Here is my Sunday devotion.
My comments are below the verses
Ephesians 1:17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.
18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints,
Matthew 16:
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
A person can study religion - or Jesus. You may study archaeology, history, ancient languages, and all of that. You may even become convinced of the validity of the claims of Christians. But the bottom line is, the reality of it has to be revealed to you in a supernatural way.
I know that i know that i know that i know. I cannot really even explain how i know the reality. I just do. The more I study I see that the claims are very reasonable and that there is some evidence here and there.
For instance, that the scriptures were written nearly 2000 years ago, and have been passed down accurately, is a proven fact. "Problems" that exist are very minor and have no impact on the overall message.
But it is not evidence that makes me believe. I is the spirit of revelation.
If someone asks God to reveal himself, he will. It may not be immediate, and God isn't into parlor games and tricks. So if you ask him to turn your water into wine, it probably won't happen.
But in God's time, God will reveal himself if you ask and are open to the revelation.
Posts
24 comments:
the scriptures were written nearly 2000 years ago, and have been passed down accurately, is a proven fact. "Problems" that exist are very minor and have no impact on the overall message.
Really?
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2006/01/aunt_sallys_sec.html
http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/sacred-errancy-499916.html
How many years I wasted trying to defend the indefensible. In vain I tried to harmonize every Scripture with other verses. Square blocks simply won't fit in round containers. For many Christians, the Bible
is the infallible and internally consistent revealed Word of God. Every word therein, though penned by a man, God himself inspired. For me the Bible is sacred- it's every Christians guide and the inspired WORD (singlular) of God, though not the WORDS (plural) of God.
If one takes up the "every word in infallible" mantra, the question must be asked, which translation then is the inspired one? Words vary from KJV to REB, etc. In fact some words simply don't exist in some translations but they do in others. John 8:1-11 as an example isn't in earlier manuscripts. It's put at the end of the entire book of John in the REB and not at all in some translations.
I John 5:7 doesn't exist in some translations as history shows that Erasmus added it to one of his many revisions of the textus receptus to please the Catholic church.
Then there are just the simple errors of history (which do not harmonize). Matthew 23:35 says tht Zechariah was the son of Berachiah (quoting II Chron. 24:20) which says it was Jehoida. Then Mark 2:26 says David went into the house of Abiathar, whereas I Sam. 21:1 says it was Ahimelech, not Abiathar. These two are trivial stuff that have nothing to do with the concept or principle. But they are proof that the Bible is not inerrant, at least not the KJV! :-)
For centuries too many Christians have been caught up trying to defend obviously indefensible positions and getting mad because others wouldn't go along with such blind lunacy- losing their witness in their anger and intolerance. Did I mention there was no love on their faces as well?
I don't know how a person can say that they are a Christian and not espouse that the Bible is our sacred book, a progressive work, and a library of sixty six books of which some are greatly inspired and others hardly at all- if at all. BEING LOVE is far more important than thinking that one is RIGHT and acting like an ass because others don't swallow the fur-ball that they have.
Can sacred and errant go hand in hand one asks?
Doesn't our humanity prove that point?
"Kelley said a family of four earning $55,000 a year could tithe to a church and still afford private health insurance"
Once again proving she has no clue or concern about or for the less well-to-do. Believe me, Mr. Scott Kelley is from the same cloth. Perhaps she didn't factor in car payment and insurance, house payment (or rent)and insurance, paying for a shiny new football stadium...err..new classroom technology, paying for new roads and hospitals, groceries, property tax, tags and car taxes, etc etc.
All this and they can afford drugs, too?
Clueless.
Thats an interesting article.
The bible is not God. Christians should not worship the bible.
It = the scriptures - are very accurate. and have been translated accurately and passed down well, but ... that isnt the point. And really , to me, it is not even essential.
I do believe it is accurate - the bibles we have today say the same thing the bibles said in 300 a.d.
But even if they were not, it would not rattle my faith, because my faith is in God, not in the book he inspired.
Until the early 1800s hardly anyone had a bible. they were too expensive and most people around the world were too poor.
Most christians did not have one and couldnt have read it if they did.
Yet there were many fine Christians.
i am not advocating that we do not need the scriptures, or diminishing their importance .. i am just saying that people have been great followers of Jesus, empowered by the holy spirit, for centuries without the scriptures.
There is something more important than the scriptures, and that is the spirit of Jesus endwelling believers.
One point would be that translations are different than the holy books themselves.
If you understand much about language, you know how difficult it can be. Even english to spanish or german is not always exact.
Translations are irrelevant really.
They are the works of men and are not inspired - though they may be very close and very accurate.
Only the original languages are inspired. while we don't have the originals, we have very ancient manuscripts.
And they all agree except for minor things here and there.
It is possible to look up all the variations in one book with a greek-english lexicon.
Here are my comments on the article.
:)
>>.
In vain I tried to harmonize every Scripture with other verses. Square blocks simply won't fit in round containers.
>>
Going to the original languages solves much of that. Also, no key doctrine or teaching is affected by any discrepancies in the texts.
And with studying ancient literature of the times it was written in. Understanding the style of the writers of an era can help.
>>>>
For many Christians, the Bible
is the infallible and internally consistent revealed Word of God. Every word therein, though penned by a man, God himself inspired.
>>>
yes, but only the original languages.
>>>>>
For me the Bible is sacred- it's every Christians guide and the inspired WORD (singlular) of God, though not the WORDS (plural) of God.
>>>>
YES !!!
and, understand what "WORD" means.
LOGOS is a greek word that means te essence of God, the stuff of God. This was a greek idea combined with a very jewish idea and was unique at the time.
Jesus as the LOGOS of God.
Jesus was himself GOd in the flesh.
Which is the WORD, or Logos of God.
the words on a page are the words God spoke. They may carry the essence or even communicate it, but they are not the LOGOS...
The words - RHEMA - which are inspired, - are not the LOGOS..
When the new testament uses the word translated "WORD" of God, it is referring to Jesus, not the words on a page. In Greek, the word LOGOS is always used in reference to Jesus, and most ofteh when Word of God is used.
RHEMA is used of actual words.
This is a huge theological concept.
The scriptures are the RHEMA, or the words ofGod. Important and inspired.
But only Jesus is the LOGOS, the word - or essence - of God.
The word - logos - of God is infallible.
The word - rhema - of God, is very close most of the time.
.....the question must be asked, which translation then is the inspired one? Words vary from KJV to REB, etc.
>>>
Only the original languages are inspired.
You can look up things in a lexicon that explain why translations used certain words at certain times.
The differences in translations are just different means of translating, and dont mean much.
Its best to read more than one translation, and understand it is not an either-or concept.
When tehre are differences, it could be that both give you a better pictures of what is being conveyed...
>>>>>
In fact some words simply don't exist in some translations but they do in others.
>>>
yes thats why tehre are footnotes that explain these things.
Still, if you take the overall new testament, no teaching is changed by that, though a verse here and there might be.
One verse by itself is out of its context.
>
>>>>>
John 8:1-11 as an example isn't in earlier manuscripts. It's put at the end of the entire book of John in the REB and not at all in some translations.
>>>>
Yes, does not appear before 1000 a.d., so its very possible it should not be in there.
yet it does not conflict with any other part of scripture.
>>>>
I John 5:7 doesn't exist in some translations as history shows that Erasmus added it to one of his many revisions of the textus receptus to please the Catholic church.
>>>
True again, .. added later.
but there are not many of these.
and again, it goes not affect the overall teaching of scripture.
>>>>>>
Then there are just the simple errors of history (which do not harmonize). Matthew 23:35 says tht Zechariah was the son of Berachiah (quoting II Chron. 24:20) which says it was Jehoida.
>>>>
This is just matter of language.
also, that is an error of the king james version, later translations are based on older texts, and do not contain the error.
so older translations are more accurate in this case.
Then Mark 2:26 says David went into the house of Abiathar, whereas I Sam. 21:1 says it was Ahimelech, not Abiathar. These two are trivial stuff that have nothing to do with the concept or principle. But they are proof that the Bible is not inerrant, at least not the KJV! :-)
>>>
Translations are certainly not :)
but what does innerant mean ?
what does infallible mean ?
i think these have to be defined ...
>>>
For centuries too many Christians have been caught up trying to defend obviously indefensible positions and getting mad because others wouldn't go along with such blind lunacy- losing their witness in their anger and intolerance. Did I mention there was no love on their faces as well?
>>>>>>>>.
Good point.
yet i would sa it is not indefensible. but i wouldnt be getting mad about it either :)
I don't know how a person can say that they are a Christian and not espouse that the Bible is our sacred book, a progressive work, and a library of sixty six books of which some are greatly inspired and others hardly at all- if at all.
>>>
i would agree with that :)
..
>>>>>
BEING LOVE is far more important than thinking that one is RIGHT and acting like an ass because others don't swallow the fur-ball that they have.
>>>>
crude way of putting it, but again, i agree ....
love is more important than being right.
Can sacred and errant go hand in hand one asks?
Doesn't our humanity prove that point?
>>>
amen :)
March 29, 2009 10:42 PM
Thanks foor your critique.
Here is anotherm interesting article.
http://www.batteredsheep.com/myth.html
I had a professor in seminary who once said, "I no longer call myself a Christian." He believed that Christianity had done great damage to the cause of Christ. "Christ, he said, never intended to start a new religion." Rather, Christ came as a model for Godly living, and to point the way to God. Thus, he now considers himself to be a "follower of the way of Jesus."
Christ came as a model for Godly living, and to point the way to God. Thus, he now considers himself to be a "follower of the way of Jesus."
>>>>
I understand about religion getting in the way.
The only thing I would argue with is the purpose of Jesus. His primary reason for coming was to die for the sins of the world.
Showing the way to God was secondary.
:)
I didnt mean my comments as a critique, it just raised some interesting points that i commented on.
That is a good article about church.
Would jesus fit in, in the modern church ?
he would probably be much too radical.
In the New Testament, the church refers to all believers of all time. Has nothing to do with a religion or a building.
I see an out of business sale ad on Bryant's hardware. Will the proceeds go to the bank or to Zack?
I see an out of business sale ad on Bryant's hardware. Will the proceeds go to the bank or to Zack?
All the money goes to the bank, Zach has been forced completely out of the business
Just wanted to remind everyone there is a skate meeting tonight at 6 at the Rec Center. Alot is happening and any public opinion is greatly appreciated.
The only thing I would argue with is the purpose of Jesus. His primary reason for coming was to die for the sins of the world.
Showing the way to God was secondary.
***********************************
I am so conflicted when it comes to Christ's atonement.
I have believed it for years, I want to believe it, but it makes no sense.
God looked down from heaven, and saw how lost mankind was. God sent God's son, Jesus to show how mankind should live. To show how we should treat one another.
We rejected Jesus, and brutally murdered him. Seeing this, God says, "Oh, you brutally murdered my son, now everything is right between us. Your sins are forgiven."
It doesn't make sense.
We rejected Jesus, and brutally murdered him. Seeing this, God says, "Oh, you brutally murdered my son, now everything is right between us. Your sins are forgiven."
It doesn't make sense.
>>>>
I like this kind of question. It makes one think.
You have to take everything in context, and every context has a context.
There has to be a blood sacrifice to atone for sins. It is what God requires for us to be considered clean.
The nature of God is holy, perfect. Sin cannot exist in God's presence. since we all sin, we would be destroyed in his presence.
Somehow - not quiet sure how - the blood atones for the sin and makes us clean before God. Because of that, he can accept us, and we are not destroyed by his holiness.
Here is the thing.
For centuries priests did sacrifices for the atonement.
But that never really made anyone righteous.
So
God came and sacrificed himself.
Jesus was the earthly, fleshly, manifestation of God. He sent his son - himself - to die as the payment for our sins.
So in essence, God shed his own blood in order to pay what he required for our sins.
That is the mystery of the atonement.
It would be like getting a speeding ticket. The judge rules you guilty and fines you $100. The the judge pulls out his check book and writes a check to pay your fine.
Does that make sense?
ANother interesting question.
What if they did not crucify Jesus? What if the people, the religious leadership and the government,all said Great, lets go with Jesus !
Might be a very different world today?
There has to be a blood sacrifice to atone for sins. It is what God requires for us to be considered clean.
***********************************
Or, is it what ancient Israelites believed God required for us to be considered clean.
The nature of God is holy, perfect. Sin cannot exist in God's presence.
***********************************
I would imagine anything God wanted to exist in God's presence could exist in God's presence.
God came and sacrificed himself.
Jesus was the earthly, fleshly, manifestation of God. He sent his son - himself - to die as the payment for our sins.
***********************************
Or, did God send Jesus to love us, and show us how to love unconditionally, and the world rejected that Grace and mercy, as it always does.
What if God loves us just because God created us, and we are God's children?
It would be like getting a speeding ticket. The judge rules you guilty and fines you $100. The the judge pulls out his check book and writes a check to pay your fine.
***********************************
Perhaps this is a better scenario, albeit a little to simplistic. Let's assume I have a child who constantly spills milk at the dinner table.
I have warned him constantly about fooling around at the table, and have told him the next time he does it, I will spank him.
Of course, it happens again, but; instead of spanking the offender, I spank his brother, now all is forgiven.
*********************************
Or, did God send Jesus to love us, and show us how to love unconditionally, and the world rejected that Grace and mercy, as it always does.
What if God loves us just because God created us, and we are God's children?
***************
That too.
I dont see the two ideas as contradictory at all :)
***********
***********************************
Perhaps this is a better scenario, albeit a little to simplistic.
****\
It is simplistic but it works to get the idea across
************
I will spank him.
Of course, it happens again, but; instead of spanking the offender, I spank his brother, now all is forgiven.
>>>
No, that would only work if you took the spanking yourself.
No, that would only work if you took the spanking yourself.
***********************************
When Jesus "died on the cross for me," was he at the time God or Human?
If he was God, then it wasn't much of a feat or sacrafice was it?
If he was human, then my scenario works.
I'm not trying to be contradictory, and I seriously do struggle with the notion of the atonement. I do not simply reject it because it doesn't make sense, or because it is to violent, but it doesn't seem to fit with the nature of a God who is love. Not loving, not like love, but LOVE.
I still confess a belief in the atonement. Perhaps it is because of my embeded theology. I don't understand it. It is a mystery, but nevertheless, I believe it.
Yes, I know this is contradictory, but faith is full of contradictions.
It's not so far fetched.
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not emphasize the substitutionary aspect of Christs death, but instead emphasizes God's victory over death, and the new life found there.
What I don't get is the bible says that God does not allow you to worship anyone but him, yet how many times do you see "Jesus" on bumper stickers, portraits, cheese sandwiches, etc. And all the pastors yell "PRAISE JESUS" after they heal people and raise the dead.
So, are they worshiping god or jesus?
I watched a show last night on the Discovery channel (I think) where two Americans went to live with some tribe in the jungle and the tribe sent them out to hunt monkeys, but the men came back with a dead deer instead. The tribe shunned them because they brought an evil deer spirit into the village, and they believed that evil deer spirits infect you and make you have sex with your mother and your daughter, and maybe even your mother in law if the deer was particularly evil. I just couldn't help but compare their beliefs, as crazy and out there as they were, to christianity. When history tells our tale, future man will look at us and our religion with the same disbelief as we now look on the ancient people who worshipped Zues and Apollo. Although, Apollo WAS a damn good viper pilot.
What if the people, the religious leadership and the government,all said Great, lets go with Jesus !
***********************************
Isn't that exactly what happened with Constantine and Rome?
After Christianity was Romanized, it became the very thing Jesus spoke against.
he government,all said Great, lets go with Jesus !
***********************************
Isn't that exactly what happened with Constantine and Rome?
After Christianity was Romanized, it became the very thing Jesus spoke against.
>>>>
I really don't think the "church" became corrupt for a couple hundred more years after constantine.
The message of christianity had spread across the roman empire and was very popular.
It offered hope that the other religions of the day did not offer.
some people credit - or blame - constantine for making christianity the official religion of the roman empire.
he may have, but he was just riding the wave that was already there. the new religion of Christ had spread and had become accepted by the masses - as well as the intelligencia.
So, are they worshiping god or jesus?
>>
Ah the old trinity argument :)
Thats been debated for 2000 years.
Jesus is God. God is Jesus.
I think the problem there is more a "western" problem.
Eastern cultures don't have much of a problem with it, and the jewish culture Jesus came out of, was more eastern than western.
Jesus said if you have seen me, you have seen the father. (God.)
It is a mystery, but nevertheless, I believe it.
Yes, I know this is contradictory, but faith is full of contradictions.
>>>
It is a mystery.
Maybe its because God's spirit has revealed it to your spirit. That can be the basis of belief. And that is an even greater mystery.
I like the word "mystery" better than "contradiction."
There are many such ideas - that seem contradictory - coming out of jewish culture and were carried over in to the new testament.
The thing that strikes me, is that it was obvious that these things were being written into the bible.
They knew what they were saying, and that some of the ideas seem to contradict each other.
What strikes me, is that they let it go. The writers didn't seem to struggle with these things. They didnt see the need to try to "fix" the problem.
The idea of the atonement is one.
Another is the idea that all our sins are forgiven, yet we are not supposed to sin. If they are all forgiven, why does it matter?
In some places free will is taught, in other places it seems God knows the future, which eliminates our free will. God has to know the future if God knows everything.
Why does evil exist. God could have eliminated it easily. People will say then we would not have freedom of choice. Im not so sure :)
The idea of two "contradictory" or mystery type ideas being presented at the same time. is pretty common in Jewish writings, and more of an eastern thing.
It shows the complexity of the mind of God, that two things can be true at the same time when it appears they should not be.
I really think most of that problem is our western culture. We are so black and white in our thinking.
Reality - or truth - is not black and white. There are millions of shades of grey between the two.
Many of the "problems" in the scriptures, and with christianity, are not the alleged contradictions or mysteries. The prolems come when people grab one end of the spectrum and insist that only that can be true.
Free will and election is a good example. Both "sides" grab one and downplay the other.
It is more difficult, and requires more thought, to see that both are really true..
God calls us to much deeper thinking than many of us want to do.
A seminary professor used to say.
"it is easier to go to a consistent extreme than to remain in the center of biblical tension."
He liked the phrase "biblical tension" ... which is cool too.
Instead of just picking one side, when ideas seem to contradict, or rejecting both ... think more deeply about how both could be true. how they could relate to each other.
I think we'll only find the true answer to our questions when we die.
I think we'll only find the true answer to our questions when we die.
>>>
That may be ultimately true
but you can learn a lot by studying.
god was created in the image of man.
Post a Comment