It is currently Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:13 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 471 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:15 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 9606
Let's suppose for a moment there is a man who spent the bulk of his early adult years living like an American hedonistic. His social life was defined by alcohol consumption and wild flings with women who were merely objects used to gratify his carnal urges. On the outside he was living life fully by doing well in his work and being the life of the party everywhere he went. Women fell into his bed, and in and out of his life, and he was financially well off. He had everything life seemed to be able to offer.

But inside he was miserable. And this took its toll on him, leading to people not finding him as fun to be around, affecting his job, and spinning him even deeper into the pit of unhappiness.

At a moment he would come to view as his rock bottom, he found himself in a hotel room questioning if anything mattered at all when he decided to open the Bible in the room and read it. The verse he read hit him as having a profound answer that compelled him to read and then pray. And in this moment he found a feeling of hope and joy that showed he could find joy and purpose in life. He followed this path to join in communion with others, and in the process took on new habits and a way of life that included others in different ways than his former life involved. And in so doing, he found more and more purpose, better relationships including marriage and fatherhood, and his former empty life was nothing more than a nightmare he had awoken from years past.

To this person, the idea there might not be a god or that the Bible is a collection of mythic tales would seem silly. His life became so more because of God and the teachings of the Bible. And they are exactly what the Christian community had promised would come from accepting Jesus.

Would this hypothetical person rightly call their conversion inexplicable?

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:25 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 9606
Ceeboo wrote:
honorentheos wrote:
I was fond of Lewis as a Mormon, both from loving the Narnia series as a kid and discovering his Christian writings after serving a mission. Mere Christianity was practically scripture to me, falling in the category of truth a member of the faith could find from any source and absorbing.

I say that so that my response doesn't sound flippant, but I don't believe the above accurately describes Lewis's conversion. He was raised religious, fell away while a teen and had his time in WWI reinforce his view that no God could possibly have ownership of the mess that is the world. But he remained engaged and engaging the topic including long exchanges with J.R.R. Tolkian who sought to convert him to Catholicism.

The story about entering the bus as an atheist and getting off said bus as a believer in God is how he tells the story in his book "Surprised by Joy." After this, Tolkien (an intellectual Christian friend) challenged him to think critically about Jesus and the claims of Jesus - As Lewis took this challenge (wrestling with the idea of Jesus being God in the flesh) He accepted Jesus as Hid Lord and Savior a few hours later. A few days after that, he wrote this to Tolkien “I have passed on from believing in God to definitely believing in Christ — in Christianity.”


Here is a quote from Surprised by Joy:

whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape? The words “compelle intrare,” compel them to come in, have been so abused be wicked men that we shudder at them; but, properly understood, they plumb the depth of the Divine mercy. The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation.

The moment you describe came two years later when he was 31-

I know very well when, but hardly how, the final step was taken. I was driven to Whipsnade one sunny morning. When we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and when we reached the zoo I did.

His conversion from atheist to theist to Christian took years.

https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/lewiscs-sur ... -01-h.html

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Last edited by honorentheos on Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:27 am 
God

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm
Posts: 7623
Hey Lemmie
Lemmie wrote:
Rather than the confirmation bias of concluding what one grew up with and what one is comfortable with is the one and only way, and what everyone else believes is simply not,

Do you just assume this because you read a book by Dawkins? Or do you have another reason for the assumption?
Quote:
i think what huckelberry has proposed is far more unifying.

Huckism?
Cool, looks like huckelberry officially has his first follower.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:32 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 9606
Ceebs, have you actually read Surprised by Joy?

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:38 am 
God

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm
Posts: 7623
honorentheos wrote:
Ceebs, have you actually read Surprised by Joy?

No. While trying to find out something about Lewis that is unrelated to this discussion - I ran across several things - one being this:

C.S. Lewis — His Conversion
One Man’s Road to Jesus
By Dr. David R. Reagan

C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis was a professor of Medieval literature at both Oxford and Cambridge Universities before he died in 1963. God’s sense of humor is revealed in the fact that He anointed this great intellectual to become the most popular Christian communicator of this century. His book, Mere Christianity, has been the number one best selling Christian book since it was published at the end of World War II.

Lewis is known as the foremost defender of the Christian faith in this century. His books, The Problem of Pain and Miracles, established his reputation as a great Christian apologist. I highly recommend all these books to you, including his books, The Screwtape Letters and The Great Divorce.

What most people do not know about Lewis is that he was an atheist in his early years and did not come to have a faith in Jesus until he was 32 years old.

I recently discovered a remarkable letter that he wrote to a friend when he was only 18 years old. As you read the following excerpt from that letter, consider how many 18 year olds you know who could write such profound thoughts:

“You ask me my religious views: you know, I think I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies, to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention…

Thus religion, that is to say mythology, grew up. Often, too, great men were regarded as gods after their death — such as Hercules or Odin: thus after the death of a Hebrew philosopher Yeshua (whose name we have corrupted into Jesus), he became regarded as a god, a cult sprang up, which was afterwards connected with the ancient Hebrew Yahweh-worship, and so Christianity came into being — one mythology among many.” [From The Letters of C.S. Lewis by W.H. Lewis]

In his book, Surprised by Joy, Lewis tells how he became a Christian, mainly through the reading of both secular and Christian books. The first step came in 1929 when he was 31 years old.

He had been reading some Christian books over and over again (books by Donne, Browne, Spenser, Milton, Johnson and Chesterton) when he decided to go to town on the bus (Lewis never learned how to drive!). He got on the bus an atheist. As he rode along, “he reconsidered Hegel’s philosophy of the absolute and festooned it with Berkley’s notion of the spirit. What resulted was a philosophical construct he called God.” When his stop came, he got off the bus believing that God did indeed exist.

The first thing that happened to him was a consciousness of sin. He looked inside himself and was appalled by what he saw: “A Zoo of lusts, a bedlam of ambitions, a nursery of fears, a harem of fondled hatreds.” He wanted to pray. But to whom? He did not yet know the God he believed existed. Nonetheless, “I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.”

A year later at age 32 Lewis spent an evening discussing mythology and Christianity with some intellectual friends who were Christians, one of whom was the writer, J.R.R. Tolkien. They challenged him as he had never been challenged before to think critically about Jesus. After the meeting broke up, Lewis could not go to sleep. He continue to wrestle with the concept of Jesus as God in the flesh. By 3:00 a.m. he had decided to accept Jesus as his Savior. Twelve days later he wrote these words to Tolkien: “I have passed on from believing in God to definitely believing in Christ — in Christianity.”

As Lewis reasoned about Jesus and His claim to deity, he kept asking himself, is He God or was He simply what most people say, that is, “a great moral teacher”? He suddenly came to a conclusion that has convicted millions since that time:

“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must take your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else he was a madman or something worse.” [Mere Christianity]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:40 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 9606
I shared a link to a free PDF of it above. You could read the last two chapters and have a better understanding of his actual conversion process than what you quoted gave. Primary sources, brother.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:40 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:29 pm
Posts: 4214
Thinking of Lewis, Surprised by Joy.

It is too long ago when I last read this book to remember details. Lewis has always been a strong utilizer and recommender of thought and study in a persons approach to faith. I like him believe there is also a spiritual dimension that is necessary (for Ceeboo, God calls and through the call enables faith in Jesus).

I do not see any way to demonstrate objectively that personal change associated with conversion or the start of Christian faith is miraculous. I believe it is but it is permeated with completely natural thoughts and concerns. It is always linked to receiving the message through natural means. Like prayer it can be seen as a natural act perform by natural people reviewing their thoughts and hopes. For the person praying prayer is that but also has a spiritual dimension making it something larger.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:41 am 
God

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm
Posts: 7623
honorentheos wrote:
I shared a link to a free PDF of it above. You could read the last two chapters and have a better understanding of his actual conversion process than what you quoted gave. Primary sources, brother.

Thanks!
Much appreciated!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:44 am 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 9023
Ceeboo wrote:
Hey Lemmie
Lemmie wrote:
Rather than the confirmation bias of concluding what one grew up with and what one is comfortable with is the one and only way, and what everyone else believes is simply not,

Do you just assume this because you read a book by Dawkins? Or do you have another reason for the assumption?

Are you serious? I wrote it because I think it. Here is my full opinion, if you would like to respond:
Quote:
Lemmie:

Rather than the confirmation bias of concluding what one grew up with and what one is comfortable with is the one and only way, and what everyone else believes is simply not, i think what huckelberry has proposed is far more unifying.

Re the Bible study and nicodemus example, is the argument that the then contemporary version of the phrase “born of the Spirit” was unknown to those studying the Tanakh?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:45 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 9606
As a believer I thought this quote from Lewis was profound -

“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must take your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else he was a madman or something worse.” [Mere Christianity]

Only after getting into the work of both faithful and skeptical text critics of the New Testament did it occur to me it had a fatal flaw. We don't know what Jesus actually said about himself, only what others claim he did and those all have views as to who he was that are what gets reflected in the New Testament. It's a poorly thought out bit of logic once reflected on in the light of the limits of our knowledge of the historical Jesus.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Last edited by honorentheos on Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:05 am 
God

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm
Posts: 7623
honorentheos wrote:
As a believer I thought this quote from Lewis was profound -

“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must take your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else he was a madman or something worse.” [Mere Christianity]

Yeah - me too!

Quote:
After getting into the work of both faithful and skeptical text critics of the New Testament did it occur to me it had a fatal flaw. We don't know what Jesus actually said about himself, only what others claim he did and those all have views as to who he was that are what gets reflected in the New Testament. It's a poorly thought out bit of logic once reflected on in the light of the limits of our knowledge of the historical Jesus.

Well, rather than opening up a conversation that would requite another 36 pages of thread, I will simply say this: The great, great majority of New Testament scholars (believers, non-believers and agnostics) conclude the following. Jesus was crucified - the tomb was empty and several people believe they saw a resurrected Jesus. So, we are all left in a similar position: What is the best explanation of the various claims of seeing a resurrected Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:13 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 9606
Ceeboo wrote:
What is the best explanation of the various claims of seeing a resurrected Jesus?

I'll plagerize myself from another thread and copy this over.

The question raised at that time was how trustworthy were the gospels of the New Testament in declaring the core message of Christianity. That being, Jesus of Nazareth as redeemer and savior of the world. To address the question, I suggested looking to the birth and resurrection narratives in the Gospels and what that tells us regarding their reliability.

Many modern scholars agree those who built a church up around Jesus after his death believed he was the Jewish Messiah. This would mean they believed Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah which were popular in Roman Palestine at the time. Examples included being a descendant of King David, being born in Bethlehem, and that he would come to the people riding a donkey or ass. And, he'll be raised from the dead.

To make a case for why the New Testament is a poor witness for Jesus' resurrection, let's first look at how the New Testament describes another event in Jesus' life that would require fulfilling Messianic prophecy - his birth.

Mark, the earliest and probably closest Gospel is silent. Why? We don't know. Some scholars have suggested that Mark does not describe a Jesus who sees himself as the Messiah, but rather one who is declaring the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel who would bring a literal Kingdom of God to the earth. Maybe that's true, maybe not. Either way, Mark does not try to show us parallels between Messianic prophecy and the life of Jesus.

John, the last of the gospels to be composed, is also silent on the physical birth of Jesus. Instead, we are given the poetic description of the Logos. I think it's likely that the author of John was not concerned with proving Jesus was the Jewish messiah (as the Gospel of John is also anti-Semitic in general), but instead focuses on showing the reader that Jesus is much more than that - Jesus is the Word of God and with God from the beginning. The John birth narrative isn't missing, IMO as is often stated. Instead, it tells the reader the question of what happened at Jesus' birth is the wrong question.

We are left with the two other synoptic gospels to find out about the birth story of Jesus. And they don't match up on almost every point. Why is that? Since they both used Mark and at least one other common source, this also suggests the earliest sources about Christ's life in circulation did not include a birth narrative. The scholarly suggestion is that there wasn't a codified version of the Nativity at the time of their writing. But the Messiah has to fulfill certain prophecies at his birth. What to do? Most likely, both authors took from legends being shared and fit them together as best they could. They may also have invented pieces of the story from whole cloth.

In Matthew, we see constant reference to prophecy being fulfilled. Jesus is born in Bethlehem. Matthew or his sources (from now on I'll just reference Matthew and Luke as short hand for the potential other source) tell a story about Herod killing all of the male children in Bethlehem age 2 or younger, has wise men from the east visit the infant, sends Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod's men, and of course tells us Mary was a virgin. And there is the genealogy that shows Jesus was a descendant of King David. All of the above are specifically included because there is a scripture somewhere that needed to be addressed associated with beliefs about the Messiah.

Yet none of this matches Luke’s telling other than the general idea that Mary was a virgin.

Luke invents the story of a census to get Jesus to Bethlehem, has shepherds visit Jesus, and tells us Jesus and John the Baptist are related. And there is a virgin birth narrative and a genealogy.

The core stories don't match where there is no original source material to provide background consistency.

The parsimonious answer for why, rather than the apologetic one, is simply that the authors invented a backstory for Jesus that met the requirements that showed Jesus was the Messiah. Because they did not/could not collaborate and there wasn't a common source available at the time, the stories differ.

This gives us a couple of general rules of thumb when examining the gospel authors and the Resurrection account.

First, it gives us a hint that if there is a commonly understood event in Jesus’ life and it has been recorded in one of the source gospels, it is likely to show up as common to Matthew and Luke. But absent such an account, they will fill in the gaps with an eye to ensuring the narrative fulfills Messianic prophecy.

Since the Messiah has to be raised from the dead, and Jesus was the Messiah, it is only natural that both accounts tell us this is so. Both Matthew and Luke had Mark as a source, so we should expect to see Mark’s narrative in the account of the passion leading to the resurrection.

We have Mark’s account in chapters 14-16. They tell us that the priests schemed to have Jesus arrested in Jerusalem but feared a riot by the people, there was a last supper of sorts, Jesus took his disciples and prayed before being betrayed by Judas, that before the Priests they ultimately convict him based on His claiming to be the Messiah, take him to Pilate and claim he called himself the King of the Jews which he does not deny. Pilate releases Barnabas when the Jews cry for Jesus to be crucified, and he is handed over to the Roman soldiers for execution. He is mocked as a would-be king, beaten, crucified, and dies at noon on the day before the Sabbath. His body is given to Joseph of Arimathia who places him in his tomb and has a stone rolled in front of it. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph see where he is buried. They wait until after the Sabbath (a night, a day, and a night) and go that next morning described as the first day of the week to wash the body. They wonder who will roll the stone away but find it is already moved. Instead they find a young man in a white robe who tells them that Jesus is not there but has risen. He charges them to go tell Peter and the disciples that Jesus has gone ahead to Galilee and will meet them there. But they don’t go to Peter and tell him as charged. Instead, they are afraid and run away. And Mark ends his story here as evidenced by early manuscript copies and the later inclusion of what is known as the Marcan Appendix. The last verse of Mark before the Marcan Appendix, 16:8, ends with the women who are told of Christ's resurrection leaving and not telling anyone. Why? I don't think anyone can say with certainty. What we do know is that the v. 8 ending is the oldest existent forms of Mark that we have. Not that there was variety in these oldest texts but that they end at v. 8 and others speaking of the Gospel affirm this was the case in the manuscript copies available. Early variants that then follow v. 8 seem to lack cohesive language to suggest the replacement of lost language. Rather, they seem to be there to fill in a gap based on various author's understanding of what followed. It could be that there were oral traditions being passed around and the written variants reflect this. But we don't know.

How the authors of Matthew and Luke deal with this further supports that the text they had ended at what we know as v. 8. So what do Matthew and Luke do with this story when they again lack guiding information in their sources?

Luke, at the end of chapter 23, tells us about the women seeing the body laid to rest and going on the day after the Sabbath to find the stone rolled away. But instead of a young man in a white robe, they are met by two men in heavenly glowing robes who tell them Christ is risen and to go to the apostles. They remember that Jesus said he would rise and do as they were told. Luke tells us of Peter visiting the tomb and wondering. He tells us of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. He tells us of a direct appearance to the 11 who were still in Jerusalem. He tells them all this was in the fulfillment of scripture and Christ ascends into heaven. The 11 rejoice and remain in Jerusalem going often to the temple until Acts tells us about the Day of Pentecost.

Matthew inserts a little piece between the women seeing the stone placed before the tomb and finding it moved away the day after the Sabbath. He has the priest going to Pilate on the Sabbath (but saying the day after preparation day instead of the Sabbath. Kind of like saying the day after Christmas Eve) and claiming that they heard that Jesus proclaim he would rise on the third day after his death. Matthew tells us they feared a deception and ask for a guard and for the tomb to be sealed. Pilate grants this. So when the women go and find the tomb open Matthew has a little story about an earthquake and angels that scare the guards so they leave and we learn they are paid off to tell no one what they saw. Instead, they are to tell everyone they found the small plates of Nephi because God knew the 116 would be stolen…wait, wrong story. They seem similar to me so I mix those up sometimes… ;) Anyway, they are told to tell everyone that Jesus’ disciples stole the body and spread the lie about being resurrected on the 3rd day. Matthew tells us this lie is prevalent among the Jews even in his day. Matthew tells us the women go to the disciples being afraid (as Mark told us) BUT ALSO FULL OF JOY so they are doing as told. Then Jesus appears to them on the way to the disciples and tells them to have the disciples meet him in Galilee. They do so, and the 11 go to Galilee to meet Jesus who tells them they are to be filled with power and go to all nations. The end.

John has his own version of events and, as we’ve noticed with the birth narrative, he isn’t too concerned with what Mark or anyone else that we know of had to say. John includes many different stories of what happened during the passion, has Jesus executed on a different day to make sure it is clear he is the Lamb of God being sacrificed as the other lambs on the day before Passover. We have an entirely different account of who came to the tomb, who saw what, what was said, who saw Jesus where and when, and ultimately an extra chapter that the original author may not have written as the final word.

Like with the birth narrative, when Matthew and Luke are without a common source, their stories diverge wildly. One has the disciples remaining in Jerusalem, while the other has them go to Galilee. One has Jesus appear to many people, the other has Jesus appear to a few. Neither account matches up once we lose Mark as the common touchstone.

What we know: Mark was the first of the Gospels to be written and the other Gospel writers used Mark while not being eyewitnesses to any of the events described. This includes the resurrection of Christ. The closest we come, as modern readers, to the resurrection is in the word of Paul in 1 Cor. 15 who shares what he was taught from James and Peter. It's here he tells the reader that to have hope in Christ in this life only would be miserable. Thus, Christ had to have been raised from the dead.

Given the nature of this board I will only in passing point out that the many, many issues with the Book of Mormon which for Mormons is intended to be a second and confirming witness of Jesus Christ don't help the Mormon believer out in trying to resolve the question based on scriptural evidence.

I see no reasonable support for arguing that the central messages of the Christian gospel should be assumed as a given rather than treated skeptically.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:36 am 
God

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm
Posts: 7623
Honor

That's the 36 pages of thread I was talking about. :)

I understand and recognize many of these positions. I do not dismiss these positions and I find some of them to be rather significant and worthy of consideration/thought (No matter what personal beliefs one holds) - I am simply not interested in getting involved with an extremely lengthy discussion about them.
I post this response for the sole purpose of letting yo know that I read your post and that I did not ignore it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:42 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 9606
It's an interesting contrast that the above is what I would call studying the Bible while the exposition on how this or that story carefully chosen out of the OT to paint a comparison with modern beliefs about Jesus are, IMO, a form of selective reading that largely ignores the Bible as a whole.

But to each their own. Thank you for considering it and letting me know you did read it. :)

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:44 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:29 pm
Posts: 4214
Ceeboo wrote:
Hey huckelberry
huckelberry wrote:

Because I understand Christianity to be about how we treat others and ourselves. I understand the punishment of sin to be first and foremost the destruction of human and internal relationships that is sin. Of course to degrade the value of that primary value, the beauty of life,by sin is an affront to ourselves, neighbors and God. When John speaks of salvation it is from all of those destructive forces not just an arbitrary and grumpy god.


I'm having a really hard time tracking with you. Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? At least the parts I bolded?

Thanks in advance.


Ceeboo, I was a bit puzzled as to your question but I can try to clarify.

The conversation was about john 3;16,17. the world should be saved by the Son of God. People have posed the objection to this annoucement that what we are to be saved from are bureaucratic administrative errors which are to be solved by a bureaucratic bookkeeping maneuver.

I think on the contrary that sin is a disease which results in human and social death, not by arbitrary punishment but by the destructive impact of the disease. The atonement is not just a legal maneuver but medicine by which we are healed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:57 am 
God

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm
Posts: 7623
honorentheos wrote:

But to each their own.

Indeed.
Quote:
Thank you for considering it and letting me know you did read it. :)

And I thank you for the last several exchanges. :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:58 am 
God

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm
Posts: 7623
Hey huck
huckelberry wrote:

Ceeboo, I was a bit puzzled as to your question but I can try to clarify.

The conversation was about john 3;16,17. the world should be saved by the Son of God. People have posed the objection to this annoucement that what we are to be saved from are bureaucratic administrative errors which are to be solved by a bureaucratic bookkeeping maneuver.

I think on the contrary that sin is a disease which results in human and social death, not by arbitrary punishment but by the destructive impact of the disease. The atonement is not just a legal maneuver but medicine by which we are healed.

Got it.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 1:16 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 19116
Other than the bizarre fascination with CS Lewis’ faith that some Christians seem to hold dear, I find it interesting that as much as he’s trotted out Christians that do so know very little about him or his theology, which would probably give them pause. Additionally, the argument that Jesus has to be Lord, liar, or lunatic also ignores the possibility that the story about Jesus may be a fabrication by another author, which one might expect a writer of fantasy to be aware of. Guess that was just a small oversight by Mr. Lewis...

- Doc

_________________
Honest conflict has more social value than dishonest harmony. People must be in conflict in good faith in order to wrest the truth from a stingy universe.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:23 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 9606
huckelberry wrote:
People have posed the objection to this annoucement that what we are to be saved from are bureaucratic administrative errors which are to be solved by a bureaucratic bookkeeping maneuver.

I wouldn't characterize it as a bureaucratic issue. It's a condition of one's worldview introducing an explanation or cause for the circumstances one observes, and then postulating a solution to this interpretation whose effect is largely limited to influencing how one approaches or reacts to the circumstances we observe. It's claiming a framing device, not explaining the world in a way that is otherwise inexplicable. I think Christianity only makes sense if one first accepts the preconditions it offers rather than being a compelling explanation for the world as we observe it that makes it necessary for navigating reality. Quite the opposite, actually.

Let's compare:

What we all apparently observe is a world where good and bad things happen.

The universe includes numerous mundane operations that are insignificant at the scale of the universe but could end the existence of humanity in the blink of an eye leaving no trace of our history. The earth we live on includes what are mundane at the scale of planetary operations and insignificant to the regular course of it's existence as is breathing to us; yet many of these mundane world operations can be seen as large scale catastrophes at the scale of humanity resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. More rare planetary events could even threaten to extinguish us entirely. At the human scale, we can observe lying, cheating, violence, hate, fear, self-doubt and self-loathing, abuse, despair, and any other number of human and other natural behaviors and emotions that have negative impacts on ones self and/or other beings. And these happen all the time, everywhere. People get sick, a pet gets taken by a coyote, someone's child dies of cancer, a friend is lost to a freak accident, dozens of people one never heard of are killed by a lone person who took their own emotions and converted them into pain and then set that pain bomb off for maximum effect. Someone ends their own life to try and end their pain without realizing doing so will result in intense pain felt by those who were close to them. There are a lot of bad things that affect people. And a fair percentage of it actually happens outside of our own minds.

On the other hand, the universe is simply breathtaking and wonder inducing. We, as a species, have the ability to gaze out into it through our eyes and instruments and find ways to both understand it and new reasons to marvel at it. The Earth is simply gorgeous and nature is amazing. Above all else, we are suited for living on it, and it is suited for us living on it as well. People can be the subjects arousing our more noble instincts such as love, kindness, admiration, courage, selflessness, appreciation, awe, and inspiration. We accept the good, beautiful and true found in the world naturally and take it to 11 creating art, establishing institutions that serve as buttresses against the bad out there, and discovering new paths and ways of understanding that are simply not available without human intervention in the universe. There are a lot of good things that affect people, and sometimes we let that be the most important influences on our own behaviors and paths.

So, in that light we could say the world is broken and God is the solution to fix it and us. We could say that the universe is what it is (100%!!!! :) ), it's all heading to a frozen end some billions of years in the future long after humanity is gone and there's nothing we can do about it so it's all pointless. Or we can look for the good, the beautiful and the true in what is around us and choose to contribute to it, knowing full well that it's only meaning is for those of us in the moment experiencing it but finding that sufficient for the day.

To my mind, the latter option includes looking at the world we live on, seeing how we are suited to it and it to us, and recognizing our having evolved here means it goes beyond being a mere home one occupies and is more like it being a mother to our being. We are formed by this environment we evolved in called Earth and have an obligation to view it as a relationship where we depend on it rather than an object to be subdued or conquered, or even a stewardship given to a favored offspring by some divine Father figure.

Personally, it makes no sense to view the world as broken. It wasn't made for us and will go on after we have ran our course whether that is a hundred more years, a thousand, we find a way to populate the galaxy, or whathaveyou. Someday humanity's run will end and the universe will go on. And it probably won't have mattered at the scale of the universe as a whole. There is a lot of awesomeness as well as pain, and as an individual I have the capacity to contribute to whether those around me feel pain or something positive. And that's about it. We are not inherently special in some way that means the universe revolves around us, but we DO have a unique capacity to do godly things if we keep letting the nudges in that direction influence the course of our lives and our daily actions. We have our own gravity that is interacting with the gravity of everyone else, pushing and pulling. And we have some form of ability to focus on the types of gravity that we let pull on us that ultimately forms what will be our life story as long as there is someone who remembers us.

The world only appears broken because people have an inherent sense that we matter in ways that transcend our mortality and want to make us out to be central to any other story than the one that is our own life. There HAS to be a divine being who made it all for us. There HAS to be a reason for treating people nicely beside it making the world a bit better for everyone living in it when we do so because it needs to directly benefit ME. When I'm feeling down, there has to be a hand to lift me up and that hand can't just come from other people or from myself or just from the passing of time. I can't creating meaning in life without it being offered in a deal where I praise and confess that some guy who we have no idea about in reality but has been morphed into so many different versions of being a God one can't keep track of them all is the LORD of all creation and loves me, but if I don't confess He is the LORD then I will suffer FOR. EV. ER. And that suffering is deserved because of sin which is something that we will now define as all the things that are broken in the world when we define the world as broken.

When said worldview acts on a person to let the good, beautiful and true influence them, I don't see a problem with it. My worldview is highly subjective and composed of a few bits and pieces picked up from mythologies and philosophies, codes of honour and duty, and a hodgepodge of moral leanings as well so who am I to judge the foundations on which one's worldview sits? But when said worldview runs into conflict with where I see the good, beautiful and true, it's a matter for discussion and debate because it's only through discussion and debate that we past feeling a hose or a tree trunk to make out the full elephant behind it all.

In that regard, I find Bible study that focuses on reinforcing the worldview of the broken world to be a subject worthy of debate itself rather than worth engaging in on it's own terms. American Christianity, including Mormonism, that attempts to impose itself on our pluralistic society in ways I view to be irrationally egoistic and assured of it's own rightness without willingness to debate the foundations for that view is especially in my crosshairs for the obvious reasons. That's not to say I'm right and they are wrong. It's to say if you think you're that right then you shouldn't have to protect it or avoid defending the questions that get raised against. When someone does that, it seems to me they are protecting the worldview because it helps them which is fine. But it should be kept to themselves and not imposed on the world around them if that is the case.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2019 12:41 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:29 pm
Posts: 4214
honorentheos wrote:
.. how trustworthy were the gospels of the New Testament in declaring the core message of Christianity. ....

Many modern scholars agree those who built a church up around Jesus after his death believed he was the Jewish Messiah. This would mean they believed Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah descendant of King David, being born in Bethlehem, and that he would come to the people riding a donkey or ass. And, he'll be raised from the dead.

To make a case for why the New Testament is a poor witness for Jesus' resurrection, let's first look at how the New Testament describes another event in Jesus' life that would require fulfilling Messianic prophecy - his birth.

.... suggests the earliest sources about Christ's life in circulation did not include a birth narrative. The scholarly suggestion is that there wasn't a codified version of the Nativity at the time of their writing. But the Messiah has to fulfill certain prophecies at his birth. What to do? Most likely, both authors took from legends being shared and fit them together as best they could. They may also have invented pieces of the story from whole cloth.

I if there is a commonly understood event in Jesus’ life and it has been recorded in one of the source gospels, it is likely to show up as common to Matthew and Luke. But absent such an account, they will fill in the gaps with an eye to ensuring the narrative fulfills Messianic prophecy.

Since the Messiah has to be raised from the dead, and Jesus was the Messiah, it is only natural that both accounts tell us this is so. Both Matthew and Luke had Mark as a source, so we should expect to see Mark’s narrative in the account of the passion leading to the resurrection.
......


Honorentheos, I did have a couple of small thoughts about this portion of your essay. I think your comments about the birth stories make sense. I am puzzled about the messiah having to be raised from the dead. I cannot back up or find evidence of the existence of any such belief. The beliefs about Messiah were not codified and uniform so perhaps some people thought such a thing, (a handful of desciples of Jesus?) If it existed elsewhere why were other messiahs not reported as raised?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MormonDiscussions.com Bible Study
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2019 1:17 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:53 pm
Posts: 1507
huckelberry wrote:
I am puzzled about the messiah having to be raised from the dead. I cannot back up or find evidence of the existence of any such belief.
It's not much, lacks provenance, and may or may not pre-date Christianity, and ... well, you get the idea ... but there is 'Gabriel's Revelation' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_Revelation).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 471 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group