statements that made what Christians believe not the issue. Christianity's texts themselves, the writings of the early church fathers, all of it's creeds, and all it's councils have made exclusive claims. Let's try a crack at the bible again.
Jesus said we must be born again. I say we must be born again. What translational mistake did I make?
Fine by me then Christ's words are not a matter of interpretation and we can drop that whole subject.
Before I get into this far more intricate issue I want o make sure that we have at least arrived at a certain place. Christ's actual words in Hebrew were "you must be born from above". So we both conclude this is the criteria and are now only debating what those words mean. Correct?
I did not claim those words were from Christ but about Christ. The bible states that all scripture is theopneustos (breathed from God) and states that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate author of all of it. So authorship is not really an issue anyway but I was not attributing to Christ what Peter said.
Christ is constantly referred to as the narrow gate or door. I will give you one example but I cannot explain every level of biblical exegesis along they way in a post.
I am going to give you a really short and generalized answer to this because of time and the fact I cannot fit years of biblical study into a post. It is hard to debate calculus with a person in algebra I. The Hebrews in general, some of it's specific kings, and even prophets of the wisdom (non-canonical) writings were referred to as God's son's but in a fraternal sense. Those same people (their priests specifically) who considered themselves fraternal sons of God condemned Jesus on the basis he claimed to be the unique son of God. I will supply a verse or two and get detailed if necessary on demand.
I am starting to get the distinct impression you are being rhetorical. Do you live any other aspect of your life that way. Do you refuse to drive because traffic laws must be interpreted? Do you remain single because a mate requires a leap of faith and the interpretation of data? Did you refuse to have children because that required you to predict things based on the interpretation of data? There does not exist the level of ambiguity that allows for an honest denial of the exclusive claims as stated by Christ and about him. That is why even among all ten major commentaries there exists almost identical interpretations of the verses in question. I once by request had to write a paper on salvation. I spent days copying, pasting, and then reviewing the born again experiences of hundreds. There are web pages of nothing but one after the other of these. While of course the details varied a little they were all of a single archetype and matched perfectly what the Bible describes. I imagine if you could review all of the hundreds of millions of born again Christians claims they would all contain the same core elements with few exceptions.
There exists a terrible paradox for the preacher. He can have a small congregation of true believers by giving them unvarnished and shocking truths or he can preach what is called the prosperity gospel that is so condemned in modern Christianity. Never challenging anyone with Christ but promising their miracle was on the horizon. The former builds Christians and the latter builds huge congregations. There are few who strike the correct balance. Two of the best are Billy Graham and Martin Luther. At least about salvation they supplied the hard hitting facts but managed to even keep the attention of their enemies. Luther reminds me of something. If you take him and Nicodemus (the man Christ told he had to be born again). You have two men who both had complete devotion. Both were moral, both were extremely well educated in the bible, both were uncompromising, both were devoted in the extreme and both at some point realized they did not know God. They had nothing lacking besides the born again experience. If the law, devotion, biblical education, or morality were the standard they both would have been 100% qualified yet both realized they had failed by an infinite margin. The bible does not record Nicodemus's experience but does indicate he was born again but Luther describes his by saying "he felt as if the doors to paradise were opened to him". I could have not chosen better words. I do not walk around feeling like that and wonder if anyone does but those words would loosely describe every description of being born again I am aware of.
This of course varies by time but is a general principle. It is produced because the world has rejected God and as the bible says sought the darkness and hates the light. Even when the church denies the spiritual it becomes the darkness as Luther's Catholic church had. I happen to live in a partial exception. While Christianity is publically under attack it remains privately considered a virtue in the US. I feel resented and opposed to the extent I am adamant about true faith but I do not feel hated. I however do not live in Pakistan. The world's greatest empires have tried to stamp out Christianity, and it's worst empires have called us the great Satan. It is a wonder how many of the world's worst tyrants (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc....) have targeted either Christianity or the Jews.
They have something in error. They may hide it, they may boast of it. That is not really relevant to me. I am not their judge. I am only to judge what is true and defend it.
You and I may feel that way, the world in general does not. Most of the greatest empires in history and even here in the US the truth is always under assault. There have been too many book burnings to deny this.
No I think they are not choosing to discuss that aspect for their sake. Friends are friends because for one reason or another they concentrate on their similarities not their differences. My friends know my position but I not confront them with it often. Sometimes I wonder for who's sake I am doing so and where my loyalties lie but it is what it is and I believe Christ forgave any sin that lies there. There is nothing hat will destroy a friendship faster than even seeming to be judgmental. I care for you as a Christian should but you are not a friend, I don't know you. I have no stake in the relationship beyond truth. This is a complex issue. The more I type the more I see needs typing.
IT is not my comments, your friends, nor even Luther or Grahams you will be measured by, but by Christ's. If you agree he demanded we be born again then we can start there. If we can't then we will probably have to end it there. This is not a popularity contest, not a effort to just get along, the stakes don't get any higher. It only matters what God requires.
The effort that produced the bible is the diametrical opposite of careless. It is probably the most rigorous book and scrutinized book in human history. I have never heard careless ever associated with Christianity before.
