What is Contemplative Christianity?

[sojourner]

who says that we produce lies if we had a proof and basis (Scripture) to support our position?

Because you don't have a "proof and basis" to support your position. You give your interpretation of the scriptures, call it "absolute truth" (a lie), and then use that interpretation as a "proof" of your claim, when it's really nothing more than (usually poorly-formed) opinion.

 

[Windwalker]

Because you don't have a "proof and basis" to support your position. You give your interpretation of the scriptures, call it "absolute truth" (a lie), and then use that interpretation as a "proof" of your claim, when it's really nothing more than (usually poorly-formed) opinion.

If you interpret it correctly using the correct methods of interpretation it's not your interpretation. This is what it means to let the Bible to interpret itself so you can say you didn't interpret it. It's magic. (sorry I couldn't resist. carry on... )

 

[sojourner]

If you interpret it correctly using the correct methods of interpretation it's not your interpretation. This is what it means to let the Bible to interpret itself so you can say you didn't interpret it. It's magic. (sorry I couldn't resist. carry on... )

The first of several obvious problems here (and I'll only mention this one) is that most of them I've encountered don't use correct methods of interpretation in the first place. the most prevalent method seems to be an eisegetical rather than an exegetical approach. They read into the texts as opposed to more properly reading out of the texts.

 

[Windwalker]

The first of several obvious problems here (and I'll only mention this one) is that most of them I've encountered don't use correct methods of interpretation in the first place. the most prevalent method seems to be an eisegetical rather than an exegetical approach. They read into the texts as opposed to more properly reading out of the texts.

They of course turn it around and conclude that those who come to a different conclusion than they do are guilty of eisegesis, since it appears obvious to them what the 'plain meaning of the texts' say. They believe they are doing exegesis because they compare this passage with that passage, or even go so deep as to look at linguistic and cultural contexts, external as well as internal contexts to conclude their theologies. In reality when it comes to exegesis what you have are either sloppy approaches or less-sloppy, more refined or sophisticated approaches to interpretation. But they all are interpretations, both sloppy and sophisticated, not absolutes.

It is impossible to have a truly objective view and "Let the scripture speak for itself". It is an error of modernity applied to theology. Even if you have good science, it is not absolute. It is still a subjective, or intersubjective groupthink interpretation of objective material. The error of modernity is in assuming they are able to see beyond their own subjectivities and understand objective reality "as it is". It's this errant assumption dragged into Biblical study, and in reality, with great irony, though fundamentalist or ultra-conservative theologies posture themselves as anti-modernity, they are in fact thoroughly modernistic in their approaches. The difference is, they simply do these thoroughly modernistic approaches poorly. They are hacks, in other words. But the mentality is in fact modernistic.

This here is a fantastic essay I think you will get a great deal from that points of what I said just now, in the midst of the rest of its wonderful content: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332 From the essay,

"One of the ironies of biblical literalism is that it shares so largely in the reductionist and literalist spirit of the age. It is not nearly as conservative as it supposes. It is modernistic, and it sells its symbolic birthright for a mess of tangible pottage. Biblical materials and affirmations -- in this case the symbolism of Creator and creation – are treated as though of the same order and the same literary genre as scientific and historical writing. “I believe in God the Father Almighty” becomes a chronological issue, and “Maker of heaven and earth” a technological problem."​

What postmodernity has demonstrated well is how it is impossible to escape the subjective, and this 'holy grail' search for "objective truth" cannot be ever attained. This does not mean one should conclude all truths are of equal value, of course. There are some more well-substantiated claims than others, and it is safe and fair to call error error. But it does not mean the "better" or more inclusive and substantial view should be considered as Authoritative in an absolute sense. It is authoritative in a better credentialed sense, speaking from a more informed position. Even though something is more strongly supported, it is itself not somehow magically free from subjectivity, and should be held as such. It should be respected more highly, but not viewed absolutly, as there is always a higher, more inclusive perspective above that, if not now then in time.

So even if someone claims to have the better exegesis, it is still subjective, and not "God's Word" on the matter. It will always and ever be a relative, subjective interpretation of what they understand as best as they are able as what the text is saying and what it means. That understanding and that meaning will in fact change as the person and their contexts change.

 

[sojourner]

I want to touch on just a couple of things you said here (which was brilliant, BTW):
1)

It is impossible to have a truly objective view and "Let the scripture speak for itself". It is an error of modernity applied to theology. Even if you have good science, it is not absolute. It is still a subjective, or intersubjective groupthink interpretation of objective material.

The early church did not "look to the scriptures" in a vacuum, as biblical literalists assume, nor did they read the texts literalistically, as biblical literalists assume. There was always the voice of the apostles (whether original or or succeeded) to temper the reading, to add commentary. The scripture never "spoke for itself" until modernity.
2)

It is an error of modernity applied to theology.

These people are against contemplation because contemplation is an ancient product -- not a modern product. They try to turn it into a modern product by intimating that it's "new age," but it simply is an ancient practice from an ancient understanding. Since their own approach is a "camouflaged" modern contrivance, they think in modern terms, so they're afraid of anything ancient as "incredible." While they believe their own approach to be ancient, it is not. They're fooling themselves and, in the process, short-changing the texts -- and the Faith.

 

[Windwalker]

The early church did not "look to the scriptures" in a vacuum, as biblical literalists assume, nor did they read the texts literalistically, as biblical literalists assume. There was always the voice of the apostles (whether original or or succeeded) to temper the reading, to add commentary. The scripture never "spoke for itself" until modernity.

I was just thinking about this and had the thought, if scriptures indeed interpret themselves and can tell anyone who reads them the correct understanding, then why is there a need for pastors, teachers, seminaries, bible colleges, bible study groups, and such? What is the role of the expert? Any? There is a solid reason why we need those who are wise to lead others in these things, because you end up with a bunch of school-children who arrogantly assume they know what's what because they read it themselves on the pages of the Bible, "trusting the Holy Spirit" to guide them correctly. Madness. Just madness.

The reason mature leaders are in the positions to teach is namely this, insight. It requires not only education, but spiritual depth in order to adequately guide others in matters of ultimate concern. Someone who has only head knowledge to guide in a tradition is weak teacher as he has no knowledge of the heart. Someone who has only only spiritual experience but no grounding in sense and reason is also inadequate, leading others into silly 'woo woo' stuff. Someone who has no real depth of knowledge, as well as an aversion to any interior focus or work, as a teacher or guide is disastrous and poisonous to others, preaching a vision of themselves as truth. They are the cult leaders, generating fear to keep followers in tow behind them and their cults they create.

These people are against contemplation because contemplation is an ancient product -- not a modern product. They try to turn it into a modern product by intimating that it's "new age," but it simply is an ancient practice from an ancient understanding.

I think this can very much be understood in light of the modernist-mind as well. Let me explain a bit here. One of the features of what happened during the Western Enlightenment was a splitting apart of the "Big Three" as Kant laid them out in his critiques; Pure Reason, Practical Reason, and Judgement, or Science, Morals, and Art. Prior to this everything was lumped together under the umbrella of the mythic system of religion, where all science, morality and the humanities fell underneath the religious system. After the Enlightenment, these split off into separate domains of knowledge and pursuit. What ensued was that with the blinding accomplishments that science using empiricism was able to expose eclipsed that of the other domains, and became to this day viewed as the "true path to knowledge", neglecting, ignoring, or marginalizing the other domains as "mere" subjective pursuits.

So what you see in the modernist mind is the reduction of the domains of morals and the humanities to empiricist domains such as behaviorism, psychiatry, and such trying to understand the "machine" that is the human being, trying to succeed in unraveling life's mysteries the way physics unraveled the motions of planetary bodies. The illness pervades our cultural mindset today, that we can reduce everything to that which can be cataloged and dissected, measured, and weighed, and all the rest is just nonsense, subjective fluff that you cannot trust.

Enter here now onto this stage the modern evangelical and protestant religions. I have heard it said multiple times in this thread that you cannot, nor should you trust your own heart for it is "deceitfully wicked". This is in fact that bane of modernity itself, infusing the religious fundamentalist mindself. It is a matter of inability, and lack of having been trained by culture itself, through family, peers, society, media, the arts, and everything that spreads this modernist, empiricist mindset. The neo-atheist preaches it, the Christian fundamentalist preaches it. It is in a word, dissociation. The dissociation of the Big Three.

So meditation practice, interior exploration was in fact historically part of the church, but since the Enlightenment and largely post-reformation, it fell off the map into what we have today in both religion and culture, a dissociation of the whole self, which reduces the interiors to the exteriors and confuses and conflates them, or represses or denies them. When you present meditation to the fundamentalist, he is so entrenched in a lack of self-knowledge that it is viewed with deep suspicions and fears, calling it "New Age". When you speak of the spiritual experiences to the neo-atheist, he likewise screams "woo" at you, comparing it to New Age. No difference. Same cause.

As he said well in the opening of his essay I linked to in my last post,

The literalist mentality does not manifest itself only in conservative churches, private-school enclaves, television programs of the evangelical right, and a considerable amount of Christian bookstore material; one often finds a literalist understanding of Bible and faith being assumed by those who have no religious inclinations, or who are avowedly antireligious in sentiment. Even in educated circles the possibility of more sophisticated theologies of creation is easily obscured by burning straw effigies of biblical literalism.

But the problem is even more deep-rooted. A literalist imagination -- or lack of imagination -- pervades contemporary culture. One of the more dubious successes of modern science -- and of its attendant spirits technology, historiography and mathematics -- is the suffusion of intellectual life with a prosaic and pedantic mind-set. One may observe this feature in almost any college classroom, not only in religious studies, but within the humanities in general. Students have difficulty in thinking, feeling and expressing themselves symbolically.
​

What I explained above underscores the observations noted here. I am particularly impressed by his observation of how the problem results in a difficulty to think, feel, and express themselves symbolically. I remember many times elsewhere when I speak of God as a symbol, the response I would get is, "Are you trying to say God is merely a symbol!!??" That's so sad. They have no idea what a symbol is. A symbol is higher than a fact. God is not a Yeti, yet to "prove God", makes him one. It all reflects this mentality, and so meditation is all about, here it comes.... breaking down the literal understanding! Yes, no wonder they fear and hate it, as it the only way they know how to relate to themselves and reality. To let go of that, is in fact for them to fall into the Abyss! There is no metaphor, no symbol, no subtle domains of reality.

Take away facts and reasoned beliefs outside themselves they can believe in for security, and they are lost, helplessly untethered. As I said, fear. That is the fear. That is why it is what it is. To say I am grounded in Spirit, in the Groundless Ground, makes no sense to them at all! It's just crazy "New Age" speak that has no meaning! For them, it has to be in what you can see, printing on the pages of a book whether that's the Bible or a scientific journal. It is a deep modern dissociation, not only in religion but modern secular culture as well.

Since their own approach is a "camouflaged" modern contrivance, they think in modern terms, so they're afraid of anything ancient as "incredible." While they believe their own approach to be ancient, it is not. They're fooling themselves and, in the process, short-changing the texts -- and the Faith.

Well, yes. It's not faith at all, actually.

I like this speaking with you now instead. Much easier to speak for me.

 

[Yoshua]

"Historical and scientific accuracy of the bible" is laughable.

Hi Sojourner,

How about the earth, stars, and planetary system stated in the Scriptures? Take a look at these evidences.

Earth is Round
Isa. 40:22
22. It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Prov. 8:27
27. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

Earth is floating in space
Job 26:7
7. He stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the earth on nothing.

Sun has orbit
Ps. 19:4-6
4. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,
5. Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race.
6. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

Stars are innumerable
Jer. 33:22
22. `As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.' ''

Celestial bodies, sun, moon, stars differs in glory
1 Cor. 15:40-41
40. There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

Sun & Wind
Ecc.1 :5-6
5. The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it arose.
6. The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; the wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit.

Path in the sea
Isa. 43:16
16. Thus says the Lord, who makes a way in the sea and a path through the mighty waters,

Historical
“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.” (you can write the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, Washington DC for the full text.)

Here’s part of a letter from the National Geographic :

"I referred your inquiries to our staff archeologist, Dr. George Stuart. He said that archaeologists do indeed find the Bible a valuable reference tool, and use it many times for geographical relationships, old names and relative chronologies. On the enclosed list, you will find many articles concerning discoveries verifying events discussed in the Bible." ~ National Geographic Society, Washington D.C.

R.D. Wilson who wrote “A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament” pointed out that the names of 29 Kings from ten nations (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and more) are mentioned not only in the Bible but are also found on monuments of their own time. Every single name is transliterated in the Old Testament exactly as it appears on the archaeological artifact – syllable for syllable, consonant for consonant. The chronological order of the kings is correct.

The Roman historian Tacitus writing between 115-117 A.D. had this to say:

“They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh-not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home.” From his Annals, xv. 44.

Here is a pagan historian, hostile to Christianity, who had access to records about what happened to Jesus Christ. Mention of Jesus can also be found in Jewish Rabbinical writings from what is known as the Tannaitic period, between 70-200 A.D. In Sanhedrin 43a it says:

“Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, ‘He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whoever has anything to say in his defence, let him come and declare it.’ As nothing was brought forward in his defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve.” amazingbibletimeline.com

I never said that "it's wrong to read the bible." I have said that the bible isn't nearly the authority that you say it is.

You agreed that the Bible is divinely inspired, how come the divinely inspired does not have authority? May I hear from you.

OK, but the bible, itself,also acknowledges the existence of more than one god in several places. Therefore, the bible is inconsistent in that regard. It is that generalized truth of the acceptance of Deity that's most important. Details don't matter so much.

Yes, the existence of more than one god. Greeks, Babylonian, Pagan, Roman, & Phoenician have their gods ( Baal, Dagon, Ashima, Tammuz, Molech, Marduk, Zeus, Golden calf, Jupiter, Diana, Amon, Ashtoreth, Milcom……)

Isa. 44:9-11
9. They that fashion a graven image are all of them vanity; and the things that they delight in shall not profit; and their own witnesses see not, nor know: that they may be put to shame.
10. Who hath fashioned a god, or molten an image that is profitable for nothing?
11. Behold, all his fellows shall be put to shame; and the workmen, they are of men: let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; they shall fear, they shall be put to shame together.

God knows that people worship those gods instead of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Deut. 8:19
19. "And it shall come about if you ever forget the Lord your God, and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I testify against you today that you shall surely perish.

Then, how come that The Bible become inconsistent? people at the Old/New Testament worship (false) gods, and it is still existing today.

Because we're all supposed to show the same depth of love that causes us to give up everything for its sake.

Then, why Jesus stated that we carry our own cross and follow Him?By Yoshua

Yes, give up everything. What do you mean by the word “follow” Him? Does follow include in following His teachings/word?

The substance of the meaning of "sin" and "follow."

To reiterate:
"It's only a difference of perspective -- not substance."By Sojourner

We talked about the differences between Buddhism and Christianity as having a deep difference level, irreconcilable/incompatible gap before. You said that their differences is just their perspective, and not the substance. Now, you defined the substance as the meaning of “sin” and “follow.”

Do you mean that I can follow any belief aside from Buddhism?

God is God. Our limited perspective of God causes us to define the whole of God by our own , limited perspective. God is bigger than any one perspective.

Yes, that is true. Man is trying to reach God and some want to be a God.

Isa.55:8-9
8. "For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Neither are your ways My ways," declares the Lord.
9. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Because people read the bible and think they've "followed Jesus," yet, they forget to go out and love others. People think that "reading the bible" supplants, or is more important, than loving others. They discount the love that non-Christians display. But love is love, and to love is to follow Jesus.

We cannot control people if he like and don’t like to read the Bible; same as telling them to love or not to love. Yes, loving others is the command of God. Why remove the abiding and keeping His words if it is the same—as mentioned in the Bible, that to prove that you love Jesus is to keep His word?

Should the reason of not abiding is by looking to other people who think they followed Jesus & forget to love others? Who is to follow?

God's word all boils down to love. Period. If you love, you are keeping God's word.

Yes that is true, it boils down to love, but Jesus did not say that loving Him is already and automatically keeping His word.

John 14:23
23. Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him. (Jesus statement)

John 14:23
23. Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, is keeping already My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him. (not Jesus statement)

John 14:21
21. "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him."( Jesus Statement)

John 14:21
21. My commandments is , he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him."(not Jesus Statement)

Therefore, there is a command in John 14:23 form the word “If”anyone loves me, and John 14:21 from the word “He who has” My commandments. It is clearly emphasized that loving Jesus/God is to keep and remain in His word. That is the truth.

I understand that. What I'm saying is that the basis of your faith is your truth about what constitutes the truth of Jesus. I, on the other hand, have a different truth about what constitutes the truth of Jesus.

When I say “I have the truth,” that would mean it is not me who is the truth, but I know and have the truth because Jesus is the truth. I’m His follower so I have the right to say that I have the truth, it is faith. I’m not taking the position of Jesus—to claim as I am the truth. That is blasphemy. I’m a follower of Jesus Christ because we are living in the truth that was confessed by Jesus Christ.By Yoshua

No. The “I” is the truth and that is God. It is not me. It cannot be a different truth, this is why a follower of Christ followed His word because a follower is a follower. We follow because He is the truth. If we don’t follow and obey Jesus, that would be a different truth in reality.

No, "partial" doesn't equal "unstable" or "Not real." If I have a piece of pie, it's just as stable and real as all the other pieces -- and it is representative of the pie from which it is taken. If that piece is joined with all the other pieces, then the pie is whole. That's a good metaphor for how I see truth. In your concept, however (using the same metaphor), you have a piece of pie; you insist that your piece is not only the real piece (and all other pieces are fake), but that it is, in fact, the whole pie, itself, because it's the piece Jesus has selected for you. In your metaphor, no whole pie can truthfully exist, because one piece does not constitute a whole pie, and you've discounted all other pieces. In your view, truth is not really "the whole truth," because you've discounted large chunks of it.

If a pie is stable and real—as the “truth” that Jesus confessed. Those pieces of pie if taken, and joined with all the other pieces is still the pie as a whole—the whole truth. Those pieces of pie has the same ingredients, texture and flavor. The Spirit that is in Christ is the Spirit who dwell to His children.

Rom. 8:16-17
16. The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
17. and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him.

I don’t need to insist that my pie is the real one because there is the real one—the truth of Jesus Christ. We saw the truth, we believe and obey the truth.

The Pie:
John 14:6
6. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.

John 8:12
12. Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life."

The piece of pie:
Matt.5:13-16
13. "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.
14. "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.
15. "Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house.
16. "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

The piece of pie if taken:
John 10:27-28
27. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28. and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand.

Joined with all the other pieces:
Eph. 4:4-6
4. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
5. one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6. one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Pie has the same ingredients, texture and flavor:

Matt. 28:18-20
18. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20. teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

You're the one insisting that only Jesus is the truth, and that, since you follow Jesus, you, also, have that truth. What is "the truth" isn't Jesus-the-man, or even Jesus-the-avatar. What is the truth is what Jesus taught, and what Jesus taught is love. Therefore, while it is true that Jesus taught love, represents love, and is all about love, it is also true that love is represented in other religions and by other avatars.

Jesus is not the avatar or an avatar. No follower of Christ would say He is an avatar. Take a look at this:

In Hinduism, an avatar is the bodily incarnation of a deity on earth. The god can become incarnate in one place at a time as a full avatar or in many places simultaneously through partial avatars called amshas, such that the main form of the god can still communicate with the partial materializations. One could view avatars as embodying the concepts of pantheism (god is all) and polytheism (many gods).

The belief in Hindu avatars is similar to the Christian heresy of Docetism, which is the belief that Jesus Christ only appeared to be human. Docetism teaches that Jesus’ body was spiritual, rather than physical; thus, He was unable to suffer physical pain. In Hinduism, the avatar appears to the devotee in whatever form the worshipper envisions, which, according to Hindu belief could be Mohammed, Krishna, Jesus, Buddha or any other personal god. An “unqualified” person would take the avatar to be an ordinary human.

The purpose of the avatar’s manifestation is to restore dharma, or righteousness, to the cosmic and social order. Dharma encompasses behaviors such as duty, ritual, law, morality, ethics, good deeds, etc.—anything considered critical to maintaining natural order. That which is unnatural or immoral is called adharma.

Avatars are most often associated with the god Vishnu, one of the members of the Hindu “Great Trinity” or Trimurti (although any Hindu god may manifest as an avatar). Vishnu is considered the maintainer or preserver, as opposed to the other members, Brahma the creator and Shiva the destroyer. According to the Bhagavata Purana, a book of Vedic Sanskrit traditions, Vishnu has incarnated as innumerable avatars in unlimited universes, though there are ten major incarnations, known collectively as Dashavatara.

Some Hindus consider Jesus as an avatar and, more specifically, as the reincarnation of Krishna. However, Jesus was not reincarnated; He was resurrected. Jesus was not an avatar; He is fully human and fully God. Please read our article on the Trinity to better understand the relationship between the members of the Christian Godhead. After His crucifixion, Jesus was resurrected bodily.

In some ways Jesus may seem to fit into Hindu avatar theism; for example, by bringing the restoration of righteousness, Jesus is, in fact, the only path to eternal salvation. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” This coming to the Father is accomplished via belief (John 3:18) and repentance (Luke 13:3). The consequences of unbelief are harsh and eternal (Revelation 21:8). First Thessalonians 1:9-10 tells us to turn “from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.”gotquestions.org

In The Hindu Way of Awakening, Swami Kriyananda writes that:

The meaning of avatara, Yogananda stated, is not that Divine Consciousness, which has never known imperfection, appears in human form to show us a reality completely alien to our own. Krishna, Jesus Christ, and all other avatars are not only manifestations of Spirit. They are descents also in the sense of knowing, from experience, what it is to be human beings who attained oneness with the Divine. Their example shows us our own divine potential.

God doesn't care about "belief systems." God cares about love relationships.

How can we have a relationship with our Father/God? By what?

If I understand your question correctly, "God" is an avatar for "creative principle." Other religions also have a concept of that principle, just as the Judeo-Christians have.

Ok. Can you explain more how come with Judeo-Christian have that avatar for Christ?

You've got it backward. It should be macro and not micro. Theology is about broad concepts of divinity.

Truly there are different clothing for each belief system, but not the same God.By Yoshua
Divinity is Divinity.By Sojourner

I believe that understanding God in theology should be questioned by “who” and not “what.”

No it doesn't. God saves.

Faith in Jesus Christ/God saves.

Love does include those things, but those things don't constitute love. They are a result of love, and not the cause of love.

Why? do you think that love does not include following and obeying?By Yoshua

John 3:16
16. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son,” is this statement a result of love or cause of love?
“that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” Is this statement a result of love or cause of love?

John 14:23
23. Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.

“If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word” is this statement a result of love or cause of love?

By displaying self-sacrificial love -- as Jesus did.

Then how do you deny oneself and carry your own cross?By Yoshua

Is “denying oneself, carrying your own cross and self-sacrificial love” a result of God’s love or cause of God’s love?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Not true. We needed a tangible example of love to aspire to. We needed someone to show us our true nature. Jesus is that example and that picture. When faced with the ultimate reality of unremitting love, no one will be long be able to resist that reality. People will want that reality.

You said all will be saved. Then, the following will be the consequence :
1. Man can do anything he want.
2. No need of a God to save him.
3. Jesus Christ salvation is ineffective and worthless.
4. No need of works or good works.
5. No need of following and obeying God commandments.

Therefore God make human as a puppet because they will be saved after all.

Did the fall of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis proves what is the true nature of human? Why need Christ to show us our true nature? Is this the main reason why He came here or giving us the hope of salvation?

Josephus' citation of Jesus is broad and biased. All it "proves" is that a man named Jesus existed.

Biased? A non-christian historian, a biased? Who do you want to testify about the existence of Jesus, the early Church Fathers?

How about when I gave you a secular historian that is not talking about Christianity? Would you still say it is biased? What is not biased to you?

Operative term: "you believe." Not "you know." Not "everyone knows." Your belief does not constitute proof or reality.

For the sake of the forum rules, I need to use it. I’ve been very careful.

Of course not. Peoples' perspectives are covered with a mask of sin -- of a lie about who they really are. It causes them to act without love. It causes them to act outside their true nature.

Sin is not a mask. That is the truth. What causes them to act without love because of our true nature after the fall in the book of Genesis, if you will believe it. I’ve never seen a Scripture saying it is a mask. If our sin is only a mask, could you take away your sin? as you are assured that you will not sin forever?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Because you don't have a "proof and basis" to support your position. You give your interpretation of the scriptures, call it "absolute truth" (a lie), and then use that interpretation as a "proof" of your claim, when it's really nothing more than (usually poorly-formed) opinion.

Sojourner,

I think you should post in detail to what are those you are trying to imply. Can you post a Scripture which you think that I’m using it--as my (claimed) interpretation or my opinion?

It is good enough that I have a Scriptural support rather than nothing. How much more if I don’t have any support to show, every time I need to emphasized something? it will turn out that what I’m saying has no basis at all, just like the spiritual experiences, psychology, mystical practices—as proof of spirituality.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

The early church did not "look to the scriptures" in a vacuum, as biblical literalists assume, nor did they read the texts literalistically, as biblical literalists assume. There was always the voice of the apostles (whether original or or succeeded) to temper the reading, to add commentary. The scripture never "spoke for itself" until modernity.

Did they scrutinized, and examine the Scriptures daily,? Oh my, it is daily. I cannot do it in a daily basis.
Acts 17:10-11
10. And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.

I'm surprised that this comments came out from your word. I thought you agree in how to study /interpret the Scriptures, as once you told me abut the approach in biblical interpretation.

Logic itself will tell us why we need the interpretation method and the process from getting nearer to the truth. Your statement that 'The scripture never "spoke for itself" until modernity.' should not put ourselves in doubt. I don't think modernity will bring destruction and distortion in terms of interpretation. As I said before, parallel scriptures and connecting Scriptures is a part of studying God's word. If we will use modernity as a hindrance for interpreting the Scriptures, then we should start trashing and discarding those computers, calculators, machines, cellphones, internet and other technologies that we had today. We might as well wear those robes and sandals now just like the disciples and Jesus, and read those text in a scroll.

Technologies brought us nearer to the truth. Just look back, and see how history of technology contributed much on what we have now.

These people are against contemplation because contemplation is an ancient product -- not a modern product. They try to turn it into a modern product by intimating that it's "new age," but it simply is an ancient practice from an ancient understanding. Since their own approach is a "camouflaged" modern contrivance, they think in modern terms, so they're afraid of anything ancient as "incredible." While they believe their own approach to be ancient, it is not. They're fooling themselves and, in the process, short-changing the texts -- and the Faith.

We are not against any practices as long the practices in contemplative--is accordance with Jesus' teachings. We appreciate the various culture of different beliefs, but when it comes to spirituality as following Christ's teaching, we comply and follow His word. For the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. It is not a fear that we don't want to do it because we are afraid, it is by following in obedience. Why should we fear if Jesus had promised that He will be with us with the promised Holy Spirit?

Additionally, did following God's command to meditate the Scriptures day and night in Joshua 1:8 and the succeeding Old Testament's/New Testament text is not an ancient text for us to follow? I think this is very ancient.

Thanks

 

[Brickjectivity]

Earth is Round
Isa. 40:22
22. It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

This verse does not say the 'Earth' is round. It says it is a circle and that the stars are set in a curtain. That is exegesis -- what the text says rather than what you would like for it to say.

Earth is floating in space
Job 26:7
7. He stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the earth on nothing.

It does not say that there is something called 'Space' and that the Earth is in that empty space. His reason that the Earth is not falling is that it is suspended by God's power, hanging from something else. There is no implication here of a vacuum but that Earth would fall if it weren't hung like a plant or cooking pot.

Sun has orbit
Ps. 19:4-6
4. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,
5. Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race.
6. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

Psalms has songs in it and no Science texts. Notice he mentions the 'End of the world' is where the sun lives.

Stars are innumerable
Jer. 33:22
22. `As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.' ''

Anybody living in the countryside knows the stars cannot be counted. Its not a Science lesson. Its talking about something else entirely.

Celestial bodies, sun, moon, stars differs in glory
1 Cor. 15:40-41
40. There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

You are making an attempt to insert the word Science where it is not at all welcome or even related at all. The man is making a point about something other than stars. If you go outside the city lights you will see clearly the stars, and there is no supernatural wisdom about Science being put forward from this verse. It is about other things.

Path in the sea
Isa. 43:16
16. Thus says the Lord, who makes a way in the sea and a path through the mighty waters,

A clear reference to two or more Bible stories where the LORD miraculously parts the waters so that prophets may walk through on dry land.

Historical
“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.” (you can write the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, Washington DC for the full text.)

Good, but it in no way suggests the Bible is strong on Science or History. It happens to overlap with what some Historians think and not with what others think. Some agree and some disagree, but the Bible does no establish a literal history but something different and more important. It is a story that everyone can adopt and say 'I was a slave in Egypt', because that story is ongoing and because the command is to say that to your children even though literally you weren't a slave in Egypt. You can be a part of the story and teach your children something valuable. If it were literal history then you couldn't. Its neither a History text nor a Science text. Those disciplines were discovered independently, and the Bible is clearly not accurate in descriptions of the cosmos or of science principles nor does it need to be. Nor should it be.

 

[Windwalker]

Anybody living in the countryside knows the stars cannot be counted. Its not a Science lesson. Its talking about something else entirely.

This of course is what was intended to be conveyed, not a literal comparison, but hyperbole. If it was intended to be an accurate comparison, than the Bible is flatly wrong. Jer. 33:22 `As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.'

We actually can quite accurately number the descendents of Abraham using census data. And I guarantee you it is not anywhere near the number of stars in the heavens!!! Let's assume for argument sake that every single human being on the planet is a descendent of Abraham (not the case of course as the number is far smaller than that). But if so, then there are 6 Billion Jews filling planet earth. The current estimates for the number of stars based on the the estimate that are 10 trillion galaxies in the universe, and each holding roughly 100 billion stars, that puts the number of stars in the heavens to be around 100 octillian stars, that's 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars! Compare 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 with a mere 6,000,000,000 humans on earth.

Conclusion. If the Bible is a book of science, it's woefully out of date and should be scrapped!

 

[InChrist]

They of course turn it around and conclude that those who come to a different conclusion than they do are guilty of eisegesis, since it appears obvious to them what the 'plain meaning of the texts' say. They believe they are doing exegesis because they compare this passage with that passage, or even go so deep as to look at linguistic and cultural contexts, external as well as internal contexts to conclude their theologies. In reality when it comes to exegesis what you have are either sloppy approaches or less-sloppy, more refined or sophisticated approaches to interpretation. But they all are interpretations, both sloppy and sophisticated, not absolutes.

It is impossible to have a truly objective view and "Let the scripture speak for itself". It is an error of modernity applied to theology. Even if you have good science, it is not absolute. It is still a subjective, or intersubjective groupthink interpretation of objective material. The error of modernity is in assuming they are able to see beyond their own subjectivities and understand objective reality "as it is". It's this errant assumption dragged into Biblical study, and in reality, with great irony, though fundamentalist or ultra-conservative theologies posture themselves as anti-modernity, they are in fact thoroughly modernistic in their approaches. The difference is, they simply do these thoroughly modernistic approaches poorly. They are hacks, in other words. But the mentality is in fact modernistic.

This here is a fantastic essay I think you will get a great deal from that points of what I said just now, in the midst of the rest of its wonderful content: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332 From the essay,

"One of the ironies of biblical literalism is that it shares so largely in the reductionist and literalist spirit of the age. It is not nearly as conservative as it supposes. It is modernistic, and it sells its symbolic birthright for a mess of tangible pottage. Biblical materials and affirmations -- in this case the symbolism of Creator and creation – are treated as though of the same order and the same literary genre as scientific and historical writing. “I believe in God the Father Almighty” becomes a chronological issue, and “Maker of heaven and earth” a technological problem."​

What postmodernity has demonstrated well is how it is impossible to escape the subjective, and this 'holy grail' search for "objective truth" cannot be ever attained. This does not mean one should conclude all truths are of equal value, of course. There are some more well-substantiated claims than others, and it is safe and fair to call error error. But it does not mean the "better" or more inclusive and substantial view should be considered as Authoritative in an absolute sense. It is authoritative in a better credentialed sense, speaking from a more informed position. Even though something is more strongly supported, it is itself not somehow magically free from subjectivity, and should be held as such. It should be respected more highly, but not viewed absolutly, as there is always a higher, more inclusive perspective above that, if not now then in time.

So even if someone claims to have the better exegesis, it is still subjective, and not "God's Word" on the matter. It will always and ever be a relative, subjective interpretation of what they understand as best as they are able as what the text is saying and what it means. That understanding and that meaning will in fact change as the person and their contexts change.

I have a window of time today and was thinking over your questions from a previous post:

What makes you believe that the mystical approach is "self-initiated" and not a response of the person to the direct calling of God upon his heart? Why do you assume that someone who devote their lives, their whole heart, mind, soul, body, and strength in pursuit of the knowledge of God if that was not a considerable call upon their hearts to come unto God? You think someone would spend hours of each day in silent prayer and meditation to find God, to move beyond themselves, because it is initiated in their ego? That the whole thing is ego-driven and ego-puffing? How? How do you justify this belief of yours? Did you do this yourself, and assume that's what everyone else does? Please answer this.

and was about to respond, but after reading the above I don't think I'll bother. It appears to me that your practice of mediation has thrown you (along with others of the contemplative mindset) into some kind of incoherent Wonderland, a place where words have no inherent meaning and one can interpret them any which way. Take two aspirin with water...I suppose according to your perspective there could be more than one interpretation of what only appears to be a simple straightforward sentence or instruction. Maybe it could be interpreted to mean take two aspirin and mix in water, then drink it, or put two aspirin under your pillow and drink some water before bed, or take two aspirin while swimming in water. Who knows what it may mean? I guess it could mean different things to different people depending on the context and circumstances of their lives.

But anyway, if it is that ambiguous to interpret words and language or discern the intended meaning of the writer then what's the point of continuing to post back and forth as if we can understand each other or anyone's words and thoughts?

 

[InChrist]

I think the linked article points out well that just about everyone takes the Bible at face value when convenient, but not when it conflicts with one's already held beliefs and presumptions.

"Taking the Bible “Literally”

Article contributed by Stand To Reason
Visit Stand To Reason website

Related Media
I never like the question, “Do you take the Bible literally?” It comes up with some frequency, and it deserves a response. But I think it’s an ambiguous—and, therefore, confusing—question, making it awkward to answer.


Clearly, even those of us with a high view of Scripture don’t take everything literally. Jesus is the “door,” but He’s not made of wood. We are the “branches,” but we’re not sprouting leaves.


On the other hand, we do take seriously accounts others find fanciful and far-fetched: a man made from mud (Adam), loaves and fishes miraculously multiplied, vivified corpses rising from graves, etc.


A short “yes” or “no” response to the “Do you take the Bible literally?” question, then, would not be helpful. Neither answer gives the full picture. In fact, I think it’s the wrong question since frequently something else is driving the query.


Taking “Literally” Literally

Let’s start with a definition. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, the word “literal” means “taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion.” Why do people balk at this common-sense notion when it comes to the Bible or, more precisely, certain passages in the Bible?


Let’s face it, even non-Christians read the Bible in its “usual or most basic sense” most of the time on points that are not controversial. They readily take statements like “love your neighbor as yourself” or “remember the poor” at face value. When citing Jesus’ directive, “Do not judge,” they’re not deterred by the challenge, “You don’t take the Bible literally, do you?”


No, when critics agree with the point of a passage, they take the words in their ordinary and customary sense. They naturally understand that language works a certain way in everyday communication, and it never occurs to them to think otherwise.


Unless, of course, the details of the text trouble them for some reason."
http://www.str.org/articles/do-you-take-the-bible-literally-2#.Vh2bTCuNgxI

 

[sojourner]

How about the earth, stars, and planetary system stated in the Scriptures? Take a look at these evidences.

None of these are "evidences." They are your interpretations. In fact, the ancients who wrote Genesis thought that the earth was disc-shaped (a circle). But that's not scientifically accurate, now, is it?

“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.

Just because they're "as accurate as any other ancient documents," doesn't make them accurate. A car that's "as powerful" as a Ford Pinto still isn't powerful.

You agreed that the Bible is divinely inspired, how come the divinely inspired does not have authority?

It does have authority -- just not nearly as much as you think it does.

Yes, the existence of more than one god. Greeks, Babylonian, Pagan, Roman, & Phoenician have their gods ( Baal, Dagon, Ashima, Tammuz, Molech, Marduk, Zeus, Golden calf, Jupiter, Diana, Amon, Ashtoreth, Milcom……)

Then, how come that The Bible become inconsistent? people at the Old/New Testament worship (false) gods, and it is still existing today.

The term elohim is a plural term. Originally, the Hebraic religion was henotheistic, and only later became monotheistic. Yet both perspectives are present in the bible.

Then, why Jesus stated that we carry our own cross and follow Him?

Because we are to exercise sacrificial love.

What do you mean by the word “follow” Him? Does follow include in following His teachings/word?

Jesus taught us love.

Do you mean that I can follow any belief aside from Buddhism?

You can be whatever religion you wish.

We cannot control people if he like and don’t like to read the Bible; same as telling them to love or not to love.

We aren't supposed to control people.

Yes, loving others is the command of God. Why remove the abiding and keeping His words if it is the same—as mentioned in the Bible, that to prove that you love Jesus is to keep His word?

Jesus' word was "love." We keep that word when we love.

Jesus did not say that loving Him is already and automatically keeping His word.

I think you're confused.

When I say “I have the truth,” that would mean it is not me who is the truth, but I know and have the truth because Jesus is the truth. I’m His follower so I have the right to say that I have the truth, it is faith. I’m not taking the position of Jesus—to claim as I am the truth. That is blasphemy. I’m a follower of Jesus Christ because we are living in the truth that was confessed by Jesus Christ.By Yoshua

No. The “I” is the truth and that is God. It is not me. It cannot be a different truth, this is why a follower of Christ followed His word because a follower is a follower. We follow because He is the truth. If we don’t follow and obey Jesus, that would be a different truth in reality.

You're confused about what constitutes "truth."

If a pie is stable and real—as the “truth” that Jesus confessed. Those pieces of pie if taken, and joined with all the other pieces is still the pie as a whole—the whole truth. Those pieces of pie has the same ingredients, texture and flavor. The Spirit that is in Christ is the Spirit who dwell to His children.

Yeah, but your'e rejecting all the other pieces, and calling one piece "the whole pie."

The Pie:
John 14:6
6. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.

IOW, Jesus is one piece that represents "the whole pie." There are other pieces that also represent the whole pie. They all should be taken under consideration.

Jesus is not the avatar or an avatar. No follower of Christ would say He is an avatar. Take a look at this:

In Hinduism, an avatar is the bodily incarnation of a deity on earth.

Just as Jesus is God Incarnate.

How can we have a relationship with our Father/God? By what?

By abiding in love.

Ok. Can you explain more how come with Judeo-Christian have that avatar for Christ?

It stems from the Hebraic idea of "God With Us," among some Platonic and other, Greek influences.

I believe that understanding God in theology should be questioned by “who” and not “what.”

That's great but it doesn't address my point.

Faith in Jesus Christ/God saves.

God saves. if faith saved, we wouldn't need God.

is this statement a result of love or cause of love?

Asked and answered.

Is “denying oneself, carrying your own cross and self-sacrificial love” a result of God’s love or cause of God’s love?

Asked and answered.

 

[sojourner]

You said all will be saved. Then, the following will be the consequence :
1. Man can do anything he want.
2. No need of a God to save him.
3. Jesus Christ salvation is ineffective and worthless.
4. No need of works or good works.
5. No need of following and obeying God commandments.

Therefore God make human as a puppet because they will be saved after all.

Nope. "Saved/not saved" isn't a choice to be made or forced. "Saved" is simply "what we are." We're not puppets because we're made human. We're also not puppets because we partake in God's salvation.

Biased? A non-christian historian, a biased? Who do you want to testify about the existence of Jesus, the early Church Fathers?

There's a vast difference between the existence of a historic Jesus and a biblical Christ.

For the sake of the forum rules, I need to use it. I’ve been very careful.

Even so, it's still a belief and not a fact.

Sin is not a mask. That is the truth. What causes them to act without love because of our true nature after the fall in the book of Genesis, if you will believe it. I’ve never seen a Scripture saying it is a mask. If our sin is only a mask, could you take away your sin? as you are assured that you will not sin forever?

You're misunderstanding the metaphor of "mask." Just as you're misunderstanding most of the metaphoric nature of Christian theology.

 

[sojourner]

I think you should post in detail to what are those you are trying to imply. Can you post a Scripture which you think that I’m using it--as my (claimed) interpretation or my opinion?

Take your pick.

It is good enough that I have a Scriptural support rather than nothing.

You don't have scriptural support in the way you believe you have scriptural support. Most of what you have is your interpretation of scripture.

it will turn out that what I’m saying has no basis at all

BINGO!!

 

[sojourner]

Did they scrutinized, and examine the Scriptures daily,?

Not literalistically, in the same manner that you conceive.

Logic itself will tell us why we need the interpretation method and the process from getting nearer to the truth. Your statement that 'The scripture never "spoke for itself" until modernity.' should not put ourselves in doubt. I don't think modernity will bring destruction and distortion in terms of interpretation.

Interpretation has little to do with "modernity," except that the interpretive process has to be sure to excise modern expectations and norms from the equation.

We are not against any practices as long the practices in contemplative--is accordance with Jesus' teachings.

We have shown how you do that very thing.

 

[Windwalker]

and was about to respond, but after reading the above I don't think I'll bother.

That's unfortunate. I was hoping for you to explain the basis for your thoughts which conflict with the reality we know. I'll just have to accept, you believe what you believe and there's no real reason to support it.

It appears to me that your practice of mediation has thrown you (along with others of the contemplative mindset) into some kind of incoherent Wonderland, a place where words have no inherent meaning and one can interpret them any which way.

That's quite untrue, and unfair. My word do have inherent meaning, and depth, and many people can in fact interpret them with quite clear direction and understanding. I am hardly incoherent. I believe what you mean to say is you don't have the proper background or context in which to interpret them. That would be correct. You do not.

But please note the post you are referring to was not me replying to you, but to Sojourner. He does, I assume, have at least some of the prerequisite understanding to have the correct frames of reference. Considering he liked my post above, it seems he had no trouble understanding it. I certainly know that Orbit and Well Named in this thread would be able to follow what I said, and what if any terms they are unfamiliar with have the wherewithal to research them.

When I post to you I try my best to accommodate you, but I let my hair down a little more and talk a slightly different language when communicating with those I believe have the necessary contexts to run with what I say. If they have questions, they can ask. I doubt any one of them would respond saying I'm incoherent.

But anyway, if it is that ambiguous to interpret words and language or discern the intended meaning of the writer then what's the point of continuing to post back and forth as if we can understand each other or anyone's words and thoughts?

Well, and this is a good point. You don't understand my context, and so you conclude I'm just speaking gibberish. It is your frame of reference that does not give you the proper means to understand me. So how then do you think you can truly understand the intended meanings of authors who lived in a world and culture 2000 years removed from you? I live in the same day and age as you, and you can't follow when I speak to my peers.

I did ask you questions which were not out of your wheelhouse. You can still answer them if you feel inclined to. Otherwise, I'll understand you have no answer.

 

[InChrist]

That's quite untrue, and unfair. My word do have inherent meaning, and depth, and many people can in fact interpret them with quite clear direction and understanding. I am hardly incoherent. I believe what you mean to say is you don't have the proper background or context in which to interpret them. That would be correct. You do not.

I did not say I think your words don't have inherent meaning. Nor do I mean to say that I cannot understand or interpret them, that is your elitist presumption. I understand everything you have said and I believe your words as well as others have inherent, intended meaning...along with the words of the scriptures. What I am pointing out is that you appear to have quite a double standard whereby you expect others to read your words and understand your intended meaning, yet you will not allow the same for the writers of the Bible or someone reading the scriptures.