LSM's Etymological Errors - Nigel Tomes

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Interesting post zeek. I've read the New Testament, and for some time lived blind faith, but never contemplated immolation as a service to God. Maybe, and possibly fortunately, I just lacked sufficient faith to become such a sacrifice.

What does this mean?

Jesus then told the crowd and the disciples to come closer, and he said: If any of you want to be my followers, you must forget about yourself. You must take up your cross and follow me.

But I have discovered the effects of the "crowd of experts" on faith. So I understand why they are to be avoided.

And that's why Nigel's treatise on etymological errors should be avoided. As the end result of his treatise is to wonder where to place your faith, or into whom to place your faith ; which experts; and into the meanings of Bible words???

And that kills the subjective passion you say is needed.

Faith doesn't need etymology ... or a panel of experts.

Yes, well, I'm not claiming that I know that there are no Christians, and I'm certainly not claiming that I am one. But, I think, one can find a lot of evidence to support the idea that there are very few if any if we use the New Testament as a standard. The usual pattern is for someone to come out and make Christian claims which seem shiny and new until you peel of the superficial layer of Christian paint and find out a little more of their life and see that they are pretty close to the gutter where the rest of us live. Then they confess that they are sinners. But any mob boss or terrorist or prostitute could say the same thing. So, where are the New Testament Christians?

Looks like we'll have to riff on the idea ourselves until Tomes, or his experts or Godot shows up.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

What does this mean?

Ask the experts. Etymology of immolation:
http://www.myetymology.com/french/immolation.html

Originally Posted by z

Yes, well, I'm not claiming that I know that there are no Christians, and I'm certainly not claiming that I am one. But, I think, one can find a lot of evidence to support the idea that there are very few if any if we use the New Testament as a standard. The usual pattern is for someone to come out and make Christian claims which seem shiny and new until you peel of the superficial layer of Christian paint and find out a little more of their life and see that they are pretty close to the gutter where the rest of us live. Then they confess that they are sinners. But any mob boss or terrorist or prostitute could say the same thing. So, where are the New Testament Christians?

So are you saying that true Christianity was lost all the way back in the New Testament days? Where have I heard that before?

Originally Posted by z

Looks like we'll have to riff on the idea ourselves until Tomes, or his experts or Godot shows up.

Where's the rope?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ask the experts. Etymology of immolation:
http://www.myetymology.com/french/immolation.html

I know what immolation is. What's your point?

So are you saying that true Christianity was lost all the way back in the New Testament days? Where have I heard that before?

I'm not at liberty to discuss it here. Let's take it up in Alternative Views.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I know what immolation is. What's your point?

It's not my point. It's your point. And I quote:

at the end of the day, you don't have what was contemplated in the New Testament..."a sacrifice of sweet smelling savour" it is called in one of the more succulent metaphors.

You're the one pointing out that the Bible says God has a nose ... for barbecue ... and likes His followers: "Well done my good and faithful servant."

Originally Posted by Me

So are you saying that true Christianity was lost all the way back in the New Testament days? Where have I heard that before?

Alternative Views would be a great place to discuss it. But we're all exLCers here, and heard it from Lee that the early church was corrupted. So it can be discussed here on the open forum. Just maybe not on this thread.

Methinks that unless bro Cassidy has more to say, or Nigel comes out of the woodwork, this thread has petered out.

And we're

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, well, I'm not claiming that I know that there are no Christians, and I'm certainly not claiming that I am one. But, I think, one can find a lot of evidence to support the idea that there are very few if any if we use the New Testament as a standard. The usual pattern is for someone to come out and make Christian claims which seem shiny and new until you peel of the superficial layer of Christian paint and find out a little more of their life and see that they are pretty close to the gutter where the rest of us live. Then they confess that they are sinners. But any mob boss or terrorist or prostitute could say the same thing. So, where are the New Testament Christians?

I think that there is a disconnect in here somewhere. The verse that was quoted concerning being a follower has a context. The context is of a rabbi with his followers (disciples) that will learn his teachings and spread them. Everyone who comes to "follow" those teachings is not necessarily a follower in the sense of those who literally trail behind the rabbi are.

I think that the disconnect is that we take the references to a kingdom of priests to an unsupported extreme. While the average Israelite prayed and brought sacrifices, the priest was, at least at some level, a mediator for the people. But we no longer have a mediator that is strictly of our kind (human without divinity). We clearly have access to God.

But from the very beginning, Jesus created circles of followers. There was the 12 (and probably the three within that). Then the 70. And then the others. We don't know how the whole thing broke down. But when he went among the people, he did not preach following, but belief and obedience. When some came wanting to follow, then he turned up the rhetoric to see if they were really ready to follow. "Go and sell all." "Let the dead bury the dead." And so on.

Surely we all have a part in the spread of the gospel. But a lot of our part is in being people who live in a manner that is worthy of consideration. And we do need to have something to say when asked. But I think there is a tendency for us to think that we are either preachers, missionaries, or at least giving away all of our free time to the "work of ministry" in a big way, and since we do not, we feel like failures and allow ourselves to miss our calling.

And that is where you correctly point out the number who continually fail and just confess they are sinners. Yes, any mob boss or prostitute can say that. What should be the difference is the will and desire, fueled by the Spirit, to reduce the sins and have less cause for repentance.

But even for the best among us, we will sin until the day we die. Anyone telling you otherwise is either deluded or a liar. Repenting will be a theme in our lives until the end. So on one hand, it is true that Christians continually sin. The problem is not that they sin, but whether there is any evidence of sanctification so that they are not simply falling into every sin they ever had without ceasing. There should be some change in their lives. And it should continue over time. But becoming a Christian was never a promise that sin would just go away. Only that there is now the way to move out of it. But we have to be involved. It is not just grace, or dispensing.

The prayer that Jesus provided as the pattern for the disciples turns from God and the kingdom with "forgive our trespasses." There was never any hint that this part of the prayer would eventually become useless.

Yes, Christians continue to sin. And some of them seem to never get past any of it. But that is not the measure of being a Christian. However, never getting past any of it begs the question of belief. If you can't even try to follow and obey, do you really believe? I didn't say that if you can't succeed today do you really believe. And there is the problem. There is a question mark for me on those who do not even try. But there is a charge for us to spur one another on. So those who have given up on church, although they may have contacts with other Christians, are they sufficiently connected to allow themselves to be spurred on?

Don't make sinless perfection the marker of a Christian. There are no such people. But have a question concerning those who claim to believe but have absolutely no evidence in their living and don't seem to think it is important. You seem to want it to be all or nothing when the only thing you will ever find is progress or nothing. And there is a large spectrum in progress.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

...There should be some change in their lives. And it should continue over time. But becoming a Christian was never a promise that sin would just go away. ...

The prayer that Jesus provided as the pattern for the disciples turns from God and the kingdom with "forgive our trespasses." There was never any hint that this part of the prayer would eventually become useless... there is a large spectrum in progress.

I appreciate OBW spelling this out. One parable on the idea of making progress is in Luke chapter 16 where the debtors owed 100 measures of wheat, or of oil, and at the end they owed 50. Or they owed 80, and then at the end they owed 40. They still owed something at the end, but their situation had improved. Who wouldn't feel some relief? In the "all or nothing" scenario, owing 50 or owing 100 is irrelevant: if you owe, you're doomed. But in real life it matters how much you owe, and Jesus' parable suggests to me that it matters, spiritually, as well. "You won't get out until you pay the last farthing" (Matt 5:26) -- don't you think that a God who numbers the hairs on your head also numbers the farthings you owe?

Another thing is this: whether you owe 50, or 100, or you have 2 talents or 5 talents, will the Master come and find you laboring at it? Or will you tell yourself that He delays, and give up? Wherever you are is where you are -- are you going to struggle forward, or quit? I think it's better if the Master finds you struggling on "that day", wherever you are on the scale of perfection.