What is Contemplative Christianity?

[Windwalker]

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.

Stooping to name calling now, are we? Seriously? I'm not elitist. Why would I spend the last month in this discussion if I were? I'm not going to apologize for being more knowledgeable and aware in these areas than you are. But that doesn't make someone elitist if they are.

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.

I don't believe you do understand what I am saying based upon the responses you offer. You clearly do not understand the contexts, nor the meaning of what I'm saying. I am in fact correct in saying you lack the proper context to understand them, just as you lack the context to truly understand what scripture says.

If you think you understand what I mean about interpretation is something everyone does, then explain it back in your own words what you believe my argument for what this is true is.

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.

Not at all. I'm made a clear point that even though I am here in person, the best you will ever walk away from what I say is what your frames of reference will allow you to see. I don't expect you will ever truly understand what my meaning is. I understand it will be your interpretation of my meaning, which makes it your point of view. It's the same with scripture, and why you cannot claim a position of authority falsely claiming, "It's not my words, but the Bible's". No, it is your point of view of what the Bible says. Same as what you think I'm saying is not my point of view on it.

 

[InChrist]

Stooping to name calling now, are we? Seriously? I'm not elitist. Why would I spend the last month in this discussion if I were? I'm not going to apologize for being more knowledgeable and aware in these areas than you are. But that doesn't make someone elitist if they are.

No. it does not necessarily make someone an elitist just because they are more knowledgeable. I just feel that you often like to point out how superior you believe knowledge and spiritual wisdom is.

I don't believe you do understand what I am saying based upon the responses you offer. You clearly do not understand the contexts, nor the meaning of what I'm saying. I am in fact correct in saying you lack the proper context to understand them, just as you lack the context to truly understand what scripture says.

If you think you understand what I mean about interpretation is something everyone does, then explain it back in your own words what you believe my argument for what this is true is.


.

You have said there is no way for anyone to understand absolutely what the scriptures say because everyone reads them from the lens of their own reality and frame of reference, so one’s interpretation remains subjective because it is impossible for anyone to have a truly objective view.

I have already agreed with you in the past that everyone reads from their own perspective. But why do you assume that, although this is true, a person cannot understand objectively and accurately information which is being expressed in written language? How could students who all come from different perspectives read the same math book and come to correctly understand their subject, if your view is correct? Or what is the point of owner’s manuals of no one can objectively or absolutely understand their instructions?

 

[InChrist]

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.

I think you have it backwards. It is those, as yourself, who are bound to the emergent/contemplative slant that must read into the scriptures a deeper, hidden interpretation imposing on the text ideas more in line with mysticism, pantheism, and humanism, abandoning the plain biblical teachings which have been read, known and accepted out of the texts by Christians for centuries.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Problem is, we have to translate the words of the biblical writers and do a fair amount of extrapolation, since there are a lot of words for which there is no direct transliteration. Then exegesis is called for in order to get past cultural and sociological differences, as well auto get through expectations of anthropology. The work of biblical interpretation is quite daunting.

 

[sojourner]

But why do you assume that, although this is true, a person cannot understand objectively and accurately information which is being expressed in written language?

Because the lenses are simply too thick and too imbedded. No one gets past all of the intricacies, which is why interpretation and translation is almost always a group effort, involving peer-reviewed scholarship.

 

[sojourner]

what is the point of owner’s manuals of no one can objectively or absolutely understand their instructions?

The point is that technical manuals don't involve a lot of culturally-imbedded metaphor and symbolic language, nor is there a lot of translation involved in most of them.

 

[sojourner]

I think you have it backwards. It is those, as yourself, who are bound to the emergent/contemplative slant that must read into the scriptures a deeper, hidden interpretation imposing on the text ideas more in line with mysticism, pantheism, and humanism, abandoning the plain biblical teachings which have been read, known and accepted out of the texts by Christians for centuries.

Cultural-specific "slants" have always been extrapolated from the texts, because the texts are, by nature multivalent. The ancient Greeks took from them what they needed, medieval Europeans took from them what they needed, and so have modern Americans. The process doesn't involve "imposing" something on the text that isn't there, it's reading out of the texts what is there and applying a more relevant meaning. The "plain biblical teachings" to which you allude simply do not inherently exist. Even they are a product of cultural input.

 

[Windwalker]

No. it does not necessarily make someone an elitist just because they are more knowledgeable. I just feel that you often like to point out how superior you believe knowledge and spiritual wisdom is.

This sounds like personal insecurity on your part. Don't judge me based upon that. I have no need to compensate for low self-esteem by pretending I'm better than others. I'm not the one claiming to know the truth of God's word, pointing out the errors of everyone else. Think about that....

You have said there is no way for anyone to understand absolutely what the scriptures say because everyone reads them from the lens of their own reality and frame of reference, so one’s interpretation remains subjective because it is impossible for anyone to have a truly objective view.

You are just repeating my words. I asked you to explain why I say this based upon your own understanding. And then, once you've done that, point out why you think it is invalid, addressing specific reasonings.

I have already agreed with you in the past that everyone reads from their own perspective. But why do you assume that, although this is true, a person cannot understand objectively and accurately information which is being expressed in written language?

I have explained this at great length. That you should ask this, shows you in fact do not understand my position.

How could students who all come from different perspectives read the same math book and come to correctly understand their subject, if your view is correct?

Oh now, interpreting cultural referents in no way whatsoever relates to mathematics! The human reality is far, far more complex than the orbits of planets! A physicist can tell me where Mars will be in 10,000 years from now, but can't even begin to predict where his dog will be 10 seconds from now. The world cannot be reduced to math equations, and nor can reading ancient literature. Had you actually absorbed that post you lambasted me as being an elitist for, you would in fact not be merely repeating an unsupportable claim with weak arguments like these.

Or what is the point of owner’s manuals of no one can objectively or absolutely understand their instructions?

The Bible is not an owner's manual, and neither you nor I are machines! This too reflects the bane of the modernist mentality. All of this is addressed in that post you so glibly dismissed in the swipe of your hand without support. If you understood it, then deal with the points in it.

 

[Yoshua]

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.

Hi Brick,

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.By Yoshua

So, what is a circle to you, does a circle, not round? Did the earth is not round or circle?

It talks about God’s dwelling place. He sit above the circle of the earth/land, and those who live there are like locusts or grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and that spreads like a tent for dwelling.

How can he say the circle of the earth/land, if the earth/land is not a circle (not flat)?
There is no stars here? Where did you get the stars?

Here’s the other one which describes God’s creation.
Prov. 8:26-28
26. While He had not yet made the earth and the fields,
Nor the first dust of the world.
27. "When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
28. When He made firm the skies above,
When the springs of the deep became fixed,

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.

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

Then why it is said that the earth/land hangs on nothing? We are talking about the evidence that the earth/land is hanging on nothing, and that is the creation of God’s power.

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

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.By Yoshua

There’s a line that was mentioned and it gone out through all the earth. It talks about the placement of the sun, and traveling upon heaven. In v.6, a coming round is a circuit. The course of the sun from east-west, and its heat was mentioned. It describes the sun. This is truth.

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

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.' ''By Yoshua

Gen. 22:17
17. indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.

Do you believe that there are stars in heaven? If you believe, then, the Scripture is also telling you that the stars are innumerable.

Anyway, there is a Scripture (below) that is more direct.
Gen. 1:16
16. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

There is a star, as God created them, and they are innumerable.

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.

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.By Yoshua

Yes, I know that. These Scriptures are mentioned as analogy in the “Order of Christ’s Resurrection.”

1 Cor. 15:39-44
39. All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.
40. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another.
41. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;
43. it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
44. it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Though it does not concern about the creation of God, it does not mean what are stated here-- is not true. In v.39, is there a truth--that there is a flesh for men, another for beasts, birds and fish? Of course, there is.

How about the heavenly bodies and earthly bodies? Do we have heaven and earth? How about the sun, moon and stars?

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.

The creation of stars, moon, sun, heaven, seas, inhabitants, humans, vegetation ………. in the book of Genesis is already an accurate descriptions even the cosmos or science. Those are not exemption rather they are the texts that can serve as the tool of evidence about God’s creation and man’s creation. The detailed part of studying the cosmos and science were rendered by scientists or astrologers. Those are great discoveries to exhibit God’s magnificence in His great and wonderful things that He made for us.

Job 38:31-37
31. "Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades,
Or loose the cords of Orion?
32. "Can you lead forth a constellation in its season,
And guide the Bear with her satellites?
33. "Do you know the ordinances of the heavens,
Or fix their rule over the earth?
34. "Can you lift up your voice to the clouds,
So that an abundance of water may cover you?
35. "Can you send forth lightnings that they may go
And say to you, `Here we are'?
36. "Who has put wisdom in the innermost being,
Or has given understanding to the mind?
37. "Who can count the clouds by wisdom,
Or tip the water jars of the heavens,

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

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?

Hi Sojourner,

My answers to this (above) with Brick.

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.

The Bible does not teach Henotheism, and it is consistent in teaching monotheism.

From the start, God already stated that He is one Lord.
Deut. 6:4
4. "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!

Isa. 45:5
5. "I am the Lord, and there is no other;
Besides Me there is no God.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me;

Paul made this statement,
1 Cor. 8:4-6
4. Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
5. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
6. yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Jesus taught us love.

You forgot to answer my question, “Does follow include in following His teachings/word?”

You can be whatever religion you wish.

Luke 9:23
23. And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.


So how can you reconcile this statement of following Jesus, and following any religion you wish?

I think you're confused.

Show me where I’m confused, and correct me with my posted Scripture. You may do so.

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.

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

Your example that every piece of pie is composed of different religion/beliefs represents “ecumenism” and not Christianity. My example is the whole pie is Christianity—Jesus as the head. How could other beliefs will be taken into consideration if Jesus commanded us to follow Him, those who follow Him (only) are considered as His disciples/followers? A person who is not a follower can’t deny Himself, carry his own cross, and follow Jesus. It would take a 360 degree turn around in order for him to follow. Making them as follower in Christ is just like having a blindfold in their eyes.

I personally experience that before I truly committed my life to Christ. It took three years that I’ve been hiding with God because I already know what is to follow--a total surrender of my life to His will, and not mine. I’m not prepared during that time. I cannot move my feet to step-in, and give myself to Him—as denying myself to God.

Just as Jesus is God Incarnate.

Yes, you can say that Jesus is God incarnate. Period. Why need to pick the word of “avatar” just as Hinduism used it, as well as the concepts of pantheism?

The method that you’re using to comprehend terms and its usage are the same as of how your understand the Scriptures. I observed that you pick the definition of “an avatar is the bodily incarnation of a deity on earth” then cover and ignore all other details that supports the meaning of an avatar; without dividing the truth on how can that affect and distort the image of Christ.

The phenomenon of an avatar is observed in Hinduism,[4] Ayyavazhi, and Sikhism[citation needed]. Avatar is regarded as one of the core principles of Hinduism.[5]wikipedia

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.

By abiding in love.

Did Jesus have an intimate relationship with the Father? Isn’t it. If Jesus submit to His Father, do you think that the Father’s will for us--is not to submit to Him?

Not only in love we abide, but abiding to His word.
John 8:31
31. Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;

Matt. 26:42
42. He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, "My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, Thy will be done."

If Jesus uttered “Thy will be done,” I don’t see any reason why we can’t say to God “Thy will be done.”

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

Maybe it is for them and not for Christianity.

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

As consistent with “who is God and who is Jesus.”

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

I said it is the faith in Jesus Christ/God.

Eph. 2:8-9
8. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9. not as a result of works, that no one should boast.

Asked and answered.

This is not yet answered, I just want to clarify with these Scriptures.

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?

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.

If we are not puppets, therefore we have a choice or free-will to do our will. If salvation is not forced, then that would mean not all will be saved. I thought you believe that all will be saved.

Therefore, John 3:16 is consistent in saying “whoever” believe in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

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

What is historic Christ for you? And what is biblical Christ?

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

I did not study theology using a metaphoric term “mask” in the doctrine of sin. Where did you get that? If the mask you are referring is the “sin” itself, then that is the nature of man after the fall.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Take your pick.

Why I should initiate the pick? You just said that this statements :

1. I don’t have proof or basis.
2. My interpretation of Scripture is my own opinion.
3. I give my interpretation and call it absolute truth.

Now, can you cite what are those of my interpretation?

Not literalistically, in the same manner that you conceive.

The Bereans examined the Scriptures daily. Examining is investigating. There is no reason why we should not study and examine the word of God. They are in the past, they do the examination of the word. How much more we should examine thoroughly the Scriptures today.

As Paul once said at 2Tim. 2:15 "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth."

Acts 17:11
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.

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.

A little or big, still a great help coming from the technology.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

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.By Yoshua

So, what is a circle to you, does a circle, not round? Did the earth is not round or circle?

This is so ridiculous I have to respond. The earth is not a circle. The earth is a globe, or a sphere. There is a difference. One is a two-dimensional disc, the other a three-dimensional sphere. Does the Bible say circle, or sphere?

Here is an illustration of the flat earth model, the "circle" model of the religious leader Glen Wilbur Voliva in 1931 offering $5000 to any scientist who could prove the earth was a globe! He has a rather wonderful circle earth complete with an ice shelf rim to keep us from falling over the edge, all based upon his reading and interpretation of the verses you quote to support a spherical earth I'll add. http://blog.modernmechanix.com/5000-for-proving-the-earth-is-a-globe/

I think you could learn a lot about your own reading of the Bible from this man. Perhaps you may find truth in his scriptural views and join the flat-earth-society too. It would be consistent with the rest of your reading of scripture as authoritative in matters of science and history.

It talks about God’s dwelling place. He sit above the circle of the earth/land,

So which "above" are we talking about? Above North America, or above Australia? "Above" is relative to someone's position standing on a globe. Exactly where is this "place" God "sits"? The clouds? In low orbit? In high orbit? On the moon? Maybe in the sun? One of the other planets? Another solar system? If you're going to read this as a scientific description, then you need to locate God. Where is heaven? Clearly it has a physical location based upon a scientific reading of the Bible.

It clearly, and according to you authoritatively states he "sits", which means he has legs and a butt. Is God bipedal, quadrupedal, or follow the body plan of an arachnid? This is science, so we need to read it as such and ask these legitimate scientific questions. What size are God's feet? How many fingers does he have? What color is his hair? How tall is he? What does he eat to survive? And so forth. How can he walk in the garden and sit on his throne if he has no physical body and heaven is not a physical place?

Scientists need to quit ignoring this book of "revealed science" and starting finding out more about the God that has clearly offered these scientific clues to humanity in the pages of his book. We need to get rid of these modern ideas about why women have periods and get back to the Biblical science fact that it was because they were cursed!

How can he say the circle of the earth/land, if the earth/land is not a circle (not flat)?

I'll repeat so it didn't get missed. A circle is a disc. A disc is flat. Is a disc like a frisbee which is flat, or is it round like a baseball which is a sphere? One does not typically refer to the circle of a baseball. They call it a ball. But one can refer to the circle of a flat disc like a frisbee.

 

[sojourner]

So, what is a circle to you, does a circle, not round?

How can he say the circle of the earth/land, if the earth/land is not a circle (not flat)?

A circle is, geometrically, flat. Otherwise, it's a cylinder. Neither of which is the shape of the earth.

You didn't even bother to refute my statement about the disc-shape belief of the writers of Genesis.

The Bible does not teach Henotheism, and it is consistent in teaching monotheism.

Yes. It does. Otherwise, it wouldn't mention God as either elohim (a plural reference) or "other gods" (such as, "You shall have no other gods before me.")

You forgot to answer my question, “Does follow include in following His teachings/word?”

No I didn't. Jesus taught love. Ergo, when we act with love, we are following Jesus' teaching.

Luke 9:23
23. And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.


So how can you reconcile this statement of following Jesus, and following any religion you wish?

You're really torturing this text in order to make it say what you want it to say. People can follow Jesus and be all sorts of different kinds of religions. People can display sacrificial love and be all sorts of different kinds of religions.

It is clearly emphasized that loving Jesus/God is to keep and remain in His word. That is the truth.

Correct. That's what I said: Those who love (that is, follow Jesus' commandments), love Jesus. You're confused because you're saying the same thing I'm saying, but saying I'm wrong, and asserting that you're right. You don't know what you're talking about here.

Your example that every piece of pie is composed of different religion/beliefs represents “ecumenism” and not Christianity.

That's exactly right, because "the whole pie" is comprised of every concept of the Divine. That's how the metaphor works. You torture the metaphor by insisting that a pie is comprised of only one ingredient. But a pie contains milk, flour, sugar, eggs, fruit of one kind or another, etc. A pie is also cut into many pieces if it is to be used for its intended purpose. Those ingredients and pieces represent all the different ways of perceiving the Divine. Christianity is only one piece of a much larger pie, just as Christianity is only one religion in a much larger milieu of religious expression.

My example is the whole pie is Christianity—Jesus as the head. How could other beliefs will be taken into consideration if Jesus commanded us to follow Him, those who follow Him (only) are considered as His disciples/followers?

Don't confuse "following Jesus" with "being a Christian." They aren't the same thing. One follows Jesus when one loves; when one does what Jesus does. Remember, Jesus said that not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord!" (meaning, "identify as 'Christian'") will enter the kin-dom, because not all who confess as Christian do what Jesus did.

Other religions are taken under consideration because they're real -- they exist under the umbrella of human religious expression. You don't get to decide that "all other religions are false."

Yes, you can say that Jesus is God incarnate. Period. Why need to pick the word of “avatar” just as Hinduism used it, as well as the concepts of pantheism?

Because that's what "Christ of the bible is." He is an avatar -- a symbol -- an image of the reconciliation of humanity with Divinity.

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.

I don't have a problem with that. Jesus did say that he must bring other sheep, after all. Alfred Burt, an American sacred composer, wrote a choral piece called, Some Children See Him.

"Some children see him lily-white -- the baby Jesus born this night ... some children see him bronzed and brown, the Lord of heaven to earth come down ... the children in each different place will the baby Jesus' face like theirs, but full of heavenly grace..."

One could view avatars as embodying the concepts of pantheism (god is all) and polytheism (many gods).

One could, but one doesn't have to -- and in this case, one doesn't.

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.

No, it's not. Because we assert that Jesus was fully human and fully Divine.

Did Jesus have an intimate relationship with the Father? Isn’t it. If Jesus submit to His Father, do you think that the Father’s will for us--is not to submit to Him?

Well, that's what love is: submitting oneself to the object of one's love.

Maybe it is for them and not for Christianity.

You need to study your Christian history and theology more. There are highly Platonic and Pagan influences that both lie at the root of Christian thought.

As consistent with “who is God and who is Jesus.”

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

I said it is the faith in Jesus Christ/God.

I don't give a tinker's damn what you "said." You're misreading the text. Take another look:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God"
Take a real close look at what I've emphasized: It is the the gift of God. God is the impetus for faith. It is, therefore, God who saves.

This is not yet answered

If has been answered. How many times have I said, "Love is the impetus for doing these things?"
It has been asked and answered many times.

If we are not puppets, therefore we have a choice or free-will to do our will. If salvation is not forced, then that would mean not all will be saved. I thought you believe that all will be saved.

Not true. Salvation isn't "forced." it just "is." "force," in this case, means, "to move against the will of that being moved." Salvation, though, isn't a matter of will. It's a matter of being. No one forces us (against our will) to be human, yet we are human.

Therefore, John 3:16 is consistent in saying “whoever” believe in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

And "whoever" = "all humanity." Doesn't Phil. 2 say that "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess...?" Doesn't Luke 15 say that the shepherd searches until all are found?

What is historic Christ for you? And what is biblical Christ?

There is that which we can prove with a fair degree of certainty, and then there is that which is obviously highly mythic.

I did not study theology using a metaphoric term “mask” in the doctrine of sin.

Your loss. Just because "you didn't study it" doesn't mean it isn't so. You're not a theologian.

If the mask you are referring is the “sin” itself, then that is the nature of man after the fall.

The nature of humanity after the fall is precisely the same as the nature of humanity before the fall. We are now, and always have been, the imago dei.
Adam was naked before the fall. After the fall, Adam was still naked. But he saw that he was naked, and covered himself. IOW, he put on a mask that covered his natural nudity. Jeezzus!!! How frickin' plain can it be?!

This is precisely why non-theologians shouldn't toy around with it as if they actually knew something about it. Because then they end up coming up with foolish and unfounded ideas that "contemplation is satanic."

 

[sojourner]

Why I should initiate the pick? You just said that this statements :

1. I don’t have proof or basis.
2. My interpretation of Scripture is my own opinion.
3. I give my interpretation and call it absolute truth.

Now, can you cite what are those of my interpretation?

Every scriptural reference you've given has been your interpretation. Every. Single. One.

The Bereans examined the Scriptures daily. Examining is investigating. There is no reason why we should not study and examine the word of God. They are in the past, they do the examination of the word. How much more we should examine thoroughly the Scriptures today.

But not literalistically, in the manner you propose. Literalism is a product of modernity.

A little or big, still a great help coming from the technology.

Technology only helps in getting us back closer to the source. It doesn't particularly help in the interpretive process.

 

[sojourner]

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.By Yoshua

So, what is a circle to you, does a circle, not round? Did the earth is not round or circle?

Let me expound on this ridiculous argument.
In Genesis, where it talks about the firmament, that word "firmament" is directly translated from the Hebrew raqiya, which literally means, "A hammered-out bowl." 1) a raqiya is, specifically, a bronze bowl that is formed into a bowl shape through the smithing process of hammering. A "hammered-out bowl" is rigid. It's solid. It can be (and is) shaped by hammering on it with a hammer. 2) a bowl is (generally speaking) bowl-shaped. That is, it is (more or less) some sort of partial spheroid. Where the bowl's rim is defined, it forms a ... circle. 3) If the bowl is turned upside-down and placed so that the rim conforms exactly to some surface upon which it rests, that surface upon which it rests is also ... circular, but cannot, by the laws of geometry, be spheroid (otherwise, the bowl could not cover the surface).

So, by the use of the term raqiya, it's obvious that the biblical writers conceived of the earth as a generally flat, disc-shaped object, which was covered by a rigid (and solid) dome (the sky). Upon this solid dome were affixed the sun, moon, stars, and other heavenly bodies. The dome of the sky then rotated around the disc of the earth, such that the sun, moon and stars move about over said dome.

As an interesting aside, for the ancient writers of Genesis, light doesn't come "from the sun." Light comes from "somewhere else," since light was created before the sun. Therefore, the bible is WRONG, and has been proven WRONG by science.

 

[Windwalker]

The nature of humanity after the fall is precisely the same as the nature of humanity before the fall. We are now, and always have been, the imago dei.
Adam was naked before the fall. After the fall, Adam was still naked. But he saw that he was naked, and covered himself. IOW, he put on a mask that covered his natural nudity. Jeezzus!!! How frickin' plain can it be?!

Precisely. It was the awakening to the separate self that created existential fear. The only thing that actually changed was how we perceived ourselves. As it says in the Upanishads, where there is other there is fear. If we see and love others as ourselves, they are not separate from us, they are not other to us. When we see ourselves as God sees us, when we love ourselves as God loves us, we love others as ourselves. There then is no other. There is only God. This then is the reconciliation to God. To know ourselves as God knows us, and to see and love others as ourselves, as an extension of our Being.

This is precisely why non-theologians shouldn't toy around with it as if they actually knew something about it. Because then they end up coming up with foolish and unfounded ideas that "contemplation is satanic."

Yes, hacks. This is what happens when the Bible "interprets itself" in the hands of the non-expert.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, what is a circle to you, does a circle, not round? Did the earth is not round or circle?

The earth is a planet in space, not a circle with a curtain pulled over it.

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.By Yoshua

There’s a line that was mentioned and it gone out through all the earth. It talks about the placement of the sun, and traveling upon heaven. In v.6, a coming round is a circuit. The course of the sun from east-west, and its heat was mentioned. It describes the sun. This is truth.

A line is not a circle. The Sun travels very fast in a curved course (not a line) going around the galaxy center as we go around the sun. The sun also doesn't live in a house at the edge of the world like this above passage plainly claims. This passage is bad science. Admit it or you deserve shame.

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

Then why it is said that the earth/land hangs on nothing? We are talking about the evidence that the earth/land is hanging on nothing, and that is the creation of God’s power.

It is much different from hanging. The point is the Bible has such a terrible, unscientific description of what our spherical (not circular) Earth is doing. Rather than hanging, if you could stand in front of it you'd be squashed, run over and vaporized, because it is moving so fast. Its rotating and revolving, and the sun does not live in a house at its edge. This Bible passage is unhelpful and has been a nightmare for Scientists for centuries. It got Galileo and Johann Kepler into trouble with their church, because their actual scientific descriptions alarmed Bible enthusiasts. It was the fault of those Bible enthusiasts for demanding that the Bible be a science text.

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.' ''By Yoshua

Gen. 22:17
17. indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.

Do you believe that there are stars in heaven? If you believe, then, the Scripture is also telling you that the stars are innumerable.

Anyway, there is a Scripture (below) that is more direct.
Gen. 1:16
16. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

There is a star, as God created them, and they are innumerable.

It is a terribly unscientific description. Its incredibly unhelpful to any scientist or student of the stars. Like I said, anybody can look up at night and see that there's no way to count all of the stars. The statement has zero scientific value or help in it.

Notice also that the Bible misdirects you into thinking that the sun is not a star. We now know that the sun is a star contrary to the Bible's statement that the sun rules the day and the stars rule the night. It is just another star, the same as other stars, not different. The Bible made a distinction between the sun and the stars, misleading anyone who took it as an astronomical text.

Thanks

Remember that the Bible is not an astronomical book or a Science book. Its about people and ideas, and its got a beneficial purpose of bringing civilization many gifts but not Science. It never gave us facts about astronomy. What it did give us was a logical deductive process used by the Jews for their legal processes, and that became one of the pillars of science all over the world which did eventually allow us to truly understand what the Earth was shaped like and that the sun was a star, contrary to appearances and certain Bible passages.

 

[Orbit]

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.

This isn't even coherent. "The writers of the Bible?". Are we talking about how the writers of the Bible interpreted what they were writing? Ah, I thought not. Now, on to the readers of the Bible. What Windwalker is saying (and forgive me for speaking for you, KJ) isn't that you aren't allowed your interpretation of the Bible, it's that you are not allowed to say YOUR interpretation is the ONE, ULTIMATE, TRUE interpretation. You are also not allowed to say that your interpretation ISN'T an interpretation.

 

[Windwalker]

What Windwalker is saying (and forgive me for speaking for you, KJ) isn't that you aren't allowed your interpretation of the Bible, it's that you are not allowed to say YOUR interpretation is the ONE, ULTIMATE, TRUE interpretation. You are also not allowed to say that your interpretation ISN'T an interpretation.

That's precisely correct. I do think it's safe to say some interpretations are "better" than others, which would be based upon one's qualifications not only academically but in the case of sacred scriptures, spiritually. But not even the most academically knowledgeable, or spiritually enlightened soul can speak with infallibility. Yet, that is what is being claimed by the fundis when they say, "It's not me saying this, it's the Bible". That's total nonsense. It is them saying it and claiming infallibility by magically claiming it's not them interpreting the Bible. Ridiculous.

 

[InChrist]

This sounds like personal insecurity on your part. Don't judge me based upon that. I have no need to compensate for low self-esteem by pretending I'm better than others. I'm not the one claiming to know the truth of God's word, pointing out the errors of everyone else. Think about that....

You are just repeating my words. I asked you to explain why I say this based upon your own understanding. And then, once you've done that, point out why you think it is invalid, addressing specific reasonings.


The Bible is not an owner's manual, and neither you nor I are machines! This too reflects the bane of the modernist mentality. All of this is addressed in that post you so glibly dismissed in the swipe of your hand without support. If you understood it, then deal with the points in it.

Why do you feel the need to so often include a bit of psychoanalysis in your posts? Are you professionally involved in the field of Psychology or something related?

I may have used some of the words you used for clarity for your sake, but in doing so I was expressing my understanding of what you've been saying.

Actually while you deny the Bible is the infallible word of God on one hand, on the other hand you use the scriptures in an attempt to validate your mysticism and claim your interpretations are more accurate and enlightened than those Christians who do believe the scriptures to be God’s Word. Along with that, you claim to be divine and God and certainly don’t seem to hesitate pointing out what you believe to be the misinterpreted errors of believers who hold to the historic essential doctrines of biblical faith which has been once for all delivered to the saints. I don’t point out error of everyone; that is a generalization. It is only those who promote false teaching contrary to the scriptures, yet who somehow for self-serving reasons still want to be associated with (their redefined) God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, the Bible.

I think since the scriptures reveal that God is the Creator and we are His creatures by His design to whom He has given His written word as a primary meaning of communication, then the Bible is certainly an Owner’s manual. I am sorry that you reject His instructions, Jesus as your Savior and scriptures as God’s revelation because in doing so I think you are missing out most importantly on what your Creator desires for you to understand personally, but you will remain unaware of God’s hand moving through history and events taking place in the world today right before your eyes which can’t see.