Fundamentalism

[zeek]

It's become a pejorative term. Nobody seems to want to be called a fundamentalist. Yet H.L Mencken said in the 1920s "Heave an egg out of a Pullman window and you will hit a fundamentalist almost anywhere in the United States today." Who are these people? Are there any left? If not, where have they gone? Were we fundamentalists when we were in Witness Lee's Local Church? Are we now? Is it legitimate to lump Christians and Islamic terrorists under the same term? Let's talk about it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In my definition of fundamentalism is the thought that a Christian is willing to become a martyr. He/she would die for their faith in Jesus Christ.

That's interesting bro Ohio, and a good definition. But it's not fundamentalism as defined at their beginning.

The five fundamentals:

• Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
• Virgin birth of Jesus
• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

What's interesting is that wiki says of the fundamentalism movement in America:

"Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary."

The same Theological Seminary where professor Bart Ehrman went to and became an agnostic. And the same seminary Ron Kangas went to and became a cult leader.

Should we trust Princeton, or any movement that comes out of it?

Ha

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In my definition of fundamentalism is the thought that a Christian is willing to become a martyr. He/she would die for their faith in Jesus Christ. Real Christian "fundamentalists" are courageous, while terrorists are cowards.

Are you referring to someone like Michael Servetus who was burned at the stake by the hands of the "great" Christian John Calvin because Servetus did not believe in the Trinity and was anti-infant baptism but he was a devout Christian? How do we reconcile these inconsistencies?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

Were we fundamentalists when we were in Witness Lee's Local Church?

There is a saying which goes something like "you can know a lot about a man by knowing who his enemies are". Well, let's look at who were Witness Lee's enemies. Just recently, the subject of Walter Martin came up. For better or for worse, Walter Martin was one of the preeminent fundamentalists of his day. He went after Lee's teachings with a vengeance we had never seen before, and it's likely we'll never see again. What was Martin's point of attack? It was the fundamentals of the historic Christian faith. In some of Witness Lee's teachings he was considered to be orthodox, and some of which he was considered to be aberrational and some to be out and out heretical.

In the early days Lee and his followers wore the tag of "unorthodox" like a badge of honor. The battle cry was "we stand apart from historical Christianity", and this absolutely meant in practice AND in teaching. A grand example of this would be Lee's declaration that "Christianity's teaching on the Trinity boarders on tritheism". He knew very well that this was not true, but back in that day he wanted to separate himself and his followers from those who taught "the fundamental" teachings of the historic Christian faith.

The last number of years we've seen the Blended Brothers and other LSM hacks have taken a new tack - they claim to actually be teaching all the orthodox, fundamental tenets of the historical Christian faith. They gained a partial victory when Hank Hannegraaf et al caved in with their pathetic, groveling "We Were Wrong" article. Of course they seemed to have only fooled CRI because no other reputable Christian apologist has agreed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

Are you referring to someone like Michael Servetus who was burned at the stake by the hands of the "great" Christian John Calvin because Servetus did not believe in the Trinity and was anti-infant baptism but he was a devout Christian? How do we reconcile these inconsistencies?

Michael sounds like an anabaptist, for whom I have great respect. Many died because of the reformers.

I never was a fan of Calvin or his teachings which tended to extremes, but loved his friend William Farel.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

Are you referring to someone like Michael Servetus who was burned at the stake by the hands of the "great" Christian John Calvin because Servetus did not believe in the Trinity and was anti-infant baptism but he was a devout Christian? How do we reconcile these inconsistencies?

This is not accurate. Servetus was not burned at the stake "by the hands of Calvin", and as a matter of fact Calvin warned him not to come back from his self imposed exile, for Calvin feared he would be executed unless he repented from his heresies by the "civilian" authorities. He came back anyway and Calvin was powerless to save him.

To be accuate, the issue was not so much "the Trinity" as it as of the deity of Christ (and maybe of the Holy Spirit but My memory is failing me on this). One could be a devout Christian and still believe in all sorts of heresies, but that does not make one a heretic. You become a heretic when you actually teach heresy. Servetus crossed the line and was actually teaching heresy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You become a heretic when you actually teach heresy. Servetus crossed the line and was actually teaching heresy.

Back in those days everyone was a potential "heretic." For close to a millennia Rome killed those who refused to bow down to Marble Mary. Unfortunately many of the notable reformers weren't much better, having little tolerance for those who bucked the party line.

[UntoHim]

And they will ALL appear before The Judgment Seat of Christ to answer for EVERYTHING they said and did.

[OBW]

Lots of funny replies. But none that get to the real question asked.

It seems that in terms of Christianity fundamentalism has been both constant and has changed over time.

It began as an overt response to the trend among some groups to be more dismissive of certain aspects of the Bible. When some started to disregard whether there were any actual miracles, or the virgin birth, and so on, yet still claimed to believe in Christ, the fundamentalists stood strong for what they believed to be the truth. And that aspect has remained fairly consistent. Those who now bear the title typically are part of that same mindset.

But in addition, over time there started to be more and more things that were added in. Insistence on certain kinds of baptism (immersion), no drinking (or dancing, or smoking, etc.). At that point there is somewhat of a schism between those who are fundamentalists of the original type and the subset that is the more modern type. And at this point, the term is typically only applied to the latter group.

The term evangelical, though not entirely synonymous with the original fundamentalist movement, is pretty much the whole of that old movement with some variability on a lot of other things. So fundamentalists often fall theologically within or closely around the broader evangelical moniker.

While the use of the term when talking about Islamic terrorists is more extreme than how it is typically used with respect to Christians, there are a few around who seem just a slip on the wall of the well away from falling into a similar state.

Today, some argue that fundamentalists are just mean evangelicals. Or to put it a different way, those who do not fall under the modern thought in fundamentalism say that evangelicals are nice fundamentalists. The two do not really say the same thing, but you get the idea.

In any case, fundamentalists (in the more current usage) are often among those who really get bent out of shape about anyone not toeing the line. And that would make Lee and the LRC a form of fundamentalists. And some would argue that teachers/writers like Cahn are just a variant of fundamentalism. And that people who are out to take the country back are gripped by that kind of thinking. I will admit that I think that does apply to some of those. I hear others that are much more certain that it applies broadly to them.

That is the way I have heard it described from several independent sources over the past few years.

And yes, it is now pejorative term in many cases.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is not accurate. Servetus was not burned at the stake "by the hands of Calvin", and as a matter of fact Calvin warned him not to come back from his self imposed exile, for Calvin feared he would be executed unless he repented from his heresies by the "civilian" authorities. He came back anyway and Calvin was powerless to save him.

To be accuate, the issue was not so much "the Trinity" as it as of the deity of Christ (and maybe of the Holy Spirit but My memory is failing me on this). One could be a devout Christian and still believe in all sorts of heresies, but that does not make one a heretic. You become a heretic when you actually teach heresy. Servetus crossed the line and was actually teaching heresy.

“In 1531 Servetus published a work called the Errors of the Trinity, in which he said those who believed in the Trinity were really Tritheists (believers in three gods) or atheists.”

“In 1553 Michael anonymously published The Restitution of Christianity which he saw as an attempt to restore Christianity to its primitive purity. In that work he boldly--or rashly--continued to deny the Trinity despite the danger it brought him. Denying the Trinity and the incarnation of Christ were still capital offenses as they had been throughout the middle ages. Michael said Jesus was the Son of the eternal God but not the eternal Son of God. Contrary to the reformers, he also taught that both faith and works were necessary for salvation. He sent Calvin a portion of the work.”

“Although Calvin insisted with the rest that Servetus must die, he urged that in mercy Servetus be executed by the sword, not by burning, but the Council rejected the suggestion.” http://www.christianity.com/church/c...-11629984.html Calvin was highly influential in Geneva as the Pastor at the time.

Calvin recommended a beheading by the sword, the Council decided to burn him at the stake. I don’t see the difference since they both resulted in his death for his faith. Where is that condoned in the Bible---NT or OT but especially in the NT? Servetus died for what he believed and not for killing someone else. It's like us rounding up every JW, Mormon, Unitarian etc and burning them at the stake. That would be quite the barn fire.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is not accurate. Servetus was not burned at the stake "by the hands of Calvin", and as a matter of fact Calvin warned him not to come back from his self imposed exile, for Calvin feared he would be executed unless he repented from his heresies by the "civilian" authorities. He came back anyway and Calvin was powerless to save him.

This is not true. Just google Michael Servetus ... and start with wiki.

Originally Posted by Unto

Servetus crossed the line and was actually teaching heresy.

And deserved to die die die ... cuz real Christians kill kill kill ...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

This is not true. Just google Michael Servetus ... and start with wiki.

And deserved to die die die ... cuz real Christians kill kill kill ...

Calvin presented 38 charges against Servetus at his trial resulting in his death. The Unitarians: A Short History by Leonard Smith. Luther and other reformers would have been quite comfortable to let the Trinity doctrine rest because it was not well supported in scripture and Erasmus initially left 1 John 5:7-8 out of his translation which scripture is now not considered part of the Bible (NSRV does not have it for example). Unitarian Universalism by David E. Bumbaugh.

While Wikipedia is interesting there are too many scribes changing the text in the descriptions. I am sure some Calvinist changed it to make it look like Calvin was innocent of the blood of Servetus. I have books on Servetus’ life and he was killed at the hands of Calvin but you are correct, Christians are notorious for killing people who disagree with them starting with Constantine through the Middle Ages and beyond. When I was hiking the Inca trail in Peru it brought home the fact that it was the Catholics who wiped out the Incas and other civilizations for their disbelief.

The problem with Lee is that he pretended he was teaching orthodoxy when he wasn’t which is worse than being straight forward as to his beliefs.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

Calvin recommended a beheading by the sword, the Council decided to burn him at the stake. I don’t see the difference since they both resulted in his death for his faith. Where is that condoned in the Bible---NT or OT but especially in the NT? Servetus died for what he believed and not for killing someone else. It's like us rounding up every JW, Mormon, Unitarian etc and burning them at the stake. That would be quite the barn fire.

This is clearly one of the dark moments for Christianity. And we can't even blame the Catholics for it.

Yet we still revere the teachings of the man who simply suggested an alternate form of anti-Christian punishment.

Of course some will probably argue that Calvin really didn't want the guy killed, so he at least tried to make it more humane since he could not have any influence on the ultimate outcome. And that could be true.

Not sure I buy it though. It would take some convincing.

[OBW]

Funny thing. While I do not have information about the whole of Servetus' alleged heresies, at some level I think that Calvin was right. Lee would probably assert that Servetus was right.

But I also do not care enough to think either is a heretic over it. Not saying not to argue your position. Not saying I don't think it has any importance. But heresy? Maybe a bit strong.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

Funny thing. While I do not have information about the whole of Servetus' alleged heresies, at some level I think that Calvin was right. Lee would probably assert that Servetus was right.

But I also do not care enough to think either is a heretic over it. Not saying not to argue your position. Not saying I don't think it has any importance. But heresy? Maybe a bit strong.

The interesting thing about Servetus is that his execution spurred on others to not only take up his beliefs by reading his works as they wondered what he said to cause such an end to his life but they also went to other European countries where they could avoid a similar fate.

It's kind of like being a Christian in parts of Afghanistan or Iraq. You would want to get out to avoid a beheading for your beliefs.

If WL had just said that the entire Bible is just a metaphor rather than try to fit into the fundamentalist belief system, at least, he would have come clean about his beliefs.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

Unitarian Universalism by David E. Bumbaugh.

"Unitarian Universalism"? Right. I'm assuming that Servetus is a champion and hero of Unitarians and that they will say just about ANYTHING to make Calvin look bad. To say that Servetus was "killed at the hands of Calvin" in simply not correct. He was absolutely complicit in his being "convicted" of heresy, but the sources that you are using are probably anti-Calvinism and have an ax to grind. Many of the facts they present are either false or half-truths. Again, they leave out the FACT that Calvin warned, even begged Servetus to NOT return to Geneva - BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES WERE GOING TO EXECUTE HIM. They also leave out some of the wicked and bizarre things Servetus was saying to Calvin and other Christian scholars/teachers of the day. This does NOT mean that he deserved to be burned at the stake or anything like that, but Servetus did come back to Geneva to "get in the face" of the very people who had the power to execute him - and the simple fact is that John Calvin was NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAD THE POWER TO HAVE HIM EXECUTED.

I wanted to double-check with one of my teaching pastors (degrees from Cambridge (UK) and PHD in The New Testament and Church history Durham University (UK) and he is NOT a Calvinist by any stretch) and he confirmed what I have been telling you.

Again, Calvin was complicit in the whole situation, and he stands guilty before God and man as far as I'm concerned. But what is not guilty is the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and "the faith that was once delivered to the saints". Calvin was just a man - maybe an important cog in the greatest reformation of any major faith - but a man just the same. He was also a man of his time, just as was Luther and all of the other reformers. To judge them by the standards of the 21st century would be like judging the apostle Paul for sending a runaway slave back to his master (see Philemon). Today, he would be convicted of being an international slave trader.

The problem with Lee is that he pretended he was teaching orthodoxy when he wasn’t which is worse than being straight forward as to his beliefs.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"Unitarian Universalism"? Right. I'm assuming that Servetus is a champion and hero of Unitarians and that they will say just about ANYTHING to make Calvin look bad. To say that Servetus was "killed at the hands of Calvin" in simply not correct....

I used Unitarian sources in my last post simply because I knew I had read about Servetus in their literature. These are the facts and these letters are available to anyone and not just Unitarians.

"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight." Written by John Calvin in a letter to Farel Feb. 13, 1546

Again Calvin writes Farel in a letter dated Aug 20th 1553 where he has Servetus arrested. "We have now new business in hand with Servetus. He intended perhaps passing through this city; for it is not yet known with what design he came. But after he had been recognized, I thought that he should be detained. My friend Nicolas summoned him on a capital charge. ... I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed upon him"

After Servetus' death Calvin writes:

"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face." "Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt.

The strongest recorded statement from Calvin on the Servetus affair is a 1561 letter from Calvin to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, in which he says intolerantly:
"Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

In August 1553, Servetus appeared in Geneva on his way to Italy. He was recognized, and the news of his presence was conveyed to Calvin, who had him arrested. On the basis of charges preferred by Calvin, Servetus was put on trial. On October 26, he was condemned to death. Servetus was to be burned at the stake. Calvin tried to get the sentence changed to death by the sword, but failed.

Calvin was culpable no matter how you spell it out. I agree that Sevetus was a heretic in the eyes of Calvin and others and also that Calvin warned him not to come to Geneva. Servetus was stubborn but so was Calvin. In addition, Geneva was the seat of Calvinism even though he ran into problems with the city council. However, aren't we asking the question, was it the Jews who turned Jesus over to the Romans to be crucified or the Romans who crucified him, who are culpable? The Calvinists just made a martyr out of Servetus. I think we should judge Calvin based on the Bible and his doctrines and in that he failed miserably by trying to snuff out all presumed "heresies and blasphemies". Where in the Bible, especially in the NT, does it say that we should put these people to death? I thought that was God's job? People still use the Bible in horrendous ways so it is not a matter of judging based on the 21st Century. Let's not forget people like Jim Jones etc who were Bible-thumpers. Jones was a Trinitarian as well.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

Where in the Bible, especially in the NT, does it say that we should put these people to death? I thought that was God's job? People still use the Bible in horrendous ways so it is not a matter of judging based on the 21st Century. Let's not forget people like Jim Jones etc who were Bible-thumpers. Jones was a Trinitarian as well.

What heretics have even been jailed, much less executed in the past few hundred years? As far as I'm aware, it is only the radical Muslims who are doing such things. Yes people still use the Bible in horrendous ways but what in the world does that have to do with "Trinitarians"? Are you saying that only Trinitarians go off the religious deep end? You really can't be serious about that can you? Jim Jones may or may not have ever been a Trinitarian, but to bring up this murderous madman in the context of our discussion here is absolutely appalling. I'm surprised because you seemed more level headed than this. Who are you going to name drop on us next? Don't tell me, I'm sure the late Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist church infamy was a Trinitarian.

Let's get back to the original subject - Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism does not equal Trinitarian and Trinitarian does not equal fundamentalism. We can discuss all the specifics and intricacies of Trinitarian theology on another thread - I would love to do that! I think that zeek had a much broader concern then where this thread has taken us.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Funny thing. While I do not have information about the whole of Servetus' alleged heresies, at some level I think that Calvin was right. Lee would probably assert that Servetus was right.

But I also do not care enough to think either is a heretic over it. Not saying not to argue your position. Not saying I don't think it has any importance. But heresy? Maybe a bit strong.

The bible is the source of the problem -- it can create both Unitarians and Trinitarians. They both have their verses. They both condemn the other side for heresy. At times the fervor has risen to "death to the heretics."

The Lord has commanded us to place love over doctrinal accuracy. Few have heard what He has told us. The Catholics were far worse than the Reformers, but far too much needless blood has been shed. I'm sure we can all agree with that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Are you saying that only Trinitarians go off the religious deep end?

Well the Trinitarians thru the ages have plenty of blood on their hands. But they certainly aren't the ONLY ones. Lots of blood has been shed over the trinity doctrine, on both sides of the debate. Not saying you are, but just in case, don't act like Trinitarians have the high ground.

As far as I'm concerned, killing over the trinity is not Christian in any way shape or form.

Bro Ohio said his definition of fundamentalism is the willingness to be a martyr for the faith. But methinks history has shown that it's more about being willing to kill for the faith. The willingness to kill for God, seems, has been practiced by Christians against Christians, over the trinity, more than martyrdom at the hands of the pagans.

The trinity doctrine has proven to be a very nasty and bloody doctrine. It's proof that it should never have been developed. Makes sense, since the trinity doctrine is extra-Biblical.

The ongoing disagreements [over the trinity] were at times violent and bloody. Of the aftermath of the Council of Nicaea, noted historian Will Durant writes, "Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome" ( The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4: The Age of Faith, 1950, p. 8). Atrociously, while claiming to be Christian many believers fought and slaughtered one another over their differing views of God!

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

What heretics have even been jailed, much less executed in the past few hundred years? As far as I'm aware, it is only the radical Muslims who are doing such things. Yes people still use the Bible in horrendous ways but what in the world does that have to do with "Trinitarians"? Are you saying that only Trinitarians go off the religious deep end? You really can't be serious about that can you? Jim Jones may or may not have ever been a Trinitarian, but to bring up this murderous madman in the context of our discussion here is absolutely appalling. I'm surprised because you seemed more level headed then this. Who are you going to name drop on us next? Don't tell me, I'm sure the late Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist church infamy was a Trinitarian.

Let's get back to the original subject - Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism does not equal Trinitarian and Trinitarian does not equal fundamentalism. We can discuss all the specifics and intricacies of Trinitarian theology on another thread - I would love to do that! I think that zeek had a much broader concern then where this thread has taken us.

When the question zeek raised about who is a fundamentalist came up ohio indicated that he considered a fundamentalist as one who was willing to be a martyr. My point was that most of the martyrs over the past centuries have been at the hands of those who were Christian fundamentalists such as Calvin (notwithstanding UntoHim's disagreement questioning whether it was directly vs indirectly at the hands of Calvin) using the Bible or Biblical doctrine such as the Trinity, inerrancy of the Bible, etc as the reason for martyring people even though there is no scriptural basis for murdering people despite Calvin's statement, "Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt."

Jim Jones was an extreme example and admittedly not a good one of someone who was a minister, a fundamentalist who went off the deep end using the Bible as the initial draw for people. But of course we don't have armies of Christians going out to battle the heretics or blasphemers like Christians did for hundreds of years. That is why the Puritans came to America to try and get away from the persecution of those who disagreed with the way they believed.

zeek's question is a good one. How do we nail down the term fundamentalist(Christian)? When I think about it, if someone references a Jew or a Muslim fundamentalist I think of the more radical Jew or Muslim, one steeped in his/her beliefs. I don't think of a moderate or progressive Muslim. Fundamentalists become log jammed in their beliefs so much so that they resort to all kinds of unusual practices. You know, the kind of crazy practices that comes out of the LC. They are dogmatic, uncompromising indicating they have all the truth and it is their way or the highway.

[zeek]

Thanks all. The discussion so far is more interesting than I could have imagined when I started the thread.

I find that I lack the faith of Abraham. For if God commanded me to kill my innocent child as He did Abraham, I would likely be unable to even go through the motions of obeying if that is what you suppose Abraham did. I might even seek psychiatric help for command hallucinations.

Worse than that, I would fail more egregiously than Saul. For, I fear I would be unable to commit genocide on the Amalekites as God commanded.

Still worse, I am unable to maintain the standard of our beloved brother Calvin. I fear I cannot approve the execution of a brother who disagreed with my concepts of God and Christ.

Such acts require suspension of the ethical. And, while I confess, I have been, on more than one occasion, able to suspend the ethical in order to enjoy the lust of the flesh, I find that, due principally, I suppose to a lack of faith, overcome the horror implied in God's commandment.

I would ask you to pray to restore my faith to those biblical dimensions, dear brothers, except that, to do so would be to ask you to pray for my insanity which, would clearly be a request contrary to reason.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thanks all. The discussion so far is more interesting than I could have imagined when I started the thread.

I find that I lack the faith of Abraham. For if God commanded me to kill my innocent child as He did Abraham, I would likely be unable to even go through the motions of obeying if that is what you suppose Abraham did. I might even seek psychiatric help for command hallucinations.

Worse than that, I would fail more egregiously than Saul. For, I fear I would be unable to commit genocide on the Amalekites as God commanded.

Still worse, I am unable to maintain the standard of our beloved brother Calvin. I fear I cannot approve the execution of a brother who disagreed with my concepts of God and Christ.

Such acts require suspension of the ethical. And, while I confess, I have been, on more than one occasion, able to suspend the ethical in order to enjoy the lust of the flesh, I find that, due principally, I suppose to a lack of faith, overcome the horror implied in God's commandment.

I would ask you to pray to restore my faith to those biblical dimensions, dear brothers, except that, to do so would be to ask you to pray for my insanity which, would clearly be a request contrary to reason.

Insanity aside dear brother zeek and your excellent points I have other questions regarding fundamentalism and I hope this adds to the discussion. If not then it can be cast aside. Here goes:

By canonizing the Bible’s NT don’t we have a similar problem to the LSM/WN/WL which has affected us all and has bled into all of Christianity. Realizing that the Church fathers were trying to clarify scripture and doctrine the unintended consequences are two-fold and at the same time they appear contradictory especially for fundamentalists. First, we say that we should read the Bible and study the Bible but also that we should be careful that we don’t read/interpret something in a way that is contrary to orthodox theology. All the scripture should fit into a box that is predetermined by Church fathers. If you don’t interpret it in that way you have fallen off of a cliff.

Second, fundamentalists don’t have a pope as a modern day spokesperson for God’s voice for the modern person and today’s issues. We are using 2000 year old writings that in many respects don’t compute. Jesus was a Jew speaking only to other Jews. Paul was a Jew but expanded the Christian message to Gentiles (pagans in the Roman world) only when Jews rejected his message. However, in all cases both Jesus and Paul were speaking to 1^st Century people living with a limited world view. Individuals throughout the last 2000 years have tried to interpret the scriptures in their own limited world view whether it was Arius, Athanasius, Calvin, Darby or WN/WL. All we can do if we are fundamentalists is try and fit 2000 year old scriptures into the world we live in.

Paul writes letters about Jews and circumcision in Romans, his travails and imprisonment in Acts, Colossians, Philippians, etc. Interestingly enough the idea of being “born again” came in the later gospel and writings: John 3:3-16, 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:18, 1 Pet. 1:23 But even in these scriptures it doesn’t say that if we are born again we also have to believe in all the Orthodox doctrines that have been set forth by the 4^th Century Church fathers which quite frankly turned into the Roman Catholic Church and opposed in the 16^th Century by Luther. Furthermore, in two of his later works, Martin Luther expressed antagonistic views toward Jews, writing that Jewish synagogues and homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on anti-Semitism contributed to his controversial status.

We leave it to the Church fathers and modern scholars to interpret the Bible. Or we let people like WL and WN interpret it for us. Is the Bible more than a devotional/historical book and whenever we try and mold it into a doctrinal book for fundamentalist teachings do we seemingly create division and heresies among the people of God which led to all the murders by Christians throughout the ages? Fortunately our modern society does not permit this wholesale execution of heretical non-believers and blasphemers.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

Paul writes letters about Jews and circumcision in Romans, his travails and imprisonment in Acts, Colossians, Philippians, etc. Interestingly enough the idea of being “born again” came in the later gospel and writings: John 3:3-16, 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:18, 1 Pet. 1:23 But even in these scriptures it doesn’t say that if we are born again we also have to believe in all the Orthodox doctrines that have been set forth by the 4^th Century Church fathers which quite frankly turned into the Roman Catholic Church and opposed in the 16^th Century by Luther. Furthermore, in two of his later works, Martin Luther expressed antagonistic views toward Jews, writing that Jewish synagogues and homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on anti-Semitism contributed to his controversial status.

Does John 3:16 declare that if you at one point in time thought that you believed in Jesus (and really did for a time being) mean that you will never perish? (Is it "beleived" or "believes"?) Or does it mean that the one who reaches the point of perishing and believes will not perish? The former is the typical "born again" scenario. And given the discussion that has just gone on (in John 3), it is not entirely illogical. But life requires more than birth. It is arguable that the seed that falls into the stony ground beside the path, or among the thorns is "born" therefore should be viewed as having eternal life (according to the OSAS — once saved, always saved — crowd). Yet the plant dies. It perishes. It is not there to be harvested by the landowner. (And maybe I'm guilty of over-milking the parable. But there is something that happens that is described as death to the plant that arises from the seed.)

I don't know what to do with this. Except to remain in belief. Don't presume that my line-in-the-sand, sinner's prayer conversion is a sure ticket to the promised land. Be happy if it is, but don't simply count on it.

I think that a lot of the people who made the Christian version of "fundamentalist" so rotten could have problems in "the day" if it is not as simple as they want it to be.

But if they think it is really that simple, then why do they try so hard to make people change when that should make absolutely no difference if it is just about believing one time for a little while.

[zeek]

Dave said:

By canonizing the Bible’s NT don’t we have a similar problem to the LSM/WN/WL which has affected us all and has bled into all of Christianity.

The NT was canonized before I was born. I didn't do it. It's an historical fact. I recognize it as such.

Realizing that the Church fathers were trying to clarify scripture and doctrine the unintended consequences are two-fold and at the same time they appear contradictory especially for fundamentalists. First, we say that we should read the Bible and study the Bible but also that we should be careful that we don’t read/interpret something in a way that is contrary to orthodox theology. All the scripture should fit into a box that is predetermined by Church fathers. If you don’t interpret it in that way you have fallen off of a cliff.

I don't look at it that way anymore. My method is more inductive than deductive and less dogmatic. I do try to understand what was intended by the authors according to a variety of approaches. But, I don't look at any of my approaches as final or absolute.

Second, fundamentalists don’t have a pope as a modern day spokesperson for God’s voice for the modern person and today’s issues.

They have many popes and Witness Lee was one. Incidentally, did you know that WL is referenced in the Wikipedia article on Divinization?

We are using 2000 year old writings that in many respects don’t compute.

Maybe not for you, but they compute for other people.

Jesus was a Jew speaking only to other Jews.

According to the hermeneutic which you apparently are currently subscribing. These things change as your own life course clearly testifies.

Paul was a Jew but expanded the Christian message to Gentiles (pagans in the Roman world) only when Jews rejected his message.

Actually he usually preached to the God-Fearers--the low hanging fruit of not fully converted gentiles who more or less subscribed to the Judaism of the Diaspora.

However, in all cases both Jesus and Paul were speaking to 1st Century people living with a limited world view. Individuals throughout the last 2000 years have tried to interpret the scriptures in their own limited world view whether it was Arius, Athanasius, Calvin, Darby or WN/WL. All we can do if we are fundamentalists is try and fit 2000 year old scriptures into the world we live in.

In the parlance of our time, Jesus and Paul are speaking to you if they are "speaking to you." They still speak to me. Apparently they don't speak to you. I'm chill with that, bro, as they say.

Paul writes letters about Jews and circumcision in Romans, his travails and imprisonment in Acts, Colossians, Philippians, etc. Interestingly enough the idea of being “born again” came in the later gospel and writings: John 3:3-16, 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:18, 1 Pet. 1:23 But even in these scriptures it doesn’t say that if we are born again we also have to believe in all the Orthodox doctrines that have been set forth by the 4th Century Church fathers which quite frankly turned into the Roman Catholic Church and opposed in the 16th Century by Luther. Furthermore, in two of his later works, Martin Luther expressed antagonistic views toward Jews, writing that Jewish synagogues and homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on anti-Semitism contributed to his controversial status.

In this paragraph you raise raise three disparate issues: the centrality of being born again to Fundamentalism or evangelicalism, the relation of doctrinal integrity to salvation, and the anti-semitism of the father of Protestantism all of which we can discuss.

We leave it to the Church fathers and modern scholars to interpret the Bible. Or we let people like WL and WN interpret it for us. Is the Bible more than a devotional/historical book and whenever we try and mold it into a doctrinal book for fundamentalist teachings do we seemingly create division and heresies among the people of God which led to all the murders by Christians throughout the ages? Fortunately our modern society does not permit this wholesale execution of heretical non-believers and blasphemers.

Yes, it is the constitutional separation of church and state and no discernible change in hard core religionists is all that keeps them from crimes against humanity. Among them are Reconstructionists and Dominionists who applaud Calvin's action toward Michael Servetus and would happily execute those who violate Torah law. The analogous relation they bear to the Taliban has been aptly made by Chris Hedges and others. Are they the true heirs of Christian Fundamentalism? Is fundamentalism a kind of spectrum or continuum that grades from Dominionism through Evangelicalism into the mainstream denominations?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Incidentally, did you know that WL is referenced in the Wikipedia article on Divinization?

Where? It's not in "Divinization (Christian)."

Originally Posted by Z

Maybe not for you, but they compute for other people.

Are you sure about that? I'm sure there has been and are lots of Bible computations, but most of them crash on beta testing, or aren't compatible with other operating systems.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Where? It's not in "Divinization (Christian)."


Are you sure about that? I'm sure there has been and are lots of Bible computations, but most of them crash on beta testing, or aren't compatible with other operating systems.

My bad. It's here: reference 20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Dave said:
The NT was canonized before I was born. I didn't do it. It's an historical fact. I recognize it as such.

I never said it wasn’t a historical fact and before our birth. And your point is?

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't look at it that way anymore. My method is more inductive than deductive and less dogmatic. I do try to understand what was inteneded by the authors according to a variety of approaches. But, I don't look at any of my approaches as final or absolute.

This was just an introductory statement to my premise and not something I saw as my point of view.

Originally Posted by zeek

They have many popes and Witness Lee was one. Incidentally, did you know that WL is referenced in the Wikipedia article on Divinization?

I’ll have to check it out but I agree we keep looking to people like WL for modern day direction.

Originally Posted by zeek

Maybe not for you, but they compute for other people.

No they don’t --- not for anyone---okay but only as they take things out of context.

Originally Posted by zeek

According to the hermeneutic which you apparently are currently subscribing. These things change as your own life course clearly testifies.

Does it change? Unless we recognize that maybe Jesus believed and scripture testifies to that he believed that the 2^nd Coming was during his generation the synoptic gospels don’t make a lot of sense. Why was he baptized by John the Baptist? He believed he was the Messiah for that age. There was no indication that he actually believed the kingdom of God was beyond his generation. History has borne this out. Okay, we could be wrong and the Kingdom of God could come in another 2000 years. Just keep believing and it will be true. I just believe that Jesus thought that he was the Messiah and he was bringing in the Kingdom of God in his generation with the disciples under Him ruling the Kingdom of God.

Originally Posted by zeek

Actually he usually preached to the God-Fearers--the low hanging fruit of not fully converted gentiles who more or less subscribed to the Judaism of the Diaspora.

You’ll have to provide a source for that since there is no basis for your statement. He only spoke to Jews.

Originally Posted by zeek

In the parlance of our time, Jesus and Paul are speaking to you if they are "speaking to you." They still speak to me. Apparently they don't speak to you. I'm chill with that, bro, as they say.

I asked the question---historical or devotional--- the question --- are they speaking to as “life” and if they do --- is it beyond something Kierkegaard would speak to you.. What level of speaking are you talking about… divine?

Originally Posted by zeek

In this paragraph you raise three disparate issues: the centrality of being born again to Fundamentalism or evangelicalism, the relation of doctrinal integrity to salvation, and the anti-semitism of the father of Protestantism all of which we can discuss.

I agree, I did raise different issues in that paragraph which we can save to later.

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, it is the constitutional separation of church and state and no discernible change in hard core religionists is all that keeps them from crimes against humanity. Among them are Reconstructionists and Dominionists who applaud Calvin's action toward Michael Servetus and would happily execute those who violate Torah law. The analogous relation they bear to the Taliban has been aptly made by Chris Hedges and others. Are they the true heirs of Christian Fundamentalism? Is fundamentalism a kind of spectrum or continuum that grades from Dominionism through Evangelicalism into the mainstream denominations?

That is the question for us to answer!

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

Don't presume that my line-in-the-sand, sinner's prayer conversion is a sure ticket to the promised land. Be happy if it is, but don't simply count on it.

Isn't that the truth! Unless you are one of the few chosen by God as Calvin has promoted in his writings.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by OBW

Does John 3:16 declare that if you at one point in time thought that you believed in Jesus (and really did for a time being) mean that you will never perish? (Is it "beleived" or "believes"?)

The verb in Greek for Believe in John 3:16 is pisteuodon which is the present continuous tense of pisteou, so the implication as you have said is that one has to continuing believing.

Or does it mean that the one who reaches the point of perishing and believes will not perish? The former is the typical "born again" scenario. And given the discussion that has just gone on (in John 3), it is not entirely illogical. But life requires more than birth. It is arguable that the seed that falls into the stony ground beside the path, or among the thorns is "born" therefore should be viewed as having eternal life (according to the OSAS — once saved, always saved — crowd). Yet the plant dies. It perishes. It is not there to be harvested by the landowner. (And maybe I'm guilty of over-milking the parable. But there is something that happens that is described as death to the plant that arises from the seed.)

Luke 8:13
Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.

The rocky ground guy actually *believed* at one point...

I don't know what to do with this. Except to remain in belief. Don't presume that my line-in-the-sand, sinner's prayer conversion is a sure ticket to the promised land. Be happy if it is, but don't simply count on it.

I think that a lot of the people who made the Christian version of "fundamentalist" so rotten could have problems in "the day" if it is not as simple as they want it to be.

But if they think it is really that simple, then why do they try so hard to make people change when that should make absolutely no difference if it is just about believing one time for a little while.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

The verb in Greek for Believe in John 3:16 is pisteuodon which is the present continuous tense of pisteou, so the implication as you have said is that one has to continuing believing.

I never thought of this before until you mentioned this. Jesus only lived until he was 33+/-. 33 years old is a time in our life when we are so excited and idealist...especially if life around us is so desperate...look at the Palestines today in Gaza....if He had lived until he was 65 would He give the same message? We'll never know...we only have 3 years of his ministry at most. We really don't know much about Him before his baptism by John the Baptist nor much after...just believe and hope... that's the gospel. It's all faith.

[zeek]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek

Actually he usually preached to the God-Fearers--the low hanging fruit of not fully converted gentiles who more or less subscribed to the Judaism of the Diaspora.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave

You’ll have to provide a source for that since there is no basis for your statement.
He only spoke to Jews.

In an ancient world divided between Jews and Gentiles, there was also a third, in-between category of pagans sympathetic to Judaism. In the New Testament, the Acts of the Apostles calls them “God-fearers” or “God-worshippers.” They remained pagans but they admired Jewish culture, attended synagogue services on the Sabbath and were a very important buffer-zone against any localized anti-Judaism. What is new in this book is our claim that those pagan sympathizers are absolutely crucial for understanding both Paul’s mission and message.

We argue that Paul went to Jewish synagogues not to convert Jews (despite those stories in the Acts of the Apostles) but to “un-convert” their pagan sympathizers. That convert-poaching was inflammatory in the highest possible degree. He was, where successful, stripping a local synagogue of some or all of its most important religious, political, social, and financial defenders, all still operating fully in the urban civic world. That central focus explains many big questions about Paul.

First, his Gentile converts could readily understand his theology because they were already familiar with Jewish practices, traditions, and scriptures. Second, such synagogue-poaching would have generated stiff opposition not only from other local Jews but also from those local sympathizers who stayed loyal to Judaism. Third, that explains Paul’s polemical descriptions of Judaism in his letters. Paul is fighting to obtain and hold on to his God-worshippers and fiercely but unfairly--is polemics ever fair?--attacking the quite normal Judaism of his opponents. Fourth, that explains why Paul could move so fast from one major provincial capital to the other and could consider his work in the eastern Mediterranean finished when he wrote his letter to the Romans in the mid-50s. He was setting up small cells around those now-Christian God-worshippers and letting them bring in other pure-pagan converts. The Pauline express thundered along on God-worshipper rails and Paul moved fast because he did not have to lay track.

http://www.johndominiccrossan.com/In...0of%20Paul.htm

• Acts 13:16 So Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said: “Men of Israel and you who fear God, listen.
  
• Acts 13:26 “Brothers, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to us has been sent the message of this salvation. (ESV)

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave

http://www.johndominiccrossan.com/In...0of%20Paul.htm

• Acts 13:16 So Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said: “Men of Israel and you who fear God, listen.
• Acts 13:26 “Brothers, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to us has been sent the message of this salvation. (ESV)

You should know who completely disagrees with Crossan's perspective. Crossan is one of the Jesus Seminar scholars... Ehrman disagrees strongly with his theories. I just happen to agree with Ehrman on these issues. In addition, I said that Paul preached to the Gentiles after the Jews rejected his teachings so both of those scriptures are in line with Paul reaching out to the Jews and Gentiles which was his ministry. Jesus only spoke to the Jews.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

I never thought of this before until you mentioned this. Jesus only lived until he was 33+/-. 33 years old is a time in our life when we are so excited and idealist...especially if life around us is so desperate...look at the Palestines today in Gaza....if He had lived until he was 65 would He give the same message? We'll never know...we only have 3 years of his ministry at most. We really don't know much about Him before his baptism by John the Baptist nor much after...just believe and hope... that's the gospel. It's all faith.

I fear God because he is not beyond testing our faith with outrageous circumstances. The children of Israel received an open invitation into the promised land but lo and behold, it was stocked with thirty foot tall Giants. Seems like God is not beyond throwing curveballs to see if our faith is real. Perhaps these issues over the canonization of scriptures and myriad other things God allows to tempt us to question if we can really trust in Him and his promises are all part of these curveballs he lobs at us.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by bearbear

I fear God because he is not beyond testing our faith with outrageous circumstances. The children of Israel received an open invitation into the promised land but lo and behold, it was stocked with thirty foot tall Giants. Seems like God is not beyond throwing curveballs to see if our faith is real. Perhaps these issues over the canonization of scriptures and myriad other things God allows to tempt us to question if we can really trust in Him and his promises are all part of these curveballs he lobs at us.

My personal experience is that God seems to pull the rug out from under anything we put our faith in other than Him. And that includes the Bible.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

My personal experience is that God seems to pull the rug out from under anything we put our faith in other than Him. And that includes the Bible.

Yes I understand many of us fundamentalist types are often guilty of worshipping the Father, Son and The Holy Bible instead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However the bible still has it's place as it was written and breathed by the Holy Spirit. If you appreciate a person, you'll also likely appreciate his works including what he wrote. The Holy Spirit spoke through his word and he still speaks to us today. In fact, Jesus said the Holy Spirit would remind us of the things He spoke of .

John 14:26
"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

But how can one be reminded of something he never heard? Faith comes by hearing (Romans 10:17) and so the word must first be read, heard or shameless plug here: Verse Rained

Ephesians 6:17 also says that Holy Spirit's weapon of choice, the sword of the Spirit, is the word of God.

The Holy Spirit and the Bible go hand in hand. If you put all your focus on one while ignoring the other, you can get into pretty big trouble.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Yes I understand many of us fundamentalist types ...

You are too cute. Almost cute enough to still the will to contend. Not sure where I got it but I pictured you as a Pentecostal. Are Pentecostals fundamentalists?

Originally Posted by bb

... are often guilty of worshipping the Father, Son and The Holy Bible ...

John 1:1 "the Word was God."

Originally Posted by bb

However the bible still has it's place as it was written and breathed by the Holy Spirit.

That is the first Fundamental. But actually, the books were written by human authors, at a certain time and setting, and directed to a intended audience, of which we couldn't have possibly figured, in the minds of the authors, cuz they weren't thinking in terms of 2000 yrs later.

Originally Posted by Note

John 14:26
"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit [not the Bible], whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

Originally Posted by bb

But how can one be reminded of something he never heard? Faith comes by hearing ...

How'd Abraham come by it?

Ephesians 6:17 also says that Holy Spirit's weapon of choice, the sword of the Spirit, is the word of God.

I've been told that, The Spirit is the Word. That the Spirit stopped working after Pentecost, and is now The Word. That's as fundamental as it comes ... in fact, it takes the cake.

Thanks for yer response bro bb ...

Ha

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Are Pentecostals fundamentalists?

No, absolutely not in practice nor are the Southern Baptists etc for that matter. I was a part of the AOG Bible College core...they are not fundamentalists in practice. Sure, they advertise that they are. Do you think if Paul hung out a shingle saying "I am a fundamentalist" and he taught differently it would matter? You are who you are in reality and not in a bunch of words you print out and propagate.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

You should know who completely disagrees with Crossan's perspective. Crossan is one of the Jesus Seminar scholars... Ehrman disagrees strongly with his theories. I just happen to agree with Ehrman on these issues. In addition, I said that Paul preached to the Gentiles after the Jews rejected his teachings so both of those scriptures are in line with Paul reaching out to the Jews and Gentiles which was his ministry. Jesus only spoke to the Jews.

Who agrees or disagrees is immaterial as far as I'm concerned. You claimed I had no basis for my position and I showed that I did. If you have evidence that trumps mine present it. Otherwise we're done with this question. There is no ultimate stake in this historical factoid going one way or another. And in any case it will never be conclusively known and will always be a matter of greater or lesser historical probability. It's never wise to base your ultimate concern on something like that.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Who agrees or disagrees is immaterial as far as I'm concerned. You claimed I had no basis for my position and I showed that I did. If you have evidence that trumps mine present it. Otherwise we're done with this question. There is no ultimate stake in this historical factoid going one way or another. And in any case it will never be conclusively known and will always be a matter of greater or lesser historical probability. It's never wise to base your ultimate concern on something like that.

The source you gave me was about Paul and not Jesus so I guess I am a little confused. The verses in Acts you provided were about Paul. The only thing I was noting which is what I thought we were discussing was that Jesus' ministry was just to Jews. Of course Paul's ministry was to both Jews and Gentiles so I am a little lost as to what you are referencing. I was only asking for a reference that shows that Jesus' ministry was beyond the Jews at the time he was in Palestine. Here was my statement, "You’ll have to provide a source for that since there is no basis for your statement. He only spoke to Jews." I was only referencing Jesus but maybe we are both confused. I think you were indicating that although he only spoke to Jews at the time it was a matter of hermeneutics. Could this be debatable since we are talking about fundamentalism and we don't have any actual words of Jesus except as reported decades later?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

No, absolutely not in practice nor are the Southern Baptists etc for that matter. I was a part of the AOG Bible College core...they are not fundamentalists in practice. Sure, they advertise that they are. Do you think if Paul hung out a shingle saying "I am a fundamentalist" and he taught differently it would matter? You are who you are in reality and not in a bunch of words you print out and propagate.

So they lied to me. I grew up a SBC, and have thought I grew up a fundamentalist.

So I need to ask, and we need to define, just who are fundamentalists?

I'll take one stab at it, for clarity: Jesus wasn't a fundamentalist.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So they lied to me. I grew up a SBC, and have thought I grew up a fundamentalist.

So I need to ask, and we need to define, just who are fundamentalists?

I'll take one stab at it, for clarity: Jesus wasn't a fundamentalist.

Yes He was. He was willing to die for the faith.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes He was. He was willing to die for the faith.

On that point, I have to agree with Ohio because that has been his definition from the start. Are you willing to die for your faith? Jew, Muslim, Christian etc. Are you willing to die for your faith? That is his definition of a fundamentalist.

Awareness, what is SBC(Southern Baptist Christian)?

If we expand the definition of a "fundamentalist" to a belief in the Trinity, inerrancy, the nature of Jesus as God and Man etc maybe that is what Awareness is referencing? With this further definition we would need to explore if Jesus was a fundamentalist but not as Ohio has stated as his definition because Jesus did die for what he believed. That is an important reflection because it provides a fundamental starting point for any discussion on this issue.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

On that point, I have to agree with Ohio because that has been his definition from the start.

Bro Ohio has a knack for striking the quick of a matter. His seems to be a sound definition; rock solid.

Originally Posted by Dave & Ohio paraphrased

Are you willing to die for your faith? Jew, Muslim, Christian etc. Are you willing to die for your faith? That is his definition of a fundamentalist.

Maybe I'm unable to follow a thought from the beginning, or I'm confused for other reasons. But I honestly don't know just what specifically we're talking about.

Are we talking about fundamentalism in general, as in fundamentalists of all religions? or are we talking about Christian fundamentalism?

Dave, in my post , SBC stood for Southern Baptist Church. Officially, however, it stands for Southern Baptist Convention (The largest Protestant denomination in America, and the 2nd largest Christian denomination -- after those: Baptize-'em-when-they're-babies-Roman-CC-monsters.)

Originally Posted by Dave

If we expand the definition of a "fundamentalist" to a belief in the Trinity, inerrancy, the nature of Jesus as God and Man etc maybe that is what Awareness is referencing?

That wouldn't be an expansion from Jew, Muslim, Christian etc. It would be a reduction. Is this thread about the former or the latter?

Zeek to the rescue .... pleeeeease ...

Or since this is Alternative Views: Anybody to the rescue ....

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe I'm unable to follow a thought from the beginning, or I'm confused for other reasons. But I honestly don't know just what specifically we're talking about. Are we talking about fundamentalism in general, as in fundamentalists of all religions? or are we talking about Christian fundamentalism?

That wouldn't be an expansion from Jew, Muslim, Christian etc. It would be a reduction. Is this thread about the former or the latter?

Zeek to the rescue .... pleeeeease ...

Or since this is Alternative Views: Anybody to the rescue ....

I'm not expanding definitions of fundamentalist in this thread. I'm sure Ohio was referencing any Christian who died for his faith but his definition refers to a general definition of any religious person of faith who is willing to die for his faith which is that of a martyr.

In any case, I thought I clarified the issue with my following statement in my post: "If we expand the definition of a "fundamentalist" to a belief in the Trinity, inerrancy, the nature of Jesus as God and Man etc maybe that is what Awareness is referencing? With this further definition we would need to explore if Jesus was a fundamentalist but not as Ohio has stated as his definition because Jesus did die for what he believed. That is an important reflection because it provides a fundamental starting point for any discussion on this issue." As I am sure this could be suggested for all of us---please read the entire post before responding.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

The source you gave me was about Paul and not Jesus so I guess I am a little confused. The verses in Acts you provided were about Paul. The only thing I was noting which is what I thought we were discussing was that Jesus' ministry was just to Jews. Of course Paul's ministry was to both Jews and Gentiles so I am a little lost as to what you are referencing. I was only asking for a reference that shows that Jesus' ministry was beyond the Jews at the time he was in Palestine. Here was my statement, "You’ll have to provide a source for that since there is no basis for your statement. He only spoke to Jews." I was only referencing Jesus but maybe we are both confused. I think you were indicating that although he only spoke to Jews at the time it was a matter of hermeneutics. Could this be debatable since we are talking about fundamentalism and we don't have any actual words of Jesus except as reported decades later?

My mistake. I misunderstood who you were referring to. Jesus ministry was primarily to the Jews. Paul's practice of reaching out to the God-fearers was an important step in the universalization of the Christian message. The universal ethos of the Roman empire seems to be the underlying cause of the universalizing process which continues on beyond the 4th century when Christianity becomes the state religion. That's ironic when the Roman Empire is usually thought of as a villain, and the best supported historical fact regarding Jesus is that the Romans crucified him. Paul wrote before the Gospels and it is impossible to parse out his influence on the Gospel authors with certainty. Anyway, none of these possibilities are problems for me. I'm happy to discuss the ins and outs. But, admitting historical influences on the composition of Bible is sacrosanct for the biblical inerrantist and inerrantism is the first fundamental. Fundamentalists are unwilling to leave the security of absolutism for the a historicity that can present a case that is more or less plausible but never complete or certain. Can you blame them?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

My mistake. I misunderstood who you were referring to. Jesus ministry was primarily to the Jews. Paul's practice of reaching out to the God-fearers was an important step in the universalization of the Christian message. The universal ethos of the Roman empire seems to be the underlying cause of the universalizing process which continues on beyond the 4th century when Christianity becomes the state religion. That's ironic when the Roman Empire is usually thought of as a villain, and the best supported historical fact regarding Jesus is that the Romans crucified him. Paul wrote before the Gospels and it is impossible to parse out his influence on the Gospel authors with certainty. Anyway, none of these possibilities are problems for me. I'm happy to discuss the ins and outs. But, admitting historical influences on the composition of Bible is sacrosanct for the biblical inerrantist and inerrantism if the first fundamental. Fundamentalists are unwilling to leave the security of absolutism for the a historicity that can present a case that is more or less plausible but never complete or certain. Can you blame them?

It's a great question and some excellent points. " Admitting historical influences on the composition of the Bible"---WOW...you just blew the lid off on this entire discussion. There are powder burns all over my NRSV Bible sitting in front of me open to 1 John 3.

Okay, here is one point of view I have heard: "It doesn’t matter if the letters were written by Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke or Josephat for that matter or whomever. The KJV Bible is the one true inspired Word of God and in fact these later versions with their deletions and corrections are simply not inspired and are wrong."

How can you argue with that except for this?: The point of view above is a statement of faith, not historical or textual fact. But you can’t argue with it if you are just looking at it from a theological standpoint. What we seem to be discussing here is beyond just a statement of faith or are we?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

In any case, I thought I clarified the issue with my following statement in my post: "If we expand the definition of a "fundamentalist" to a belief in the Trinity, inerrancy, the nature of Jesus as God and Man etc maybe that is what Awareness is referencing?[

Yes I did read this in your original post, but failed to respond to it. Sorry. And that is what Awareness was referencing.

Originally Posted by Dave

With this further definition we would need to explore if Jesus was a fundamentalist but not as Ohio has stated as his definition because Jesus did die for what he believed. That is an important reflection because it provides a fundamental starting point for any discussion on this issue."

Okay then, I guess this thread is about Christian Fundamentalism.

In that case, how old is Christian fundamentalism? And just what is it? Does it go back to Jesus ... or pre-RCC?

Maybe we should start here:
http://web.archive.org/web/200301010...8/fundcont.htm

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes I did read this in your original post, but failed to respond to it. Sorry. And that is what Awareness was referencing.



Okay then, I guess this thread is about Christian Fundamentalism.

In that case, how old is Christian fundamentalism? And just what is it? Does it go back to Jesus ... or pre-RCC?

Maybe we should start here:
http://web.archive.org/web/200301010...8/fundcont.htm

That link provides a lot of info which is primarily theological arguments.

Let’s start with one fact: Jesus existed and was not merely a myth or legendary. Even Ehrman espouses that there are sufficient records of history that prove that Jesus was a man who lived on this earth (Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth). There is no fundamentalism if we don’t all agree that Jesus actually lived on this earth and roamed around in Palestine. Second fact: at least some of his statements were captured in the Gospels? Third?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

It's a great question and some excellent points. " Admitting historical influences on the composition of the Bible"---WOW...you just blew the lid off on this entire discussion. There are powder burns all over my NRSV Bible sitting in front of me open to 1 John 3.

Okay, here is one point of view I have heard: "It doesn’t matter if the letters were written by Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke or Josephat for that matter or whomever. The KJV Bible is the one true inspired Word of God and in fact these later versions with their deletions and corrections are simply not inspired and are wrong."

How can you argue with that except for this?: The point of view above is a statement of faith, not historical or textual fact. But you can’t argue with it if you are just looking at it from a theological standpoint. What we seem to be discussing here is beyond just a statement of faith or are we?

The fundamentalist you quote is speaking out of hermaneutic based on certain presuppositions which she brings to her reading of the Bible. That hermaneutic claims to be Bible based and uses particular proof texts like II Timothy 3:16 to support the claim. But, the interpretation of those verses themselves is interpreted according to the hermaneutic. So, what we have is a hermaneutic circle.

Of course the proposition that the KJV is the true one is not Biblical. The claim that any particular translation or manuscript is the true one is not Biblical. That II Timothy 3:16 is referring to the Bible canon that we have now is an anachronism since the canon was not formed when II Timothy was written. I suppose the "framers" of the canon would have likely wished to follow Timothy's principle and select works they considered to be God inspired. But, whether or not they got it right is a human judgment call about their human judgment call. More logical loops.

All of this raises a philosophical question for me. Can a person decide what to believe or do we discover what we believe as we bring our attention to whatever the question at hand is? The former makes belief a function of the will. The latter makes it the result of a cognitive process.

In my experience, even when I chose to believe certain things, nagging doubts surfaced in my consciousness which I could not conclusively refute. I found that belief was a dialectical process wherein faith implied doubt, and vice versa.

The debate that goes on between atheists and theists is an externalization of the internal dialogue that goes on in the human mind. Persons on either extreme externalize the process and demonize people on the other extreme. All in service of not looking at themselves and the process going on within them. It's a defense mechanism that, as Nietzsche might say is "human, all to human."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

That link provides a lot of info which is primarily theological arguments.

Okay, wrong link.

I'm trying to point out when the fundamentalist movement started:

This link will explain it (Quote):
"Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the late 19th century. It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations around 1910 to 1920. The movement's purpose was to reaffirm key theological tenets and defend them against the challenges of liberal theology and higher criticism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

So Jesus, technically, wasn't a fundamentalist. No such thing existed back then.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

The fundamentalist you quote is speaking out of hermaneutic based on certain presuppositions which she brings to her reading of the Bible. That hermaneutic claims to be Bible based and uses particular proof texts like II Timothy 3:16 to support the claim. But, the interpretation of those verses themselves is interpreted according to the hermaneutic. So, what we have is a hermaneutic circle.

Of course the proposition that the KJV is the true one is not Biblical. The claim that any particular translation or manuscript is the true one is not Biblical. That II Timothy 3:16 is referring to the Bible canon that we have now is an anachronism since the canon was not formed when II Timothy was written. I suppose the "framers" of the canon would have likely wished to follow Timothy's principle and select works they considered to be God inspired. But, whether or not they got it right is a human judgment call about their human judgment call. More logical loops.

All of this raises a philosophical question for me. Can a person decide what to believe or do we discover what we believe as we bring our attention to whatever the question at hand is? The former makes belief a function of the will. The latter makes it the result of a cognitive process.

In my experience, even when I chose to believe certain things, nagging doubts surfaced in my consciousness which I could not conclusively refute. I found that belief was a dialectical process wherein faith implied doubt, and vice versa.

The debate that goes on between atheists and theists is an externalization of the internal dialogue that goes on in the human mind. Persons on either extreme externalize the process and demonize people on the other extreme. All in service of not looking at themselves and the process going on within them. It's a defense mechanism that, as Nietzsche might say is "human, all to human."

Yes, faith does imply doubt...thus "leap of faith".
Certainty implies a thorough consideration of evidence: "the emphasis of a certainty that is not impaired by any shade of doubt" (Mark Twain).
Certitude is based more on personal belief than on objective facts: "Certitude is not the test of certainty" (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.)
Assurance is a feeling of confidence resulting from subjective experience: "There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life" (John Stuart Mill).
Conviction arises from the vanquishing of doubt: "His religion . . . was substantial and concrete, made up of good, hard convictions and opinions. (Willa Cather).

BTW...I didn't quote a woman so I am not sure who you are referencing. The only person I quoted was you. I agree II Timothy 3:16 was prior to the formulation of the canon so whoever wrote that verse may have been referencing just the OT, other letters that were being circulated etc.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, wrong link.

I'm trying to point out when the fundamentalist movement started:

This link will explain it (Quote):
"Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the late 19th century. It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations around 1910 to 1920. The movement's purpose was to reaffirm key theological tenets and defend them against the challenges of liberal theology and higher criticism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

So Jesus, technically, wasn't a fundamentalist. No such thing existed back then.

I guess you are raising the question: What did Jesus believe? If He was all knowing to include knowing the future He could have been a fundamentalist from the get go.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

I guess you are raising the question: What did Jesus believe? If He was all knowing to include knowing the future He could have been a fundamentalist from the get go.

By that "logic" we could say that if Jesus was all knowing, then He would not have chosen Judas, and then He would not have faced Pilate nor have died on the cross, and ... that proves He was not God. Illogical ... Illogical ... Illogical ... Illogical ...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

By that "logic" we could say that if Jesus was all knowing, then He would not have chosen Judas, and then He would not have faced Pilate nor have died on the cross, and ... that proves He was not God. Illogical ... Illogical ... Illogical ... Illogical ...

John 16:29-33 "...Now we know that you know all things, and do not need to to have anyone question you; Jesus answered them...take courage; I have conquered the world!"

The logic Biblical scholars have used to address your concern is that Jesus specifically picked Judas because Jesus knew that he would betray him so that Jesus could die on the cross for our sins and be resurrected.

Thus, Jesus was probably a fundamentalist because He knew the fundamentalist doctrine which would be developed in the future as the canon was developed. Apparently the HS has been working with Christians throughout the ages to put the canon together and develop Christian dogma and thought. So, all three (Father, Son, and HS) have been working in concert over the ages to develop what Christians believe and have developed as of today.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Yes, faith does imply doubt...thus "leap of faith".
Certainty implies a thorough consideration of evidence: "the emphasis of a certainty that is not impaired by any shade of doubt" (Mark Twain).
Certitude is based more on personal belief than on objective facts: "Certitude is not the test of certainty" (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.)
Assurance is a feeling of confidence resulting from subjective experience: "There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life" (John Stuart Mill).
Conviction arises from the vanquishing of doubt: "His religion . . . was substantial and concrete, made up of good, hard convictions and opinions. (Willa Cather).

BTW...I didn't quote a woman so I am not sure who you are referencing. The only person I quoted was you. I agree II Timothy 3:16 was prior to the formulation of the canon so whoever wrote that verse may have been referencing just the OT, other letters that were being circulated etc.

You also quoted someone who stated: "It doesn’t matter if the letters were written by Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke or Josephat for that matter or whomever. The KJV Bible is the one true inspired Word of God and in fact these later versions with their deletions and corrections are simply not inspired and are wrong." I assume the actual gender of the speaker was irrelevant to the proposition.

[zeek]

While he was in Jerusalem for the feast of the Passover, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he performed. Jesus, however, knew all people and did not entrust himself to them, for he never needed evidence about anyone: He could tell what they had within. (John 2:23–25)

Jesus' self-understanding is a great question. If we suppose him to be omniscient, there's no conceivable way we could understand how he understood himself from our finite limited points of view. This is seen in John's gospel where Jesus seems more God-like and less human than in the synoptics. Ironically it is in John that Jesus speaks at the greatest length. Yet he doesn't give us a clue what it is like being him. Rather, he presents a high Christology that cannot be differentiated from the Christological doctrine of the narrator.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

You also quoted someone who stated: "It doesn’t matter if the letters were written by Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke or Josephat for that matter or whomever. The KJV Bible is the one true inspired Word of God and in fact these later versions with their deletions and corrections are simply not inspired and are wrong." I assume the actual gender of the speaker was irrelevant to the proposition.

That's my error for your misunderstanding because I wasn't quoting anyone. I was only using quotes to outline a point of view. I prefaced the quote with these words, "here is one point of view I have heard:" It was a generalized statement. I would have listed someone's name if there was an actual author.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus' self-understanding is a great question. If we suppose him to be omniscient, there's no conceivable way we could understand how he understood himself from our finite limited points of view. This is seen in John's gospel where Jesus seems more God-like and less human than in the synoptics. Ironically it is in John that Jesus speaks at the greatest length. Yet he doesn't give us a clue what it is like being him. Rather, he presents a high Christology that cannot be differentiated from the Christological doctrine of the narrator.

That is why John's author and veracity are more in question than the synoptics. On the other hand, taken at face value in John's gospel which is all we have available (i.e. the scriptures quoting Jesus and not His own writings) it is rather clear that Jesus is omniscient considering John 2:23-25 which you referenced and John 16:29-33 among others (e.g. Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You..."—John 21:17). There are similar scriptures in the OT and NT which we use to come to the same conclusion regarding the Father. We don't have the luxury beyond these scriptures to figure out things otherwise.

It's the problem through the centuries that has baffled scholars in determining what different scriptures were describing or intending. People have died for their own interpretation of these scriptures. It just seems that those in power starting with Constantine eventually established fundamental doctrine.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

It just seems that those in power starting with Constantine eventually established fundamental doctrine.

Christian Fundamentalism is not the only way to be related faithfully to creedal orthodoxy AKA The Faith. I take Fundamentalism to be a reaction to modernity that began early in the 20th century. Karen Armstrong [ The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism, pages 168-170] describes the advent of Christian fundamentalism this way:

But in 1909, Charles Eliot, professor emeritus of Harvard University, delivered an address entitled “The Future of Religion” which struck dismay into the hearts of the more conservative. This was another attempt to return to a simple core value. The new religion, Eliot believed, would have only one commandment: the love of God, expressed in the practical service of others. There would be no churches and no scriptures; no theology of sin, no need for worship. God’s presence would be so obvious and overwhelming that there would be no need for liturgy. Christians would not have a monopoly on truth, since the ideas of scientists, secularists, or those who belonged to a different faith would be just as valid. In its care for other human beings, the religion of the future would be no different from such secularist ideals as democracy, education, social reform, or preventative medicine.7 This extreme version of the Social Gospel was a recoil from the doctrinal disputes of recent decades. In a society that valued only rational or scientifically demonstrable truth, dogma had become a problem. Theology could easily become a fetish, an idol that became a supreme value in itself instead of a symbol of an ineffable and indescribable reality. By seeking to bypass doctrine, Eliot was trying to get back to what he regarded as fundamental: love of God and neighbor. All the world faiths have emphasized the importance of social justice and care for the vulnerable. A disciplined and practically expressed compassion had been found, in all traditions, to yield a sense of the sacred, as long as it did not become a do-gooding ego trip. Eliot was thus attempting to address the real dilemma of Christians in the modern world by building a faith that relied more upon practice than upon orthodox beliefs.

The conservatives, however, were appalled. Faith without infallible doctrine was not Christianity in their view, and they felt obliged to counter this liberal danger. In 1910, the Presbyterians of Princeton, who had formulated the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture, issued a list of five dogmas which they deemed essential: (1) the inerrancy of Scripture, (2) the Virgin Birth of Christ, (3) Christ’s atonement for our sins on the cross, (4) his bodily resurrection, and (5) the objective reality of his miracles. (This last doctrine would later be replaced by the teachings of premillennialism.) Next, the oil millionaires Lyman and Milton Stewart, who had founded the Bible College of Los Angeles to counter the Higher Criticism in 1908, financed a project designed to educate the faithful in the central tenets of the faith. Between 1910 and 1915, they issued a series of twelve paperback pamphlets entitled The Fundamentals, in which leading conservative theologians gave accessible accounts of such doctrines as the Trinity, refuted the Higher Criticism, and stressed the importance of spreading the truth of the Gospel. Some three million copies of each of the twelve volumes were dispatched, free of charge, to every pastor, professor, and theology student in America. Later this project would acquire great symbolic significance, since fundamentalists would see it as the germ of their movement. However, at the time, the pamphlets caused little critical interest, and the tone was neither radical nor particularly militant.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

I guess you are raising the question: What did Jesus believe? If He was all knowing to include knowing the future He could have been a fundamentalist from the get go.

That would mean Jesus was retroactively a fundamentalist ... all the way back to before anything existed ... and fundamentalism too, was before anything.

That was sort of the answer I got from a fundamentalist when I asked how the OT patriarchs were forgiven by God. He said the cross was functional all the way back to before Jesus created anything.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

By that "logic" we could say that if Jesus was all knowing, then He would not have chosen Judas, and then He would not have faced Pilate nor have died on the cross, and ... that proves He was not God.

Or it could mean that Jesus had foreknowledge and chose Judas, knew he would betray him, deliver him to Pilate, and that he would die on the cross for the sins of the world. And therefore was God.

Not sure that logic holds up. Just saying.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

That would mean Jesus was retroactively a fundamentalist ... all the way back to before anything existed ... and fundamentalism too, was before anything.

That was sort of the answer I got from a fundamentalist when I asked how the OT patriarchs were forgiven by God. He said the cross was functional all the way back to before Jesus created anything.

To suppose that Jesus, a human being, was omniscient makes him incomprehensible. It opens infinite absurd possibilities. The usual, abortive reaction of the faithful is to humbly admit that Christology is just beyond our understanding and sigh that "we will understand it better by and by."

My own default position is that Jesus was an ordinary human being who was the charismatic founder of a sect of Judaism that became a new religion. I'm willing to entertain propositions that he was more than that, but, I try to keep to the preponderance of historical facts about him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Christian Fundamentalism is not the only way to be related faithfully to creedal orthodoxy AKA The Faith. I take Fundamentalism to be a reaction to modernity that began early in the 20th century. Karen Armstrong [ The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism, pages 168-170] describes the advent of Christian fundamentalism this way:

I already pointed out the very info Karen Armstrong pointed out. But it was rejected, and replace with eternal fundamentalism.

So it begs the question: Is God a fundamentalist?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I already pointed out the very info Karen Armstrong pointed out. But it was rejected, and replace with eternal fundamentalism.

So it begs the question: Is God a fundamentalist?

I didn't reject your proposition. The five fundamentals are important starting point for understanding about Christian fundamentalism. The Armstrong quote puts the advent of fundamentalism into an historical context. She shows that fundamentalism was initially a reaction against liberalizing trends in Christianity. As for your question, it isn't begged. It's a leap into absurdity.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I didn't reject your proposition. The five fundamentals are important starting point for understanding about Christian fundamentalism. The Armstrong quote puts the advent of fundamentalism into an historical context. She shows that fundamentalism was initially a reaction against liberalizing trends in Christianity.

The five fundamentals:
1) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Inspiration can't be proven, and inerrancy doesn't hold up given all the variations in the manuscripts. And saying the autographs are inerrant can't be proven either, given we don't have them.

2) Virgin birth of Jesus
Medical and scientific learning calls such a thing as human virgin births impossible. In fact it's fantasy land thinking. Which is what students in the modern world today will think.

3) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
This is a belief in a divine magical event.

4) Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Science doesn't hold this up.

5) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
Believing in divine magic again.

Originally Posted by Z

As for your question, it isn't begged. It's a leap into absurdity.

The five fundamentals, when compared to science and rational thinking, are absurd.

Is it any wonder that these five fundamentals had to be declared?

It strikes me as desperation.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

The five fundamentals:
1) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Inspiration can't be proven, and inerrancy doesn't hold up given all the variations in the manuscripts. And saying the autographs are inerrant can't be proven either, given we don't have them.

2) Virgin birth of Jesus
Medical and scientific learning calls such a thing as human virgin births impossible. In fact it's fantasy land thinking. Which is what students in the modern world today will think.

3) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
This is a belief in a divine magical event.

4) Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Science doesn't hold this up.

5) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
Believing in divine magic again.


The five fundamentals, when compared to science and rational thinking, are absurd.

Is it any wonder that these five fundamentals had to be declared?

It strikes me as desperation.

A nice thing about Christian fundamentalists is that they defined themselves for the rest of us. According to Armstrong the doctrine of the objective reality of miracles was later replaced by the teachings of premillennialism. In my experience with fundamentalism belief in miracles was obviously retained as well. As Witness Lee instantiated, that there are a variety of beliefs with regard to the Trinity and Christology under the fundamentalist umbrella. The "Jesus Only" Pentecostals are another fun example of that variety. [However, Armstrong does discuss the Fundamentalist rejection of Pentecostalism early on.] Whether from the POV of self-definition or sociological observation, fundamentalism is a social construct, and therefore, there is unlikely to ever be complete agreement about what it is or whom to include under its umbrella. But, really that shouldn't be difficult for people who comprehended the social construct "local church" to grasp .

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

A nice thing about Christian fundamentalists is that they defined themselves for the rest of us. According to Armstrong the doctrine of the objective reality of miracles was later replaced by the teachings of premillennialism. In my experience with fundamentalism belief in miracles was obviously retained as well. As Witness Lee instantiated, that there are a variety of beliefs with regard to the Trinity and Christology under the fundamentalist umbrella. The "Jesus Only" Pentecostals are another fun example of that variety. [However, Armstrong does discuss the Fundamentalist rejection of Pentecostalism early on.] Whether from the POV of self-definition or sociological observation, fundamentalism is a social construct, and therefore, there is unlikely to ever be complete agreement about what it is or whom to include under its umbrella. But, really that shouldn't be difficult for people who comprehended the social construct "local church" to grasp .

When you talk about “Biblical fundamentalism” you are addressing issues of faith and can you compare it to science or historical evaluation to address it? It is comparing apples to oranges. Belief for individuals often supersedes science from their perspective. Belief brings comfort to many people and they just want to believe whether or not their beliefs are supported by science or historical evidence.

When an issue of science or historical accuracy is raised in an effort to undermine faith those who are believers recoil because you are challenging their belief system. This, of course, is the problem from both ends. For example, fundamentalists may not like the issues of evolution and they often argue against this concept. However, evolution is science and belief in creation is simply belief. You can't prove it scientifically. You have to separate these issues in order to discuss them in any reasonable way. This is not unique to Christians but because of this lack of understanding this separation is where we get caught in a quagmire.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

When you talk about “Biblical fundamentalism” you are addressing issues of faith and can you compare it to science or historical evaluation to address it? It is comparing apples to oranges. Belief for individuals often supersedes science from their perspective. Belief brings comfort to many people and they just want to believe whether or not their beliefs are supported by science or historical evidence.

When an issue of science or historical accuracy is raised in an effort to undermine faith those who are believers recoil because you are challenging their belief system. This, of course, is the problem from both ends. For example, fundamentalists may not like the issues of evolution and they often argue against this concept. However, evolution is science and belief in creation is simply belief. You can't prove it scientifically. You have to separate these issues in order to discuss them in any reasonable way. This is not unique to Christians but because of this lack of understanding this separation is where we get caught in a quagmire.

That's an epistemological question. Not surprisingly there is no universal philosophical agreement about it. To me the problem is that extremists on both sides conflate the claims of knowledge and faith. I viewpoint is compatible with Stephen Gould's principle of "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" wherein "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory) while the magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."

[Ohio]

If we require scientific "proof" in order to believe the resurrection, then we must apply the same standards to evolution. Show me the laboratory experiment that scientifically "proves" that evolution is some kind of truth.

Otherwise, let's continue to call evolution a religion of the fundamentalist liberals, agnostics, and atheists.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If we require scientific "proof" in order to believe the resurrection, then we must apply the same standards to evolution. Show me the laboratory experiment that scientifically "proves" that evolution is some kind of truth.

Otherwise, let's continue to call evolution a religion of the fundamentalist liberals, agnostics, and atheists.

I think it's a mistake to mix science and religion. There's no comparison between the evidence for evolution and that of the resurrection. Just to give one example: There is DNA evidence supporting evolution and no DNA evidence supporting the resurrection that I am aware of. With the sequencing of both the human and chimpanzee genome, current estimates of similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA sequences range between 95% and 99%. That is powerful evidence that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. On the other hand, I know of no samples of resurrected DNA. Evolutionary theory is based on analysis of available evidence. Belief in the resurrection is based on faith.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think it's a mistake to mix science and religion. There's no comparison between the evidence for evolution and that of the resurrection. Just to give one example: There is DNA evidence supporting evolution and no DNA evidence supporting the resurrection that I am aware of. With the sequencing of both the human and chimpanzee genome, current estimates of similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA sequences range between 95% and 99%. That is powerful evidence that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. On the other hand, I know of no samples of resurrected DNA. Evolutionary theory is based on analysis of available evidence. Belief in the resurrection is based on faith.

Resurrection of Christ is an historical fact. There's enough evidence in the shroud.

DNA links between humans and chimps only prove a common Creator, not a common ancestor.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Resurrection of Christ is an historical fact. There's enough evidence in the shroud.
DNA links between humans and chimps only prove a common Creator, not a common ancestor.

Of course, Darwin's doubt...the Cambrian Explosion which happened 542 Million years ago when "...many new and anatomically sophisticated creatures appeared suddenly in the sedimentary layers of the geological column without any evidence of simpler ancestral forms in the earlier layers below" p.7 Stephen Meyer's Darwin's Doubt It's the case for Intelligent design rather than evolution. On the other hand, how do you account for life forms 542 Million years ago? It doesn't seem to fit into the Genesis account, does it?

If the Resurrection of Christ was a historically proven fact you wouldn't need faith to believe in it or at least you wouldn't need a leap of faith. There is probably sufficient evidence to show that Jesus was a historical person who had followers but most everything else surrounding what he did or was involves faith. There are no eye witness accounts unless you want to get into miracles and that involves faith.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Resurrection of Christ is an historical fact. There's enough evidence in the shroud.

Must be the catholic coming out of bro Ohio. Our funny Pope Francis is planning a visit to the shroud.
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/11/0...icon/20989176/

But what I bumped into in the news not long ago the shroud comes from the 14th c. http://www.historytoday.com/charles-...s-shroud-turin

The Catholic Herald denies the claim.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news...shroud-claims/

Also, if we had the DNA of Jesus we could clone him ... and Jesus would come back to us ... modern style. God works in mysterious ways.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think it's a mistake to mix science and religion.

Agreed, and it's also a mistake to use science as a hammer against the Christian religion, at least it is on this forum. The Local Church of Witness Lee, for better or for worse, is a sect within the Christian FAITH. Faith is NOT science and science is not faith. Neither Nee or Lee ever tried equate the one with the other, so getting into arguments about this is getting of topic, even for "Alternative Views".

One of the main purposes of this forum is to assist current and former members of the Local Church by way of presenting the truth - the truth as presented in God's Word, and also the truth of the actual history of the movement. Just as I am not going to allow anyone to proselytize for their particular sect or institution, neither am I going to allow for the proselytizing for anybody's humanistic/agnostic/atheistic worldview. I guess what I'm saying is that the existence of God is NOT UP FOR DEBATE on this forum, neither am I going to allow the denigration of the core tenants of the Christian faith by calling them fantasy or magic.

Discussion is fine. Denigration and mocking are out of bounds.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Resurrection of Christ is an historical fact. There's enough evidence in the shroud.

The resurrection of Jesus is an article of the Christian faith. Jesus only appeared to Christians which suggests that the phenomenon depended on the faith of his followers in order to experience it. The shroud is shrouded in unanswered questions. History only shows that resurrection is what Christians believed and taught.

DNA links between humans and chimps only prove a common Creator, not a common ancestor.

Then God must have been trying to trick us into thinking we have evolved from a common ancestor because comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Another human? 100% - All humans have the same genes, but some of these genes contain sequence differences that make each person unique.
A chimpanzee? 98% - Chimpanzees are the closest living species to humans.
A mouse? 92% - All mammals are quite similar genetically.
A fruit fly? 44% - Studies of fruit flies have shown how shared genes govern the growth and structure of both insects and mammals.
Yeast? 26% - Yeasts are single-celled organisms, but they have many housekeeping genes that are the same as the genes in humans, such as those that enable energy to be derived from the breakdown of sugars.
A weed (thale cress)? 18% - Plants have many metabolic differences from humans. Just what you would expect if human were related to all other life but had a closer evolutionary link to some species than others.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

Of course, Darwin's doubt...the Cambrian Explosion which happened 542 Million years ago when "...many new and anatomically sophisticated creatures appeared suddenly in the sedimentary layers of the geological column without any evidence of simpler ancestral forms in the earlier layers below" p.7 Stephen Meyer's Darwin's Doubt It's the case for Intelligent design rather than evolution. On the other hand, how do you account for life forms 542 Million years ago? It doesn't seem to fit into the Genesis account, does it?

My memory has been slipping as of late. Are you sure it was exactly 542 Million years ago? I just love Darwin's "science" explaining how, "many new and anatomically sophisticated creatures appeared suddenly."

Originally Posted by Dave

If the Resurrection of Christ was a historically proven fact you wouldn't need faith to believe in it or at least you wouldn't need a leap of faith. There is probably sufficient evidence to show that Jesus was a historical person who had followers but most everything else surrounding what he did or was involves faith. There are no eye witness accounts unless you want to get into miracles and that involves faith.

It takes no faith at all to accept that the resurrection of Christ was an historically proven fact, any more than I need "faith" to believe that Nero set Rome on fire, or Hitler burned up millions of Jews.

There were literally hundreds of eyewitness accounts confirming these incidents relating to the life and death of Jesus Christ. For all the endless details surrounding these events, one great resource book is Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

Faith is needed to believe that this man Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah, the Father's Beloved Son, who was the Lamb of God sacrificed for my sins, and Who rose to give me eternal life.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

Belief in the resurrection is based on faith.

Nobody has said otherwise. Faith is the currency of all religions, including the Christian religion. The actual age of the earth, the exact time frame in which Man appeared, common ancestors, global warming etc etc are all in the realm of science. Many people use scientific facts and figures as an argument against the core tenants of the Christian faith, and it is comparing apples and oranges as someone recently said. Actually it's probably more like comparing apples and rocks.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Agreed, and it's also a mistake to use science as a hammer against the Christian religion, at least it is on this forum. The Local Church of Witness Lee, for better or for worse, is a sect within the Christian FAITH. Faith is NOT science and science is not faith. Neither Nee or Lee ever tried equate the one with the other, so getting into arguments about this is getting of topic, even for "Alternative Views".

One of the main purposes of this forum is to assist current and former members of the Local Church by way of presenting the truth - the truth as presented in God's Word, and also the truth of the actual history of the movement. Just as I am not going to allow anyone to proselytize for their particular sect or institution, neither am I going to allow for the proselytize for anybody's humanistic/agnostic/atheistic worldview. I guess what I'm saying is that the existence of God is NOT UP FOR DEBATE on this forum, neither am I going to allow the denigration of the core tenants of the Christian faith by calling them fantasy or magic.

Discussion is fine. Denigration and mocking are out of bounds.

I'm not debating the existence of God or hammering, denigrating or mocking the Christian faith and I have no intention of doing that. I agree such behavior should be moderated. I do wonder at the validity of claiming that this is a forum for "Alternative Views" if you are going to exclude presentation of humanistic, agnostic or atheistic worldviews.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

The resurrection of Jesus is an article of the Christian faith. Jesus only appeared to Christians which suggests that the phenomenon depended on the faith of his followers in order to experience it. The shroud is shrouded in unanswered questions. History only shows that resurrection is what Christians believed and taught.



Then God must have been trying to trick us into thinking we have evolved from a common ancestor because comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Another human? 100% - All humans have the same genes, but some of these genes contain sequence differences that make each person unique.
A chimpanzee? 98% - Chimpanzees are the closest living species to humans.
A mouse? 92% - All mammals are quite similar genetically.
A fruit fly? 44% - Studies of fruit flies have shown how shared genes govern the growth and structure of both insects and mammals.
Yeast? 26% - Yeasts are single-celled organisms, but they have many housekeeping genes that are the same as the genes in humans, such as those that enable energy to be derived from the breakdown of sugars.
A weed (thale cress)? 18% - Plants have many metabolic differences from humans. Just what you would expect if human were related to all other life but had a closer evolutionary link to some species than others.

First, I quoted zeek, but my argument is actually more to those who are closer to being dogmatic about their creation story, especially the literal 6-day crowd.

One thing that a preacher of Presbyterian upbringing that went to Dallas Theological Seminary many years ago said yesterday was relevant to this. Paraphrased: The age of the earth and how man physically came to be here today is not really that important as far as the Bible is concerned. That God was behind it is.

While he made no comment beyond that, it could be understood as accepting that God could have done it any way he chose, then wrote it simplisticly for ancient man to come to understand that he did it, not how he did ital.

Therefore, there is little real debate with science, even evolutionary science. Even evolutionary science goes back to faith because its source is not explained by science. Somewhere back there is God. Did he create a cohesive scientific archive? Or did he use millions of years to morph it into place? Is Adam literal or metaphorical? I've heard the arguments on both sides and I am not compelled to insist. Period.

And like I have said concerning some other things, "so what?"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The resurrection of Jesus is an article of the Christian faith. Jesus only appeared to Christians which suggests that the phenomenon depended on the faith of his followers in order to experience it. The shroud is shrouded in unanswered questions. History only shows that resurrection is what Christians believed and taught.

That's not true.

There was a huge earthquake that everyone felt. The whole city woke up to the news. The first ones to actually "see" the resurrected Christ were the vaunted Roman soldiers assigned to guard the tomb. Pilate had ordered a round the clock vigil of a Roman Quaternion of 4 soldiers each on 4 shifts. They supposedly feared nothing on earth until they met the resurrected One, and then "shook in their boots and became like dead men." After the soldiers calmed down, some were brave enough to go to the chief priests and extort a huge sum of money to lie about the whole ordeal. Since no Roman officer would actually believe their lies, and the soldiers faced certain death for dereliction of duty, the chief priests had to bribe Pilate too, and then go public with their version of events.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Then God must have been trying to trick us into thinking we have evolved from a common ancestor because comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Another human? 100% - All humans have the same genes, but some of these genes contain sequence differences that make each person unique.
A chimpanzee? 98% - Chimpanzees are the closest living species to humans.
A mouse? 92% - All mammals are quite similar genetically.
A fruit fly? 44% - Studies of fruit flies have shown how shared genes govern the growth and structure of both insects and mammals.
Yeast? 26% - Yeasts are single-celled organisms, but they have many housekeeping genes that are the same as the genes in humans, such as those that enable energy to be derived from the breakdown of sugars.
A weed (thale cress)? 18% - Plants have many metabolic differences from humans. Just what you would expect if human were related to all other life but had a closer evolutionary link to some species than others.

God in His wisdom has provided genetically similar animals in creation so that we could learn more about ourselves.

Unfortunately, you look at the same facts as I do, and you see God for evil, while I see God for good.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's not true.

There was a huge earthquake that everyone felt. The whole city woke up to the news. The first ones to actually "see" the resurrected Christ were the vaunted Roman soldiers assigned to guard the tomb. Pilate had ordered a round the clock vigil of a Roman Quaternion of 4 soldiers each on 4 shifts. They supposedly feared nothing on earth until they met the resurrected One, and then "shook in their boots and became like dead men." After the soldiers calmed down, some were brave enough to go to the chief priests and extort a huge sum of money to lie about the whole ordeal. Since no Roman officer would actually believe their lies, and the soldiers faced certain death for dereliction of duty, the chief priests had to bribe Pilate too, and then go public with their version of events.

The guards never saw Jesus and it was only his followers who saw him after his resurrection.

In Matthew, the guards saw an angel descending from heaven if they actually saw the angel because it just says, "For fear of him (descending angel) the guards shook..." since it doesn't say that they saw the angel and then shook. They did not see Jesus. In fact the angel said, "He is not here;..." The angel then told Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to go to Galilee, "...there you will see him...they ran to tell the disciples...Suddenly Jesus met them and said", "Greetings!" (Matt 28:4-9)

In Mark there was no mention of an angel or guards and it was Mary Magdalene who he saw first. (Mark 16:9)

In Luke two men in dazzling clothes showed up and the women were terrified. No guards. Cleopas and another follower first spoke with Jesus while on his way to Emmaus about 7 miles from Jerusalem. Later when they were eating together, they recognized him (Jesus) and he vanished. (Luke 24:4-18, 30-31)

In John it just mentions that it was Mary Magdalene who came and saw that “…the stone had been removed from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter…who found the linen wrappings in the tomb”. Later, "Mary stood weeping outside the tomb…she saw two angels in white…she turned around and saw Jesus standing there” but thought it was the gardener and then “…Jesus said to her, Mary!” No guards. (John 20:1-16)

In 1 Corinthians Paul states that he first appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve. (1 Cor. 15:5)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Nobody has said otherwise. Faith is the currency of all religions, including the Christian religion.

"Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof."
- Khalil Gibran

But outside faith I would like a discussion on the existence of God. I would like to see all the proof for His existence, and beliefs about it, and would also like to see all the proofs that God doesn't exist, and the beliefs about that too.

Aren't we mature enough in our Faith that we can talk about it?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My memory has been slipping as of late. Are you sure it was exactly 542 Million years ago? I just love Darwin's "science" explaining how, "many new and anatomically sophisticated creatures appeared suddenly."

The quote I made relating to the 542 Million years was by a Christian scientist who was arguing against Darwin's theory and for Intelligent Design. Darwin's Doubt is a book for Intelligent Design. In fact, Stephen Meyer started the entire argument for Intelligent Design which Christians have swarmed to. I know you are being a little sarcastic when you say "I just love Darwin's 'science' explaining how, 'many new and anatomically sophisticated creatures appeared suddenly'". However, that statement was by an opponent of Darwin and not "Darwin's science" which would promote evolution which would want to see gradual changes and not sudden changes.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It takes no faith at all to accept that the resurrection of Christ was an historically proven fact, any more than I need "faith" to believe that Nero set Rome on fire, or Hitler burned up millions of Jews.

There were literally hundreds of eyewitness accounts confirming these incidents relating to the life and death of Jesus Christ. For all the endless details surrounding these events, one great resource book is Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

Faith is needed to believe that this man Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah, the Father's Beloved Son, who was the Lamb of God sacrificed for my sins, and Who rose to give me eternal life.

We know that Nero set Rome on fire from many eye witness accounts and after Roman citizens discovered that he did it he blamed it on the Christians and started killing the Christians in horrible deaths (wild dogs etc). We know that millions of Jews were killed because we have eye witness accounts, physical evidence of gas chambers etc.

The gospels are not eye witness accounts but simply compilations of stories that had been written down or orally transmitted. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 is not an eye witness account. We could say that Paul had an eye witness account of seeing Jesus after the resurrection but he had never seen Jesus when he was alive. Luke indicated that “…many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events…” so we know there were other documents which were being passed around which are not available…” then Luke states, “after investigating everything carefully…” Luke1:1-4 In addition, no author of the gospels said they themselves witnessed anything. I know that Irenaeus said that John wrote the gospel of John but the gospels were written by highly educated Christians who knew fluent Greek. John was not literate (Acts 4:13) We have no original new testament documents but only copies of copies of copies. This is well known by Conservative Christian scholars such as Dan Wallace from Dallas Theological Seminary etc.

I don’t want to even address miracle sightings because all you have to do is google “Jesus sightings youtube” or “Mary sightings youtube” and people are filming sightings of both of them and have sightings filmed for years. The Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt seems to get the most of Mary sightings. Up to 500,000+ people were eye witnesses of these sightings over years and days at a time. Miracles were performed. Blind people could see etc. It seems to happen among uneducated people for the most part. Maybe educated people have more difficulty believing this stuff. Jesus primarily preached to the poor and uneducated so maybe they are more receptive.

My primary point is that the resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and not historical accuracy based on eye witness accounts or physical evidence.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I guess what I'm saying is that the existence of God is NOT UP FOR DEBATE on this forum, neither am I going to allow the denigration of the core tenants of the Christian faith by calling them fantasy or magic.

It would be helpful if you would list those Christian faith core tenants which you believe. One of the reasons I ask this is because with the The Orthodox Church thread on your forum they believe and list in detail reasons for praying for the dead and apparently that seems to be okay for former LC members to read so is that one of your tenants? Just asking.

I don't think anyone would call what you list as core tenants of the faith fantasy or magic. Would "unsubstantiated" be okay because it would just be discussion and I would list scripture, historical records etc for supportive information be acceptable? Of course, that is only if I might disagree with some of your core tenants.

Existence of God...don't have a problem but I might have a problem with your definition of God. Could you spell it out so I could see if we are on the same page? Gives me something to work with. For example, there is modalism, Mormonism/gnostics where they don't believe Jesus was man, JW's/Arians don't believe that Jesus was God etc. The list goes on.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

The quote I made relating to the 542 Million years was by a Christian scientist who was arguing against Darwin's theory and for Intelligent Design. Darwin's Doubt is a book for Intelligent Design. In fact, Stephen Meyer started the entire argument for Intelligent Design which Christians have swarmed to. I know you are being a little sarcastic when you say "I just love Darwin's 'science' explaining how, 'many new and anatomically sophisticated creatures appeared suddenly'". However, that statement was by an opponent of Darwin and not "Darwin's science" which would promote evolution which would want to see gradual changes and not sudden changes.



We know that Nero set Rome on fire from many eye witness accounts and after Roman citizens discovered that he did it he blamed it on the Christians and started killing the Christians in horrible deaths (wild dogs etc). We know that millions of Jews were killed because we have eye witness accounts, physical evidence of gas chambers etc.

The gospels are not eye witness accounts but simply compilations of stories that had been written down or orally transmitted. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 is not an eye witness account. We could say that Paul had an eye witness account of seeing Jesus after the resurrection but he had never seen Jesus when he was alive. Luke indicated that “…many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events…” so we know there were other documents which were being passed around which are not available…” then Luke states, “after investigating everything carefully…” Luke1:1-4 In addition, no author of the gospels said they themselves witnessed anything. I know that Irenaeus said that John wrote the gospel of John but the gospels were written by highly educated Christians who knew fluent Greek. John was not literate (Acts 4:13) We have no original new testament documents but only copies of copies of copies. This is well known by Conservative Christian scholars such as Dan Wallace from Dallas Theological Seminary etc.

I don’t want to even address miracle sightings because all you have to do is google “Jesus sightings youtube” or “Mary sightings youtube” and people are filming sightings of both of them and have sightings filmed for years. The Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt seems to get the most of Mary sightings. Up to 500,000+ people were eye witnesses of these sightings over years and days at a time. Miracles were performed. Blind people could see etc. It seems to happen among uneducated people for the most part. Maybe educated people have more difficulty believing this stuff. Jesus primarily preached to the poor and uneducated so maybe they are more receptive.

My primary point is that the resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and not historical accuracy based on eye witness accounts or physical evidence.

I have simply registered my official disagreement to your basic premise in my previous post.

Also your statement that "John was not literate (Acts 4:13)" is deceptive. "Agrammatos" literally means unlettered, and in context refers to those unschooled or uneducated in the Jewish schools. "Idiotes" refers to those without official or professional training, in other words an ordinary man.

From the context in Acts 4, how would the Jewish leaders know whether John or Peter could read or write? Were they given grammatical examinations in prison? Could John be literate in his local dialect, yet illiterate in Hebrew? How do you know whether John was literate in any language decades later when he wrote his gospel, epistles, and apocalypse?''

Remember: a little knowledge can be quite dangerous!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

God in His wisdom has provided genetically similar animals in creation so that we could learn more about ourselves.

Maybe. And maybe God used natural selection to do that. On the other hand maybe that's a perfectly anthropocentric way of viewing the world. Which option is more likely? We aren't allowed to question the existence of God on this forum, so we will have to suppose that God did it somehow.

Unfortunately, you look at the same facts as I do, and you see God for evil, while I see God for good.

That's a straw-man fallacy. When did I "see God for evil?" What does that even mean? I proposed we see God by faith. The findings of science are matters of greater or lesser probability. Faith and science don't mix, IMO.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have simply registered my official disagreement to your basic premise in my previous post.

Duly noted..

Originally Posted by Ohio

Also your statement that "John was not literate (Acts 4:13)" is deceptive. "Agrammatos" literally means unlettered, and in context refers to those unschooled or uneducated in the Jewish schools. "Idiotes" refers to those without official or professional training, in other words an ordinary man.

From the context in Acts 4, how would the Jewish leaders know whether John or Peter could read or write? Were they given grammatical examinations in prison? Could John be literate in his local dialect, yet illiterate in Hebrew? How do you know whether John was literate in any language decades later when he wrote his gospel, epistles, and apocalypse?''

It wasn't deceptive. That is just the scripture and I don't know how they knew he was illiterate but it is part of the scripture. Part of the beauty of the gospels is that Jesus was appealing to the uneducated, the poor and the sick. Peter was a fisherman and not a very good one since Jesus had to redirect where he threw his net. Andrew, James and John were fishermen as well. Sure there was a tax collector.

Well, that is the argument that John went to school and became proficient in Greek. We don't know, maybe he did but he seemed to be pretty busy doing the work of the kingdom.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Remember: a little knowledge can be quite dangerous!

Duly noted.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

"Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof."
- Khalil Gibran

But outside faith I would like a discussion on the existence of God. I would like to see all the proof for His existence, and beliefs about it, and would also like to see all the proofs that God doesn't exist, and the beliefs about that too.

Aren't we mature enough in our Faith that we can talk about it?

Maybe we should ask Richard Dawkins who has spent much of his career defending the latter.

Here's an interesting interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

Dawkins can't explain how life originated as it is too complex to have randomly emerged by itself, so he admits that there had to have been a creator-- though not a "God", but likely an alien creator, though he doesn't answer who created these aliens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_panspermia

This idea was also put forth by the discoverers of DNA, James Watson and Francis Crick who realized that DNA was too complicated to have randomly formed and must have been created. They hypothesized an alien civilization deposited DNA onto earth.

So even the leading atheists of our time admit that there has to be a creator to explain the origin of life, as long as it is not "God".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Maybe we should ask Richard Dawkins who has spent much of his career defending the latter.

Here's an interesting interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

Dawkins can't explain how life originated as it is too complex to have randomly emerged by itself, so he admits that there had to have been a creator-- though not a "God", but likely an alien creator. E.g. directed panspermia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_panspermia

This idea was also put forth by the discoverers of DNA, James Watson and Francis Crick who realized that DNA was too complicated to have randomly formed and must have been created. They hypothesized an alien civilization deposited DNA onto earth.

So even the leading atheists of our time admit that there has to be a creator to explain the origin of life, as long as it is not "God".

Most professed atheists I've had the pleasure of sitting down with end up telling me they believe in a creator/first cause. Just not the monster God they find in the Bible. I don't believe in that God either. I believe that God is found in Jewish myths, to support that they are a special race to God. They turn God into a racist. Can't buy it. It diminishes God from God status.

Does that make me an atheist? Yes and no. I'm an atheist of a anthropomorphised God. But not in God at all.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

Most professed atheists I've had the pleasure of sitting down with end up telling me they believe in a creator/first cause. Just not the monster God they find in the Bible. I don't believe in that God either. I believe that God is found in Jewish myths, to support that they are a special race to God. They turn God into a racist. Can't buy it. It diminishes God from God status.

Does that make me an atheist? Yes and no. I'm an atheist of a anthropomorphised God. But not in God at all.

All of us should have been objects of God's wrath. It's no accident that faith is so hard to come by. We're powerless to come to God by ourselves, as no one comes to the Father unless God draws them (John 6:44). Anyone God wants to save and have mercy on is up to him (Exo 33:19). He decided to have mercy on Abraham who was the father of faith. Unfortunately his descendants kept messing up, but that didn't stop God because of the promises he made to Abraham. Men can mess up, but God's promises cannot be broken (Joshua 21:45). The only thing saving the whole human race was the integrity of God's word, and as a result God always preserved a remnant that was faithful to him from generation to generation until the Messiah could be born.

And the God of the Old Testament was not a racist as he judged people based on whether they did good or bad regardless of their ethnicity (Ezekiel 18). God had mercy on Rahab, a Moabite, even to to the point of including her in the geneology of Jesus. On the other hand, if a whole nation or race was involved in abject wickedness, then killing them would simply allow them to reap what they sowed.

Jesus saves us from the wrath of God if we are willing to repent and put our trust in Him. He was the only man who led an innocent life, yet he was the one God chose to bear the wrath of God for our sins (1 Peter 2:24). That doesn't seem fair either.

But if you don't believe in a God of wrath who is holy and cannot tolerate sin, why do you still need a Savior?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

All of us should have been objects of God's wrath. It's no accident that faith is so hard to come by. We're powerless to come to God by ourselves, as no one comes to the Father unless God draws them (John 6:44). Anyone God wants to save and have mercy on is up to him (Exo 33:19). He decided to have mercy on Abraham who was the father of faith. Unfortunately his descendants kept messing up, but that didn't stop God because of the promises he made to Abraham. Men can mess up, but God's promises cannot be broken (Joshua 21:45). The only thing saving the whole human race was the integrity of God's word, and as a result God always preserved a remnant that was faithful to him from generation to generation until the Messiah could be born.

And the God of the Old Testament was not a racist as he judged people based on whether they did good or bad regardless of their ethnicity (Ezekiel 18). God had mercy on Rahab, a Moabite, even to to the point of including her in the geneology of Jesus. On the other hand, if a whole nation or race was involved in abject wickedness, then killing them would simply allow them to reap what they sowed.

Jesus saves us from the wrath of God if we are willing to repent and put our trust in Him. He was the only man who led an innocent life, yet he was the one God chose to bear the wrath of God for our sins (1 Peter 2:24). That doesn't seem fair either.

But if you don't believe in a God of wrath who is holy and cannot tolerate sin, why do you still need a Savior?

What a dark computer game world you live in bearbear. What's your favorite video game, Grand Theft Auto or something even darker than that? Compared to your theology John Calvin is like Walt Disney.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

What a dark computer game world you live in bearbear. What's your favorite video game, Grand Theft Auto or something even darker than that? Compared to your theology John Calvin is like Walt Disney.

Romans 9:22
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?

Nothing I described contradicts scripture. It is terrifying but that is why the Gospel is the "Good News". The bad news was that we should have been objects of God's wrath (Romans 9:22, Eph 2:3), but the good news is that we can receive salvation through Jesus Christ by repenting and putting our faith in Him.

I believe in the God of the bible who is both holy and loving, not a Barney God of the new-age movement who loves but let's unrepentant murderers, rapists and child molesters enter his presence unpunished and allows anyone to walk all over him. I just focused on the holiness part since that is the subject of discussion.

Also, predestination isn't something John Calvin made up, it's highlighted throughout the bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0T_S3v8iB8

Yet I also believe in free will. Yet any "good" that we do comes through the grace of God, even if we think it's us who is doing it.

Philippians 2:12
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by bearbear

All of us should have been objects of God's wrath. . . . Anyone God wants to save and have mercy on is up to him . . .
. . . The only thing saving the whole human race was the integrity of God's word, and as a result God always preserved a remnant that was faithful to him from generation to generation until the Messiah could be born.
. . . And the God of the Old Testament was not a racist as he judged people based on whether they did good or bad regardless of their ethnicity . . . On the other hand, if a whole nation or race was involved in abject wickedness, then killing them would simply allow them to reap what they sowed.
. . . But if you don't believe in a God of wrath who is holy and cannot tolerate sin, why do you still need a Savior?

Do I really have to believe in a God of wrath?

Hanging around with a lot of evangelicals and fundamentalists in my life, so far I add up the following requirements, to avoid being considered an atheist:

• One, you have to believe in God. That's a given, of course.
• Two, you have to believe in the Bible ... and,
• Three, you have to believe in Satan.

Fail to believe in just one of those and you may as well be an atheist.

Which really isn't all that bad. As the early Christians were called atheists, by the pagans. Everybody is an atheist against some god, or gods. Even, and apparently made obvious, brother UntoHim.

Aren't we proud that we're all atheists?

So please don't knock me if I'm an atheist of a wrathful God. I much prefer the merciful God brought to us by Jesus.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

Do I really have to believe in a God of wrath?

So please don't knock me if I'm an atheist of a wrathful God. I much prefer the merciful God brought to us by Jesus.

I agree God is merciful, and Jesus represented God's mercy in that he didn't consider equality with God to be grasped but humbled himself under the Father's will even to death so that we could be saved and become God's children. Rather than being uncaring and distant, God poured out everything he had to save us and even to make a dwelling place for himself in us, giving us far more than we ever deserved but he also can't force everyone to accept his gift of salvation as he cannot violate anyone's free will.

And Jesus didn't ignore God's holiness.

Do you believe in the same Jesus who spoke words like this?

Matthew 10:28
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

Mark 9:43
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

Matthew 13:42
They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 25:41
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Or do you just like to pick and choose which scripture is "inspired" according to your ideal view of who God should be?

Again if there is no such thing as God's wrath, why do we need a Savior?

[zeek]

bearbear I think you'll like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQQ-fFdUd34

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

bearbear I think you'll like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQQ-fFdUd34

I'm familiar with that chick tract and I find the mockery of it in poor taste even if I disagree with Jack Chick's approach to the gospel. However I don't disagree with him about the seriousness of hell and it's reality. You may as well mock Jesus also as He spent one third of his teaching ministry warning about hell perhaps for a good reason.

I don't personally approach the gospel with hell-fire preaching as I find it to be rarely effective. Jesus did preach about hell, but to his followers and not to outsiders. In regards to outsiders, he ate and drank with them and won them over with love. Unfortunately much of the modern church including many evangelicals have it the other way around, they preach God's wrath to outsiders who have never known or experienced God's love which turns them away, but ignore it inside the church to those who think they are saved while living unrepentant lifestyles. The heart of God is not to judge or condemn but to save, love and win, but his holy nature forces him to do so to those who won't repent.

Just because God has this wrath component to him, does not mean he delights in it or that he is a monster.

God does not delight in punishment nor does he desire it (Ezekiel 18:23). In fact he desires that all men be saved (1 Tim 2:4) and he is patiently waiting for everyone of his people to repent before he flips the switch and it is too late (2 Peter 3:9).

The lake of fire wasn't even created for men but for Satan and his angels (Matthew 25:41). However because God views us as being owned by those who we submit to (Romans 6:16), if God's righteousness demands Satan be thrown into hell, it also applies to anyone who follows him, including his angels and including men. A servant is not greater than his master (John 15:20)

Reconciling a God of Love with Hell:
http://www.verserain.com/verseset/sh...7ab063b4f4184d

John 8:34-36
Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

[zeek]

Nice touch this:

I've grown into a view of God as an incredibly powerful and holy but misunderstood being who has trouble controlling his own holiness, though not to any fault of his own-- I like to conjure the picture of the incredible Hulk, or even the Sun which sustains life but can be indiscriminately powerful and kill.

Comic book theology?

Your statement above contradicts this statement "Just because God has this wrath component to him, does not mean he delights in it or that he is a monster." since a monster is precisely what Bruce Banner becomes when "wrathful." Bruce is depicted suffering remorse for his wrathful acting out as the Hulk. Do you suppose the Almighty experiences remorse for his "holiness" management problem?

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

Nice touch this:

Comic book theology?

Your statement above contradicts this statement "Just because God has this wrath component to him, does not mean he delights in it or that he is a monster." since a monster is precisely what Bruce Banner becomes when "wrathful." Bruce is depicted suffering remorse for his wrathful acting out as the Hulk. Do you suppose the Almighty experiences remorse for his "holiness" management problem?

I use the term monster as defined by a being who delights in destruction. That's not who God is, and neither does the Hulk delight in destruction in the heart of Bruce Banner. The heart of God is to love, but his holy nature has a immutable attribute of burning against sin. The analogy ends there and it shouldn't be taken further. Now that I think about it I probably shouldn't say God has trouble controlling his own holiness and should rephrase that to how God needs people to intercede before him so his holiness and wrath can be contained as was in the case of Abraham and Lot, Moses and now Jesus who is interceding for us before the Father in heaven.

Yet I clarified this later on in the article by saying that God can never be wrong and the problem is not with him but us. So It wasn't the best choice of words but I was trying to touch on the point mentioned.

If we're going to mention contradictions, you also contradicted yourself by promising not to mock the Christian faith but decided to post a video that makes a mockery of scripture and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

I use the term monster as defined by a being who delights in destruction. That's not who God is, and neither does the Hulk delight in destruction in the heart of Bruce Banner.

So, you use monster for sadist and characterized God as having "trouble controlling his holiness." not as delighting in it.

The heart of God is to love, but his holy nature has a immutable attribute of burning against sin.

So God to you is a bundle of contradictions that is having difficulty integrating them? To you God seems conflicted.

The analogy ends there and it shouldn't be taken further. Now that I think about it I probably shouldn't say God has trouble controlling his own holiness and should rephrase that to how God needs people to intercede before him so his holiness and wrath can be contained as was in the case of Abraham and Lot, Moses and now Jesus who is interceding for us before the Father in heaven.

So God needs our prayers to help him manage Himself as a kind of talk therapy to get him through his tantrums?

Yet I clarified this later on in the article by saying that God can never be wrong and the problem is not with him but us. So It wasn't the best choice of words but I was trying to touch on the point mentioned.

Believe me, I understand. It's hard to say almost anything about God without self-contradiction. We, the God obsessed, would be more accurate if we would just shut up about "Him" but then how would the lost find their way to Him?

If we're going to mention contradictions, you also contradicted yourself by promising not to mock the Christian faith but decided to post a video that makes a mockery of scripture and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

How was that mockery? I was making a comment about your theology not about God Himself. Your dark theology reminded me of Chick's tracts. There's a kind of vivid genius to them. Besides, haven't people come to the Lord through them? Or do people leave them in restrooms to mock God?

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

So God to you is a bundle of contradictions that is having difficulty reconciling them? He is conflicted?

The bible says God is an uncreated, eternal, all powerful being who happens to be holy , but also happens to be the source of all love in the universe, so things are going to get a little complicated and perhaps beyond the realm of our total understanding. However the bible does give us glimpses of God's thinking that would surprise most conventional notions of God.

So God needs our prayers to help him manage Himself as a kind of talk therapy to get him through his tantrums?

God needs intercession, and this is a theme that is interwoven throughout the bible.

The bible records instances where God's heart was changed regarding decisions almost made. For example, he decided at one point he was going to wipe out the children of Israel and make Moses into a great nation multiple times. But Moses was able to plead for the children of Israel and argue their case and God actually changed his mind. Here's one instance

Exodus 32
10 Now therefore let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and that I may destroy them; but I will make of you a great nation.
11 But Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why does Your wrath blaze hot against Your people, whom You have brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand?
12 Why should the Egyptians say, For evil He brought them forth, to slay them in the mountains and consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and change Your mind concerning this evil against Your people.
13 [Earnestly] remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self and said to them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give to your seed, and they shall inherit it forever.
14 Then the Lord turned from the evil which He had thought to do to His people.

There are also other examples in the bible such as Abraham, David, Daniel and others and even God himself through Jesus (Hebrews 7:24) and the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:26). That God is so powerful yet he is willing to listen and hear prayers of mortal men is one thing that makes prayer special.

James 5:16
The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

How was that mockery? I was making a comment about your theology not about God Himself. Your dark theology reminded me of Chick's tracts. There's a kind of vivid genius to them. Besides, haven't people come to the Lord through them? Or do people leave them in restrooms to mock God?

I don't know if you saw the end of the video, but it shows the character ending up in a heaven that is full of the things he lusted for, pornography, booze and naked women, the same things that he was supposedly going to hell for which is a mockery of the gospel. This is closer to the heaven of the Quran with 72 virgins than it is the new heaven and earth God has prepared for us which is sinless. The tract may seem funny to most, but if there is a hell to pay, it won't be funny when people find themselves there. If you posted this on any normal Christian forum you would be banned immediately. But then Witness Lee himself wasn't beyond mocking Christians who warned about hell, not realizing that these folks were just trying to pattern themselves after Jesus who spent one third of his ministry warning about the need to be saved from God's wrath.

My theology may be dark to you, but I'm simply repeating what the bible is saying, instead of trying to modify the text to suit my sensibilities which have been molded by the world. I try my best to own up to the text and humble myself before God while asking Him to help me understand. But then again, I've had personal experiences and research that has led me to know beyond all uncertainty that the God of the bible is real, otherwise, I probably would have given up by now.

But my experience regarding the bible is it really can make sense if you ask the Holy Spirit to help who guides us into all truth (John 16:13).

The points I made are not at all esoteric and not much different than what many evangelical preachers teach. Here's a well known evangelical, Paul Washer, explaining the doctrine of election and making the same points as I did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRGM...ature=youtu.be

[awareness]

Originally Posted by bearbear

I agree God is merciful, and Jesus represented God's mercy in that he didn't consider equality with God to be grasped but humbled himself under the Father's will even to death so that we could be saved and become God's children. Rather than being uncaring and distant, God poured out everything he had to save us and even to make a dwelling place for himself in us, giving us far more than we ever deserved but he also can't force everyone to accept his gift of salvation as he cannot violate anyone's free will.

And Jesus didn't ignore God's holiness.

Do you believe in the same Jesus who spoke words like this?

Matthew 10:28
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

Mark 9:43
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

Matthew 13:42
They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 25:41
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Or do you just like to pick and choose which scripture is "inspired" according to your ideal view of who God should be?

Again if there is no such thing as God's wrath, why do we need a Savior?

Goodness bearbear. You're right. Jesus is mean too. We're really screwed. We do need a savior. Now, I'm really in a tight spot. I've lost my loving God. My bro bearbear brought the light. I'm stricken. Am grieving a colossal loss. No wonder people turn atheist. I'm already atheist against Witness Lee. That's enough, don't you think?

Eventually I'll get over my grieving of this loss. I'll get use to a mean God, who had a mean son also. That's just the way it is. Not for me to understand. Above my pay grade. And too much for my CPU, and hard drive.

Ha

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

The bible says God is an uncreated, eternal, all powerful being who happens to be holy , but also happens to love so things are going to get a little complicated and perhaps beyond the realm of our total understanding. However the bible does give us glimpses of God's thinking that would surprise most conventional notions of God.


God needs intercession, and this is a theme that is interwoven throughout the bible.

The bible records instances where God's heart was changed regarding decisions almost made. For example, he decided at one point he was going to wipe out the children of Israel and make Moses into a great nation multiple times. But Moses was able to plead for the children of Israel and argue their case and God actually changed his mind. Here's one instance

Exodus 32
10 Now therefore let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and that I may destroy them; but I will make of you a great nation.
11 But Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why does Your wrath blaze hot against Your people, whom You have brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand?
12 Why should the Egyptians say, For evil He brought them forth, to slay them in the mountains and consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and change Your mind concerning this evil against Your people.
13 [Earnestly] remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self and said to them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give to your seed, and they shall inherit it forever.
14 Then the Lord turned from the evil which He had thought to do to His people.

There are also other examples in the bible such as Abraham, David, Daniel and others and even God himself through Jesus and the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:26). That God is so powerful yet he is willing to listen and hear prayers of mortal men is one thing that makes prayer special.

James 5:16
The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

All of which created the problem which culminates in the book of Job that the righteous man appears morally superior to God. That's one reason that some people reject the God of the Bible or at least the Old Testament as in the case of the Gnostics.

[bearbear]

Awareness asked earlier to post evidence for and against the existence of God. I will go ahead and compile evidence that the God of the Bible is real, some of which has been posted elsewhere in this forum:

* God authenticates himself and the bible through prophecy

Jesus fulfilled 353+ prophecies in the Old Testament:
http://www.accordingtothescriptures....rophecies.html

Just fulfilling 8 of these prophecies is astronomical:
http://www.verserain.com/verseset/sh...7ab064279364de

Daniel predicted Jesus' revealing himself as the Messiah to the exact day four hundred years prior:
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/

Miraculous prophecies have been fulfilled through the regathering of the nation of Israel:
http://www.therefinersfire.org/recent_prophecy.htm

For more on fulfilled prophecy, here's a talk by Chuck Missler:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5y8SpBPwbw

God fulfilled four of the seven feasts to the exact day:
Passover: Jesus was handed over to the High Priest by Pilate at the same time the sheep was to be handed over to a priest for inspection during the passover feast and crucified on the same hour that the lamb was to be slaughtered.
Unleavened bread: He was buried (bread baked without leaven <--> Messiah buried without sin)
Firstfruits: Jesus the Messiah ascended to heaven
Pentecost: The Holy Spirit came down to earth
Trumpets, Atonement, Tabeneracles: To be fulfilled at the second coming

If you take the Hebrew meanings of each name starting from Adam all the way to Jesus, it forms prophetic sentences that summarize scripture.

Here's Adam to Noah:
http://www.verserain.com/verseset/sh...7ab01a89c4d41d

And the rest of the generations leading to Jesus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxGLeux40RQ

The formation of the Israelite camp in the wilderness formed a cross:
http://asis.com/users/stag/bible/wildcamp.html

The name of God, YHWH when written in paleo-Hebrew, the script used during' Moses time, means "Look at the hand! Look at the nail!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUvGlAccRB4

The word Torah in paleo hebrew shows "A man nailed to the cross revealed"
http://www.ecclesia.org/TRUTH/torah.html

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

All of which created the problem which culminates in the book of Job that the righteous man appears morally superior to God.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The gist of the book of Job from my reading is that 1. God's ways are higher than ours and we have no right to question his ways and he has no obligation to explain himself 2. bad things happen to righteous people and vice versa, just because you live a righteous life doesn't mean good things will happen to you, but in the end it will all work out.

(edit)
Okay I understand your point now after re-reading. You mean that intercession makes man appear more righteous than God.

Jesus is also God yet he is interceding for our behalf and there is no man more righteous than he, so God is going to listen to His prayer. Moses' intercession foreshadowed the type of intercession Jesus is doing for us today in front of the Father.

Hebrews 7:23-24
but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

That's one reason that some people reject the God of the Bible or at least the Old Testament as in the case of the Gnostics.

Is being a gnostic a good thing?

Numbers 23:19, Hebrews 13:8, James 1:17, Malachi 3:6 all say that man can change, society can change but God never changes. The God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT. However God's love was never fully revealed until Jesus, yet it doesn't change the revelation of God's holiness which was clearly shown in the OT, and also throughout the NT (think Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5 and all the warnings about God's coming wrath in almost every book of the NT).

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

Eventually I'll get over my grieving of this loss. I'll get use to a mean God, who had a mean son also.

What would be mean to me is if someone saw that I was staying inside a house that was burning and didn't say anything because it would offend my sensibilities because I love my house so much and can't bear the thought of it burning down. The loving thing to do would be to warn that person. Jesus was warning us of God's coming wrath as did all the prophets before him. Many paid dearly for this with their lives as Jesus did.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The gist of the book of Job from my reading is that 1. God's ways are higher than ours and we have no right to question his ways and he has no obligation to explain himself 2. bad things happen to righteous people and vice versa, just because you live a righteous life doesn't mean good things will happen to you, but in the end it will all work out.

Job shows himself to be morally superior to God by remaining faithful to him even after God is complicit in his torture, the torture of an innocent man as God himself testifies early in the story. I see God claiming superior intelligence because Job cannot understand how God created wonders, and superior power because God can create and destroy anything including puny Job. But, I don't see how God is morally superior in the story and I think job is because he suffers torture without cursing the God who approved it.

That God's ways are higher is true by definition and therefore accepted by faith. How they are morally higher? It isn't apparent to me from the story. Are God's ways right because He is God or because he is God does He do what is right?

Okay I understand your point now after re-reading. You mean that intercession makes man appear more righteous than God.

Yes.

Is being a gnostic a good thing?

Who am I to judge? My point was that they couldn't accept God as they found him depicted in the OT.

Numbers 23:19, Hebrews 13:8, James 1:17, Malachi 3:6 all say that man can change, society can change but God never changes. The God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT. However God's love was never fully revealed until Jesus, yet it doesn't change the revelation of God's holiness which was clearly shown in the OT, and also throughout the NT (think Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5).

Again, that God doesn't change is true given the orthodox Christian definition of God. Yet, I find Jesus' presentation of God in the Sermon on the Mount is impossible to reconcile to the God revealed in the Torah or the Book of Revelation at some points. To me, God and Christ cannot be rationally comprehended. Faith requires a leap.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

Again, that God doesn't change is true given the orthodox Christian definition of God. Yet, I find Jesus' presentation of God in the Sermon on the Mount is impossible to reconcile to the God revealed in the Torah or the Book of Revelation at some points. To me, God and Christ cannot be rationally comprehended. Faith requires a leap.

The sermon on the mount gives us instructions on how to live a lifestyle as citizens of the kingdom of heaven and it also includes warnings about God's wrath just as the OT did. It not only parallels the Torah (which also means "instruction"), but it raises it to a higher level requiring that we not only not commit adultery, but also not lust in our hearts, that we should not just refrain from murder but also not hate our brother. These things require a change of heart rather than outward obedience to regulations by which Jesus fulfilled through the Holy Spirit dwelling in us and changing our hearts.

Matthew 5:22
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Matthew 5:29
If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

In it, Jesus also emphasizes that he did not come to abolish the Torah but to fulfill it. The NT is never meant to contradict the OT, but to reveal and fulfill it.

Matthew 5:17
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

Job shows himself to be morally superior to God by remaining faithful to him even after God is complicit in his torture, the torture of an innocent man as God himself testifies early in the story. I see God claiming superior intelligence because Job cannot understand how God created wonders, and superior power because God can create and destroy anything including puny Job. But, I don't see how God is morally superior in the story and I think job is because he suffers torture without cursing the God who approved it.

In the end Job got double what he lost, and he probably got a lot more than that in eternity as well. According to human logic, this is not fair as an eternal reward could not possibly be warranted by sowing in the temporary, but this is mercy that God chooses to give gladly according to his good pleasure (Eph 1:5).

So God allowed Job's suffering because it is temporary, which would be nothing compared to what he would receive in eternity which is what matters. Paul wrote about this as well:

2 Cor 4:17
For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.

God is much more aware of the suffering that beings have to go through for eternity than in the temporary, and it is this type of suffering that God is the most afraid for to the point that he was willing to die to give us a chance to avoid it.

That God's ways are higher is true by definition and therefore accepted by faith. How they are morally higher? It isn't apparent to me from the story. Are God's ways right because He is God or because he is God does He do what is right?

God lives outside of time in eternity and he has no beginning or end, and also he knows everything that will happen. He gives everyone free will, yet he also predestines things. The decisions he makes are probably a billion steps ahead of even the most advanced human thinking and it should be no surprise that what he does would seem cruel but in his own system it would be righteous.

Isaiah 55:9
As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Human, worldly moral standards change over the centuries and overly values the worth of our temporary lives at cost of the eternal one that really matters. God's moral standards are unchanging and are set in the context of eternity and perfect foreknowledge of things to come so his decisions will have different interpretations under moral standards of mere mortals.

And I believe God is a good God despite any misunderstanding, because his heart is ultimately to love and he did everything he could in his system to save us by which he didn't even spare his only Son. This isn't just NT, but virtually everything in the OT pointed to the Messiah's eventual sacrifice. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was a big deal, and God did a lot of things to commemorate this future event in the OT. He was also merciful many times and gave people a punishment that was far less than they deserved (Ezra 9:13). He also refused to punish Nineveh when they repented, even when Jonah was furious at him for not doing so.

Psalms 100:5
For the LORD is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

In the end Job got double what he lost, and he probably got a lot more than that in eternity as well. According to human logic, this is not fair as an eternal reward could not possibly be warranted by sowing in the temporary, but this is mercy that God chooses to give gladly according to his good pleasure (Eph 1:5).

So God allowed Job's suffering because it is temporary, which would be nothing compared to what he would receive in eternity which is what matters. Paul wrote about this as well:

2 Cor 4:17
For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.

God is much more aware of the suffering that beings have to go through for eternity than in the temporary, and it is this type of suffering that God is the most afraid for to the point that he was willing to die to give us a chance to avoid it.

God lives outside of time in eternity and he has no beginning or end, and also he knows everything that will happen. He gives everyone free will, yet he also predestines things. The decisions he makes are probably a billion steps ahead of even the most advanced human thinking and it should be no surprise that what he does would seem cruel but in his own system it would be righteous.

Isaiah 55:9
As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Human, worldly moral standards change over the centuries and overly values the worth of our temporary lives at cost of the eternal one that really matters. God's moral standards are set in the context of eternity and perfect foreknowledge of things to come so his decisions will have different interpretations under moral standards of mere mortals.

And I believe God is a good God despite any misunderstanding, because his heart is ultimately to love and he did everything he could in his system to save us by which he didn't even spare his only Son. This isn't just NT, but virtually everything in the OT pointed to the Messiah's eventual sacrifice. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was a big deal, and God did a lot of things to commemorate this future event in the OT. He was also merciful many times and gave people a punishment that was far less than they deserved (Ezra 9:13). He also refused to punish Nineveh when they repented, even when Jonah was furious at him for doing so.

Psalms 100:5
For the LORD is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations.

As I have read your posts bearbear I wonder if you believe your guarantee to be with Christ in the Kingdom of God depend on your orthodox beliefs? In other words, is it simply about your belief in the Trinity, Jesus died for your sins, virgin birth, inerrancy of the Bible, heaven, hell, God's wrath etc which is your key to the kingdom. I just don’t believe it is. It is one’s love of God with an outcome of one’s love of others which is the key to the kingdom. From my perspective, if you don’t love others you can’t love God. The love of God has an outcome which shows itself in love of others. Jesus message was to the downtrodden, the broken, the poor, the sick etc. He associated with the uneducated, women, outcasts---we read too much into doctrine and miss out on the reality and message of Jesus’ life. Mark 12:30-31, Matt. 22:36-40, Deut. 6:4-5, Lev. 19:18

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

As I have read your posts bearbear I wonder if you believe your guarantee to be with Christ in the Kingdom of God depend on your orthodox beliefs? In other words, is it simply about your belief in the Trinity, Jesus died for your sins, virgin birth, inerrancy of the Bible, heaven, hell, God's wrath etc which is your key to the kingdom. I just don’t believe it is. It is one’s love of God with an outcome of one’s love of others which is the key to the kingdom. From my perspective, if you don’t love others you can’t love God. The love of God has an outcome which shows itself in love of others. Jesus message was to the downtrodden, the broken, the poor, the sick etc. He associated with the uneducated, women, outcasts---we read too much into doctrine and miss out on the reality of Jesus’ life. Mark 12:30-31, Matt. 22:36-40, Deut. 6:4-5, Lev. 19:18

Faith matters, but yes so does love. We are saved by faith in Christ Jesus, but faith only counts if it is expressed through love.

Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

But I also believe it is not possible to truly love others as Jesus loved until we come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Truly knowing God should be such a traumatic experience that it causes us to love others.

1 John 4:20
Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.

I believe faith without love is dead, yet so is love without faith. We need the abiding love of God in our hearts in order to truly love. Not everyone has this, including those who love the world.

1 John 2:15
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.

[bearbear]

Some more thoughts I had:

Jesus did a lot of things to love on others. He healed the sick, cast out demons, made the blind see, made free food for everyone and the list goes on. These things made him wildly popular.

However the thing that got him killed and made him hated was not compromising on the truth. If he had simply loved like the world would have liked to him to love, he wouldn't have had to die and lead a life of suffering but would have easily had a comfortable life as king, which is basically the offer that Satan gave him which he refused. And because Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and testified the truth about the state of the current religious establishment, he had to be crucified.

I believe God wants us to follow Jesus' example and do the same. Not compromise the truth, but at the same time love others and love God. The end result is you will be hated by the world despite loving, which does now sound like the lonely narrow road Jesus talked about (Matt 7:13) but that's not such a bad thing according to Jesus.

Think about who is really going to hate you for feeding the poor or volunteering at homeless shelters? Compared to who is going to hate you if you preach the gospel of Jesus Christ? Yet we should do both.

John 15:19
If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

1 Cor 15:2
By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

Interestingly, in addition to lacking love (John 5:42), the Pharisees despite being so steeped in God's word, failed to believe it and Jesus faults them for it.

John 5:46
For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

[HERn]

Originally Posted by awareness

Goodness bearbear. You're right. Jesus is mean too. We're really screwed. We do need a savior. Now, I'm really in a tight spot. I've lost my loving God. My bro bearbear brought the light. I'm stricken. Am grieving a colossal loss. No wonder people turn atheist. I'm already atheist against Witness Lee. That's enough, don't you think?

Eventually I'll get over my grieving of this loss. I'll get use to a mean God, who had a mean son also. That's just the way it is. Not for me to understand. Above my pay grade. And too much for my CPU, and hard drive.

Ha

I became disabused of the concept of a "sugar-daddy" kind of god when I considered that the Father willed for his Son to suffer one of the most tortuous physical and psychological deaths I could imagine. I think C.S. Lewis was close to it when he said the following regarding Aslan (I know Aslan is symbolic of Christ, so the comparison to god is a bit off).

“But I cannot tell that to this old sinner, and I cannot comfort him either; he has made himself unable to hear my voice. If I spoke to him, he would hear only growlings and roarings. Oh, Adam's son, how cleverly you defend yourself against all that might do you good!”
― C.S. Lewis, The Magician's Nephew

“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver; “don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

“He'll be coming and going" he had said. "One day you'll see him and another you won't. He doesn't like being tied down--and of course he has other countries to attend to. It's quite all right. He'll often drop in. Only you mustn't press him. He's wild, you know. Not like a tame lion.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

[awareness]

Originally Posted by bearbear

The points I made are not at all esoteric and not much different than what many evangelical preachers teach.

I''ll say:

"The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string; and justice directs the bow to your heart, and strains at the bow: and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood."
- Sinners in the hands of an angry GOD - A Sermon by Jonathan Edwards Preached : July 8, 1741

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

I''ll say:

"The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string; and justice directs the bow to your heart, and strains at the bow: and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood."
- Sinners in the hands of an angry GOD - A Sermon by Jonathan Edwards Preached : July 8, 1741

I've never said God delights or has pleasure in his wrath but have made the opposite stand point after point because scripture says so. John Edwards, God bless him for the Great Awakening, but he also needed to read Ezekiel 18:23.

Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Think about who is really going to hate you for feeding the poor or volunteering at homeless shelters? Compared to who is going to hate you if you preach the gospel of Jesus Christ? Yet we should do both.

This is the 21^st Century and we need to take things in context not only as to the intent of what was written but how it applies today. From my perspective we are at the point of showing fruits. Maybe you won’t be hated for feeding the poor but it takes some effort to do so and it is a small minority of people who are involved. There is no greater love…

Originally Posted by bearbear

Faith matters, but yes so does love. We are saved by faith in Christ Jesus, but faith only counts if it is expressed through love.
Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Paul wrote this because one of the Jewish Christian sects at the time were teaching and demanding that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised for salvation which was a real problem in the early church. Not just babies but adults which could result in death sometimes in those days. He was basically saying that the Gentiles don’t need to be circumcised. Their Christian faith was sufficient.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Truly knowing God should be such a traumatic experience that it causes us to love others.
1 John 4:20
Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.

Words convey meaning only within a context. If you read 1 John 2:19 you understand that there was a serious rift in this church. Apparently the rift resulted in starting another church. In the next few verses it indicates that those who left were “liars” and “antichrists” or those who opposed Christ. There are two other places in 1 John where it notes these “antichrists”. In 1 John 4:2-3 it indicates that unlike those who belong to God, the antichrists refuse to confess that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh”. A similar statement occurs in 2 John 7. To make a long explanation short – those who split did not believe that Jesus was ever a human but only appeared to be human. They didn’t believe that the man Jesus was the Christ---thus they were called “anti-christs”. The author of 1 John levels moral accusations at them as well saying they failed to love the brothers and sisters in the community (2:9-11, 4:20).

Originally Posted by bearbear

I believe faith without love is dead, yet so is love without faith. We need the abiding love of God in our hearts in order to truly love. Not everyone has this, including those who love the world.

1 John 2:15
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.

If you go back to my reference in 2:19 to see that this is related to the church splitting and those who left did not believe that Jesus was ever human but he was only God. Also, note in 2:18 that the author believed it was the last hour because there was an increase in the “anti-christs” ---“Children, it is the last hour”. There was a sense of urgency in everything that was being stated in this chapter.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

This is the 21^st Century and we need to take things in context not only as to the intent of what was written but how it applies today.

Context is important agreed. But there are also timeless principles to extracted from scripture that were relevant then and are relevant now.

From my perspective we are at the point of showing fruits. Maybe you won’t be hated for feeding the poor but it takes some effort to do so and it is a small minority of people who are involved. There is no greater love…

I agree with the seriousness of loving the poor. God says the true sin of Sodom was not Sodomy (which was just the result of God giving them up to their lusts per Romans 1) but ignoring the poor in Ezekiel 16:49:

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

Having concern for the poor is evidence of someone who is saved. Not having concern for the poor such as in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is evidence of someone who is not saved. Jesus condemns the goats who ignored the poor to the lake of fire in Matthew 25.

I also have personal experiences where God supernaturally demonstrated I shouldn't discontinue in certain areas of ministry to the poor when I felt like pulling back. I still definitely feel like I don't do enough and I should do more.

That Witness Lee taught thousands to ignore the poor while contributing their life savings to his failed projects and ministry coffers should be a warning to us all.

Paul wrote this because one of the Jewish Christian sects at the time were teaching and demanding that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised for salvation which was a real problem in the early church. Not just babies but adults which could result in death sometimes in those days. He was basically saying that the Gentiles don’t need to be circumcised. Their Christian faith was sufficient.

Agreed, I didn't mean to throw circumcision into the mix, but the latter part of the verse still stands. Faith only counts when it works through love. Without love we are nothing (1 Cor 13)

Words convey meaning only within a context. If you read 1 John 2:19 you understand that there was a serious rift in this church. Apparently the rift resulted in starting another church. In the next few verses it indicates that those who left were “liars” and “antichrists” or those who opposed Christ. There are two other places in 1 John where it notes these “antichrists”. In 1 John 4:2-3 it indicates that unlike those who belong to God, the antichrists refuse to confess that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh”. A similar statement occurs in 2 John 7. To make a long explanation short – those who split did not believe that Jesus was ever a human but only appeared to be human. They didn’t believe that the man Jesus was the Christ---thus they were called “anti-christs”. The author of 1 John levels moral accusations at them as well saying they failed to love the brothers and sisters in the community (2:9-11, 4:20).

John isn't saying anything new however, he is just repeating what Jesus taught in the sermon on the mount. Jesus likens hate to murder and goes on to say that anyone who hates his brother is liable to hellfire (Matt 5:21-23). Someone liable to hell is not a child of God. John echoes this again in the earlier chapter 3 verse 15:

"Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him."

If you go back to my reference in 2:19 to see that this is related to the church splitting and those who left did not believe that Jesus was ever human but he was only God. Also, note in 2:18 that the author believed it was the last hour because there was an increase in the “anti-christs” ---“Children, it is the last hour”. There was a sense of urgency in everything that was being stated in this chapter.

Maybe he was still coming off fumes because of the church split, but I believe what he wrote was still inspired by the Holy Spirit as it simply confirms what Jesus taught and he hasn't introduced any new doctrine.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Context is important agreed. But there are also timeless principles to extracted from scripture that were relevant then and are relevant now.

To some extent I am simply saying that there are scriptures that may have nothing to do with us today such as the circumcision of the Gentiles, the anti-christs Paul was referencing from the church split up etc. If you notice in all of Paul’s writings he does not mention the miracles of Jesus in the gospels because it appears that in Phillippians 2:7 Paul didn’t know about them and he conceived of Jesus as a human who was not performing miracles which would be reflected in bringing forth his God nature. So he notes in Philippians, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness and being found in human form”. In Acts Paul performs many miracles because at that time Jesus had been resurrected so we understand that miracles were going on after the resurrection.

It appears that some messages changed in the different gospels as a result of the different times they were written. In Mark 8:38-9:1 (…some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God come with power), 13:24-27, 30 (this generation will not pass away before all these things take place) and 14:62 Jesus indicates that the kingdom would be coming in his lifetime. In the later gospels this changes e.g. Luke 9:27 where Luke leaves out “has come in power” because according to Luke the Kingdom has already come in Jesus’ ministry (Luke 11:20, 17:21) and in John the Kingdom has come and is not future John 3:3,5 and John 11:23-26.

Scriptures appear to condemn the Jews (Matt. 23:31-33, 27:25, John 8:37-39, 44-47), make women as lesser than men (1 Tim. 2:12—“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent”) and condone slaves (1 Pet. 2:18-Slaves, “accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if…you endure pain while suffering unjustly”).

It is not only the Roman Catholics who have suppressed women over the years but even WL suppressed women with an all male BB, elders etc. because of these verses. We can pull verses out and use them to frighten, enlist hate, suppress freedom, or otherwise condemn people because we may think that we are justified because the scriptures are in the Bible and we can quote them.

Timeless principles are in the eyes of the beholder.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

In the end Job got double what he lost, and he probably got a lot more than that in eternity as well. According to human logic, this is not fair as an eternal reward could not possibly be warranted by sowing in the temporary, but this is mercy that God chooses to give gladly according to his good pleasure (Eph 1:5).

So God allowed Job's suffering because it is temporary, which would be nothing compared to what he would receive in eternity which is what matters.

Right. What difference does it make that God authorized the destruction of Job's sons and daughters? No harm done. He gives him new and better ones in the end. It's all good.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. What difference does it make that God authorized the destruction of Job's sons and daughters? No harm done. He gives him new and better ones in the end. It's all good.

If they're in heaven with Job now, he has 3x the family in eternity. You have to look beyond the meaning of this short life. Life is a vapor, we are here today and gone tomorrow. Jesus never warned about physical death in this life, in fact he was nonchalant about it as in the case when Lazarus died, and he said he was just "sleeping" but Jesus did warn a lot about the spiritual death that was eternal.

[bearbear]

Hi David, I really admire your effort to dig into scriptures though I have a hard time grasping how you can come to the conclusions you draw yourself into. It seems to me you're just grabbing any low or high hanging fruit that a skeptic could take when interpreting the scriptures. I guess it just takes faith, and that is really your choice to make, but here's my answer.

Originally Posted by Dave

To some extent I am simply saying that there are scriptures that may have nothing to do with us today such as the circumcision of the Gentiles, the anti-christs Paul was referencing from the church split up etc. If you notice in all of Paul’s writings he does not mention the miracles of Jesus in the gospels because it appears that in Phillippians 2:7 Paul didn’t know about them and he conceived of Jesus as a human who was not performing miracles which would be reflected in bringing forth his God nature. So he notes in Philippians, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness and being found in human form”. In Acts Paul performs many miracles because at that time Jesus had been resurrected so we understand that miracles were going on after the resurrection.

Doing miracles doesn't equate one with being God and the Jews would have known this as they were familiar with the miracles of prophets such as Elijah/Elisha. Doing miracles would have meant one was anointed with the Spirit of God, not necessarily having the status of God, otherwise the Jews would not have crucified Jesus because he said he was the Son of God.

The Jews didn't deny Jesus did miracles because the evidence was overwhelming, they just attributed it to demon possession. The talmud writings of the 1st century even affirm Jesus' miracles by saying he was a sorcerer who did miracles by the power of demons, just as the gospels record the Pharisees claiming Jesus cast out devils by the power of beelzebub!

Paul was making the point that Jesus didn't use the privileges that were available to him as God to benefit himself. Satan pointed this out when he told Jesus he could try to jump off the roof of the temple and rely on angels to save him. Jesus didn't resort to these Godly privileges to make his life better, but he took the form a slave to serve others. He also didn't perform miracles to serve himself (he refused to turn stone into bread when Satan commanded him to), but others.

Meekness is strength that is restrained. It's when you have all the power in the world but you choose not to use it for the better. God could have with one mighty breath destroyed everyone when he saw what they did to Jesus on the cross, but God restrained himself because he loved us.

"Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots." Luke 23:34

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

It appears that some messages changed in the different gospels as a result of the different times they were written. In Mark 8:38-9:1 (…some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God come with power),

This was fulfilled when John, the last surviving disciple, saw the kingdom of God come to power in his vision which led to the book of Revelation.

13:24-27, 30 (this generation will not pass away before all these things take place) and 14:62 Jesus indicates that the kingdom would be coming in his lifetime.

I take the premillenial view that Jesus was referring to the generation that starts to see end time signs take place and the fig tree (Israel) bearing it's leaves. He uses this term after the "time of the gentiles" which I interpret as referring to the pause between Daniel's 69th-70th week.

It is not only the Roman Catholics who have suppressed women over the years but even WL suppressed women with an all male BB, elders etc. because of these verses.

I personally take a more liberal view because of the evidence of women in ministry in the New Testament, and Paul referred to Phoebe as a Deacon in Romans 16:1. My church has women in leadership roles in ministry. But that is probably for another thread.

We can pull verses out and use them to frighten, enlist hate, suppress freedom, or otherwise condemn people because we may think that we are justified because the scriptures are in the Bible and we can quote them.

I agree. The word of God is likened to a sword (Eph 6:17) and it can be wielded incorrectly. The word has to be rightly handled (2 Timothy 2:15). But just because someone misuses a sword doesn't make the sword bad.

Timeless principles are in the eyes of the beholder.

Yes that is why we need the Holy Spirit to give us understanding, otherwise we will just be tossed by whatever wind of teaching that comes our way.

John 16:1
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

[bearbear]

Evidence the God of the bible is real from testimony evidence there is life after death.

Here are my favorite testimonies:

Atheist, hedonistic Surfer got stung by jellyfish, wakes up a born again Christian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvaKqtSH_9s

The Sky Diver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3BTtii4fIY

The Atheist Professor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVi1GAHrILI

The Pastor with unforgiveness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAmtJF3YuhQ

Lukewarm Christian dies of heartattack in Casino:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6va_5Wf2Pc

The devout muslim with shingles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TC-TLFYNCQ

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

If they're in heaven with Job now, he has 3x the family in eternity. You have to look beyond the meaning of this short life. Life is a vapor, we are here today and gone tomorrow. Jesus never warned about physical death in this life, in fact he was nonchalant about it as in the case when Lazarus died, and he said he was just "sleeping" but Jesus did warn a lot about the spiritual death that was eternal.

"If..." Your faith seems to have no limit. So, really, God was doing Job a favor. "If" is your springboard to faith." Of course, if is a word that implies it's opposite...if not. Faith implies doubt. In fact, faith isn't necessary unless doubt is posited. "If not" then God authorized the destruction of Job's family, there is no heaven, there is no meaning beyond "this short life", we are "here today and gone tomorrow." Jesus was not nonchalant about death in the Gospel of Mark. Faith picks the Gospel story it needs, I guess. In John's Gospel Jesus does miracles "so they might believe.' It seems to be working on you. Oh, and I love John's realized eschatology. Of course, since then we have had 2000 years of violence culminating in Auschwitz, Hiroshima, the Soviet Gulag, the Great Famine of the Great Leap Forward under Mao, and many other genocidal massacres and natural catastrophes including 6th Mass extinction of living species known to natural history which we have entered into now. Help me wrap my mind around how all these events are good under the providence of God will ya?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Hi David, I really admire your effort to dig into scriptures though I have a hard time grasping how you can come to the conclusions you draw yourself into. It seems to me you're just grabbing any low or high hanging fruit that a skeptic could take when interpreting the scriptures. I guess it just takes faith, and that is really your choice to make, but here's my answer.23:34

I am somewhat baffled by your answer. In Matthew 8:23-33 Jesus calmed the waters (which saved himself and the others) and responded positively to the demons request by casting them into the swine. Both events were exercising his God powers. Of course there are many more miracles stated in the NT by Jesus. In regards to his encounter with the Devil he was not going to succumb to the temptations of the Devil by using these powers but obviously he had them and could have responded. However, his restraint was a sign of his God powers. In Philippians 2:7 there is no reference to the encounter with the Devil and while he became obedient to the point of death--even death on a cross he also cried out "Lord, why have you forsaken me" which appears to conflict with the gospel where you quoted his words on the cross as, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Paul did mention miracles in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 but they are all related to after the resurrection. I agree that miracles did not necessarily prove Divinity but Paul doesn't mention the virgin birth either. In fact, Paul never refers to Jesus as a historical figure. Paul's writings were the first penned and the most extensively written in the NT. Of course, Paul was never an eyewitness to Jesus except in a vision after his resurrection but he had contact with Jesus' disciples. e.g. Acts 15:6-14. As we both know, the gospels were written after Paul's letters.

I also agree that it does boil down to faith, in some cases a lot of faith. While you say the HS helps people understand the Word, the scriptures regarding women, slaves and anti-Semitism are undeniably clear and were taken as written down through the years.

My original point was that many of the scriptures do not relate to us today. The only person who has condemned the slave and anti-Semitism scriptures has been the pope. Otherwise, they remain in the Bible and are considered to be inspired by God. You can’t condemn them nor argue against them because they are inspired. You can only ignore them. While your church permits women to serve important roles, are they able to be ministers? As I noted previously WL did not permit women to my knowledge to take any leadership roles and that hasn't changed.

In any case, it is my opinion that it is problematic for some Christians to hold that every word in the Bible is inerrant and inspired. How can you do this other than look the other way? Scholars of recent history have been removing scriptures such as 1 John 5:7-8 which were placed there after 1 John was written by scribes but there are so many problematic verses that I don’t think it is a true testimony to the world. Contradictions are smoothed over etc.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

"If..." Your faith seems to have no limit. So, really, God was doing Job a favor.

Remember God had perfect foreknowledge Job was going to pass the test. God will never give his children more than they can endure (1 Cor 10:13). In the end, Job got more than he ever had before and it's probable his children that passed away were also rewarded for their momentary suffering. And although God allowed Job's suffering, it was Satan who did the killing as he is also behind all the murder on the earth today. Satan comes to kill steal and destroy, but God comes to give life and give it abundantly (John 10:10), which he did by doubling Job's family.

"If" is your springboard to faith." Of course, if is a word that implies it's opposite...if not. Faith implies doubt. In fact, faith isn't necessary unless doubt is posited. "If not" then God authorized the destruction of Job's family, there is no heaven, there is no meaning beyond "this short life", we are "here today and gone tomorrow."

Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things unseen. In order to have "assurance" and "conviction" you need to have had an encounter, a witness or some sort of starting foundation. Faith isn't just blind belief but it has a start which God is willing to give each of us as he did the children of Israel with miracles such as the parting of the Red Sea, and as he did with Abraham with the birth of Isaac in old age. However, from there on he wants us to trust him as God expected the Israelites to trust him in their wilderness experience.

I've had crazy prayers answered and other supernatural events happen in my life along with my studies of scriptures & research that led me to have faith in the God of the bible. These are the starting points God gave me and I believe he can give anyone if they seek God with all their heart. Here's a wonderful promise in the OT:

Jeremiah 29:13
You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.

Jesus also tells us knock and the door will be open, seek and you will find. It's actually a Hebrew idiom for someone that has an obsession to find something. I had an obsession to know if the God of the bible was real after realizing that Witness Lee's teaching that you are saved by "calling on the Lord" (in the way it was practiced/interpreted in LC) and saying a sinner's prayer was not biblical, and that there was more to saving faith than that (not to criticize the sinner's prayer however, because it is a great beginning to faith). The more I searched, the more He revealed himself to me, fulfilling the promise in Jeremiah 29:13.

Jesus was not nonchalant about death in the Gospel of Mark.

He was generally nonchalant when it came to someone who died with eternal life, or those destined to die without it. However both he and John the Baptist were urgent when it came to saving souls and preaching repentance and the kingdom of God. This is a verse that captures both sentiments:

Luke 9:60
Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."

Faith picks the Gospel story it needs, I guess. In John's Gospel Jesus does miracles "so they might believe.' It seems to be working on you. Oh, and I love John's realized eschatology. Of course, since then we have had 2000 years of violence culminating in Auschwitz, Hiroshima, the Soviet Gulag, the Great Famine of the Great Leap Forward under Mao, and many other genocidal massacres and natural catastrophes including 6th Mass extinction of living species known to natural history which we have entered into now. Help me wrap my mind around how all these events are good under the providence of God will ya?

Psalms 115:16
The highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind.

God gave man dominion over the earth in Genesis 1:26, in other words he gives men the responsibility to administer the affairs of Earth. Unfortunately we gave that right over to Satan by submitting to him. God views us as being owned by who we obey (Romans 6:16). By default, if we're not obeying Jesus, we're obeying Satan (Matthew 12:30).

If God had direct dominion over the earth right now, it would be like heaven is, perfect and sinless, but he doesn't yet. However that is his will and we will all get there eventually after Jesus comes to earth and takes his rightful rule as king. That's why Jesus had us pray "Father ... your will be done on earth as it is in heaven".

Also any work in progress is going to not look pretty. Right now everything is a WIP until we get to the millennial kingdom and eventually the new heavens and new earth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

"If..." Your faith seems to have no limit. So, really, God was doing Job a favor. "If" is your springboard to faith." Of course, if is a word that implies it's opposite...if not. Faith implies doubt. In fact, faith isn't necessary unless doubt is posited. "If not" then God authorized the destruction of Job's family, there is no heaven, there is no meaning beyond "this short life", we are "here today and gone tomorrow." Jesus was not nonchalant about death in the Gospel of Mark. Faith picks the Gospel story it needs, I guess. In John's Gospel Jesus does miracles "so they might believe.' It seems to be working on you. Oh, and I love John's realized eschatology. Of course, since then we have had 2000 years of violence culminating in Auschwitz, Hiroshima, the Soviet Gulag, the Great Famine of the Great Leap Forward under Mao, and many other genocidal massacres and natural catastrophes including 6th Mass extinction of living species known to natural history which we have entered into now. Help me wrap my mind around how all these events are good under the providence of God will ya?

Sorry to be overly blunt, but it seems to me that the only courageous agnostic / atheists around are those that are willing to assault the existence of allah.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Faith picks the Gospel story it needs, I guess. In John's Gospel Jesus does miracles "so they might believe.' It seems to be working on you. Oh, and I love John's realized eschatology. Of course, since then we have had 2000 years of violence culminating in Auschwitz, Hiroshima, the Soviet Gulag, the Great Famine of the Great Leap Forward under Mao, and many other genocidal massacres and natural catastrophes including 6th Mass extinction of living species known to natural history which we have entered into now. Help me wrap my mind around how all these events are good under the providence of God will ya?

Never was this more true than the Nazis who used the anti-Semitic verses in the Bible (Matthew etc) to kill 6 million Jews. According to the Nazis this was God's judgment on the Jews. Of course, it was the Nazi twist on the Bible when they took over Germany and appointed a leader of the church who helped them rewrite parts of the Bible to suit their ends.

God's judgment through the ages at the hands of Christians (e.g. Constantine, Inquisition, Spanish killing off the Incas, etc) doesn't seem to stop. I am sure some Christians have viewed Hiroshima, the Soviet Gulag, The Great Famine as God's judgment on non-believers. e.g. The Anglican Church Bishop Joseph Noriaki Iida, as a teen-age naval academy student, was a witness to the atomic blast and understood what caused it. The bomb “was God’s judgment ....”

Jesus came to bring peace, hope and love. He was against those who opposed this message. He was followed by women, the poor, the unclean, the downtrodden etc because his message was that the rich will become poor, and the poor will become rich, the powerful will become weak etc. This gave his followers hope. If you look at the Gospels and the rest of the NT as well this is the underlying message of Jesus. On the other hand, every time you have a disease or calamity that spreads often many Christians will label it as God's judgment e.g. AIDS, Ebola in Africa etc Why doesn't God just come back and set up his kingdom...does he take pleasure in the sufferings of people as the population explodes world-wide, food becomes more scarce throughout the world, as the oceans are emptied of its wildlife? What is HE waiting for?

Matthew 14:15-21
…Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass, and taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and said a blessing. Then he broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds.
Matthew 25:34-46
Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
Luke 4:18
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
Romans 12:20
To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink;….”
Galatians 6:2
Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
1 John 3:17-18
But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.
James 2:14-18
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry to be overly blunt, but it seems to me that the only courageous agnostic / atheists around are those that are willing to assault the existence of allah.

I'm not assaulting the existence of God, just human conceptions of it. I haven't looked into Islam much, but my impression is that the Islamic and Christian conceptions of God have common elements. So, to assault the existence of one concept might undermine the existence of the other. Of course, Witness Lee exhorted us to "drop your concepts." I took his exhortation seriously and I found that life went on pretty much the same with or without concepts. As Phillip K. Dick said, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Psalms 115:16
The highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind.

A lovely verse to be sure. For me it raises cosmological questions. In Genesis chapter 1 God, on the second day, made a space in the middle of the Primeval Waters by dividing them in two, pushing half the water up and half down. The upper water He held in place with a “firm thing” (raqi’a in Hebrew), translated millennia later in the King James Bible as “firmament.”

The firmament seems to be conceived as a kind of invisible dome. This dome covered the entire flat earth and was strong enough to hold up inconceivable amounts of water. On the fourth day God created the sun, moon, and stars for illumination and for purposes of keeping time and the calendar.

What this story explained was the creation of a flat earth with a bubble of air above it, topped with an arching sky, all surrounded by water. There are many passages in the Hebrew Bible that reflect its flat-earth cosmology—for example:

“You stretch out the heavens like a tent and build your palace on the waters above.”Psalms 104:2-3.

So the heavens reflect a kind of stability and perfection to the ancient Hebrew that cannot be seen in the messiness of things on earth. It is the perfection of God's heaven as opposed to the situation on earth which God had given to "man." Thus, we pray to a God who "art in heaven" ..."thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." But we no longer think of the heavens as merely up above the earth. Rather, the earth is seen to be a small planet in a universe that is vastly different and immensely larger than it was conceived to be even 100 years ago. How do you believe in a Biblical cosmology that is incompatible with the observations of modern science?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Why doesn't God just come back and set up his kingdom...does he take pleasure in the sufferings of people as the population explodes world-wide, food becomes more scarce throughout the world, as the oceans are emptied of its wildlife? What is HE waiting for?

Matthew 14:15-21
…Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass, and taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and said a blessing. Then he broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds.
Matthew 25:34-46
Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
Luke 4:18
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
Romans 12:20
To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink;….”
Galatians 6:2
Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
1 John 3:17-18
But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.
James 2:14-18
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

I don't have the answer, Dave. I do think a serious error in Witness Lee's ministry was that he taught us to ignore the deep and broad ethical implications in the teachings of Jesus such as in the verses you quoted above. Jesus told us that the Kingdom of God is within us. Maybe that's the only clue we're going to get.

[HERn]

Hi Zeek. "How do you believe in a Biblical cosmology that is incompatible with the observations of modern science?" This book might be an interesting read.

The Galileo Connection – February 17, 1986
by Charles E. Hummel

For me when the bible states words like sunrise, sunset, four corners of the earth the intent was not to teach astronomy but to communicate something possibly far more important. I don't feel comfortable forcing the bible into current scientific understanding...which is good for me because I don't have to revise my interpretation every time a new scientific paradigm is revealed (or discarded). Then there's this from WL in one of the online LSM training classes I took "every word in the bible is inspired by God, but not every word in the bible is the word of God". I'm wary of this phrase because LSM has used it to steer believers away form some of the books in the bible including James and Psalms. Just my two cents...nothing I'm willing to fight for.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm not assaulting the existence of God, just human conceptions of it.

This is talk on the slippery edge of reality. The whole Bible is written by humans, yet it is the word of God. So would you now say that you like to hear God and know what God says, but you don't buy a thing that the bible has to offer? This is what many of your posts seem to be saying.

Originally Posted by zeek

I haven't looked into Islam much, but my impression is that the Islamic and Christian conceptions of God have common elements.

For a person who claims to be a Christian to say that "Islamic and Christian conceptions of God have common elements," is like saying "my colorful back yard full of weeds and mushrooms has common elements to the local restaurant salad bar." No sane and hungry person would say such a thing, and likewise no Christian would say such a thing about Islam.

It doesn't take much "looking into" to perceive the fundamental differences between Islam and its founder, and Christianity and her Founder. Perhaps just watching the news some night would help.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

God's judgment through the ages at the hands of Christians (e.g. Constantine, Inquisition, Spanish killing off the Incas, etc) doesn't seem to stop.

The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.. Romans 2:24

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. - Matthew 7:21

I am sure some Christians have viewed Hiroshima, the Soviet Gulag, The Great Famine as God's judgment on non-believers. e.g. The Anglican Church Bishop Joseph Noriaki Iida, as a teen-age naval academy student, was a witness to the atomic blast and understood what caused it. The bomb “was God’s judgment ....”

Their view is not biblical, God won't lift a finger to judge the earth until the second coming. Any sort of killing or disaster comes from the enemy who kills, steals and destroys not Jesus who gives life.

Matthew 12:20
A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he has brought justice through to victory.

Why doesn't God just come back and set up his kingdom...does he take pleasure in the sufferings of people as the population explodes world-wide, food becomes more scarce throughout the world, as the oceans are emptied of its wildlife? What is HE waiting for?

Jesus never promised it would be easy on earth, but quite the opposite, however he gives us hope that has real foundation because of the victory he has secured for his people on the cross.

John 16:33
I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

Jesus also warned that things will get worse, not better before he comes.

Luke 21:11
There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events ..

And there are hints everywhere throughout the NT that the "Master is going to delay" (Luke 12:45) and as a result there will be scoffers and people questioning why he hasn't come. We're all warned that this is how it's gonna be, and apparently it is just as the bible says!

Luke 12:45
But suppose the servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk.

2 Peter 3:3-4
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

So the heavens reflect a kind of stability and perfection to the ancient Hebrew that cannot be seen in the messiness of things on earth. It is the perfection of God's heaven as opposed to the situation on earth which God had given to "man." Thus, we pray to a God who "art in heaven" ..."thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." But we no longer think of the heavens as merely up above the earth. Rather, the earth is seen to be a small planet in a universe that is vastly different and immensely larger than it was conceived to be even 100 years ago. How do you believe in a Biblical cosmology that is incompatible with the observations of modern science?

There are different levels of heaven (1st, 2nd, 3d) so heaven can refer to different things in the bible, such as the visible sky, space.. However I personally believe there is a planet/world in the 1st heaven where God resides that is not unlike earth. I believe if the New Jerusalem is a literal city descends from heaven onto earth, then heaven must contain a world like our own. This is unlike Lee & Nee who taught that the New Jerusalem was allegorical/spiritual and not literal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq5wy3-QJdo

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Jesus never promised it would be easy on earth, but quite the opposite, however he gives us hope that has real foundation because of the victory he has secured for his people on the cross.

This question of "how can there be a good God, if there is evil on earth?" is as old as man himself.

Many Christians in America have been spoiled by the apparent ease of living, but I think we should know by now that this age of grace, this church age, this age of the new covenant, will also be an age of wars, an age of sin, an age of calamities, an age of dying, an age of suffering, an age of trials, etc.

Today the kingdom of God is "not by observation," rather it is hidden from sight and hard to recognize. That is why Jesus said, "blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." Many people on earth today never see God in any part of their life. The problem is not God; rather the problem is their heart.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

How do you believe in a Biblical cosmology that is incompatible with the observations of modern science?

I posit that in order to more fully reflect fundamentalism, as it has come down to us today, we need to add to the Five Fundamentals.

Shortly after the formation of the five fundamentals came the Scopes monkey trial in Tennessee.

So the 6th fundamental should be:

6) Creationism. Anti-evolution.

And maybe there needs to be a 7th fundamental:

7) Disbelief in science.

However more fundamentals we add to list, the last one, to properly reflect actions, should be:

8) The church rejects all those that don't hold to all the fundamentals.

So far we have 8 fundamentals. Anyone care to add more? Let's be honest about our fundamentalism ...

[HERn]

Originally Posted by awareness

Anyone care to add more? Let's be honest about our fundamentalism ...

9) It ain't fundamental if it don't help raise funds.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So the 6th fundamental should be:

6) Creationism. Anti-evolution.

And maybe there needs to be a 7th fundamental:

7) Disbelief in science.

There is no Disbelief in science among most of those in the church, rather the church protests the manipulation of facts for their liberal humanistic agenda.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by bearbear

There are different levels of heaven (1st, 2nd, 3d) so heaven can refer to different things in the bible, such as the visible sky, space.. However I personally believe there is a planet/world in the 1st heaven where God resides that is not unlike earth. I believe if the New Jerusalem is a literal city descends from heaven onto earth, then heaven must contain a world like our own. This is unlike Lee & Nee who taught that the New Jerusalem was allegorical/spiritual and not literal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq5wy3-QJdo

Duplantis sure knows how to draw a beautiful fantasy land. Makes me want to go there. It has pets, but for me there would need to be blues music too; my hog heaven. He's quite a story teller. I'm sure he's made many a dreamy Christians glassy-eyed.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There is no Disbelief in science among most of those in the church, rather the church protests the manipulation of facts for their liberal humanistic agenda.

I guess from your perspective Luke 4:5 shows that the earth is flat?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

There are different levels of heaven (1st, 2nd, 3d) so heaven can refer to different things in the bible, such as the visible sky, space.. However I personally believe there is a planet/world in the 1st heaven where God resides that is not unlike earth. I believe if the New Jerusalem is a literal city descends from heaven onto earth, then heaven must contain a world like our own. This is unlike Lee & Nee who taught that the New Jerusalem was allegorical/spiritual and not literal.

This guy Duplantis is just a huckster and tries to get people to believe in his fantasyland. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys8Hdn9BQKI
"I've never had the Lord say, 'Jesse, I think that car is a little bit too nice.' I've had vehicles and the Lord said, 'Would you please go park that at your house. Don't put that in front of my house. I don't want people to think that I'm a poor God.'" (Jesse Duplantis, "When Will We Yield To The Anointing of Wealth II," April 10, 2005)

Jesse Duplantis: "People told me, 'Well, they say, Jesus was poor.' When was He poor? I would like to know when He was poor. Well, He was born in a stable. Why? Why was He born in a stable? Because that short, deaf lady lost their reservation. He couldn't get into the inn. Think about that for a minute..."
Joni Lamb: "And wise men came to see Him."
Jesse Duplantis: "That's right! I mean He wasn't three minutes on the ground and the three wise guys are looking for Him with what? Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh. Let me tell you something, this concept that Jesus was in poverty is totally wrong!" (Jesse Duplantis, Marcus Lamb, and Joni Lamb, Daystar Fall, "Share-A-Thon," September 15, 2004)

"If I give $1,000 dollars I deserve to get back $100,000 because I am just, that's not greed!" (Jesse Duplantis, December 19, 2003 TBN, "The just shall live by faith.")

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

I guess from your perspective Luke 4:5 shows that the earth is flat?

Bible says earth is round. Science says earth is round. Common sense says earth is round.

Dave, I think it's time you finally get on board.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bible says earth is round. Science says earth is round. Common sense says earth is round.

Dave, I think it's time you finally get on board.

Luke 4:5 among others has been quoted by the Bible Flat Earth people stating that the earth is flat.

I was just wondering what scientific facts you believe have been manipulated by the liberal humanists. You seem to be using a litmus test for what scientific facts you agree to. I understand that there is a hot debate about some of the scientific facts that challenge the Bible e.g. the age of the Earth, when the first people were created and how they came about etc. I thought it was a good starting point to ask about the flat earth since maybe you believed science conflicted with the Bible on that issue.

I presume you may believe that our atmosphere is not being affected by pollutants and the seas, lakes and streams are not being affected by the over fishing as well as pollutants. God created this earth and we should take care of it and we are not doing a very good job of it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There is no Disbelief in science among most of those in the church, rather the church protests the manipulation of facts for their liberal humanistic agenda.

Yes I've heard -- and bro Zeek could prolly tell it better -- coming from a creationist, that all the scientists are actually conspiring together, to discredit Christianity and the Bible. That's it's been going on in earnest since Galileo, or some such. And that that is the very reason the Hubble Space Telescope was invented. And get this. I might add. Apparently. They are trying so hard to discredit Christianity and the Bible that they are actually digging in the ground, and busting tiny atoms apart. Those scientists sure are evil trouble makers; just a bunch of brainiacs. My momma didn't like 'em. She supported the Scopes monkey trial. She was a dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist. She believed the earth was only 6000 yrs old. She said it was in the Bible. I've read it from cover to cover more times than I can remember and I've never found it in there. I think it must be extra-biblical. And someone sold my momma a false bill of goods.

But when did that ever stop a fundamentalist? My momma went to her grave believing it. Bless her heart. May she R.I.P. I think God has a special place, a special section, for her in heaven, perchance. Filled only with fundamentalists.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

Luke 4:5 among others has been quoted by the Bible Flat Earth people stating that the earth is flat.

Find a few quacks, and then condemn the whole church.

Yeah, you right. Just like Lee.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes I've heard -- and bro Zeek could prolly tell it better -- coming from a creationist, that all the scientists are actually conspiring together, to discredit Christianity and the Bible. That's it's been going on in earnest since Galileo, or some such. And that that is the very reason the Hubble Space Telescope was invented. And get this. I might add. Apparently. They are trying so hard to discredit Christianity and the Bible that they are actually digging in the ground...

Yeah, there you go mate ... Digging in the Dirt ... great theme song for this forum.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

Duplantis sure knows how to draw a beautiful fantasy land. Makes me want to go there. It has pets, but for me there would need to be blues music too; my hog heaven. He's quite a story teller. I'm sure he's made many a dreamy Christians glassy-eyed.

Paul was also caught up to heaven though he never described his experience in detail. However he implies that it is so wonderful that words can't even describe it.

1 Cor 2:9
However, as it is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him--

2 Cor 12:2-4
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.

This is perhaps a better video from someone who had a near death experience and saw things maybe similar to what Paul saw when he was stoned at Lystra.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvaKqtSH_9s

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

I was just wondering what scientific facts you believe have been manipulated by the liberal humanists.

Did you ever study the "scientific facts" presented to the SCOTUS during Roe?

Talk about a fib wrapped up in a falsehood and packaged in a fabrication. Proven science! Yesirree!

[bearbear]

In 1 Cor 15, Paul summarizes the key points of the gospel and he underlines the seriousness of holding on to the words that he preached, otherwise one would believe in vain, a serious warning.

1 Cor 15:1-2
1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

Then he goes on to remind them of the key points of the gospel:

v3-4
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.

So the fundamentals according to Paul seems to be at least these three points:

1. Christ died for our sins
2. He was buried
3. He was resurrected on the third day and is alive now

And also, come into agreement that Jesus is Lord in your heart and with your mouth:

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

The seriousness of modifying the gospel:

Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by bearbear

This is perhaps a better video from someone who had a near death experience and saw things maybe similar to what Paul saw when he was stoned at Lystra.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvaKqtSH_9s

Ian McCormack had a FoP (Feeling of Presence). But it may have been his brain lying to him:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6145420.html

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

In 1 Cor 15, Paul summarizes the key points of the gospel and he underlines the seriousness of holding on to the words that he preached, otherwise one would believe in vain, a serious warning.

1 Cor 15:1-2
1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

Then he goes on to remind them of the key points of the gospel:

v3-4
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.

So the fundamentals according to Paul seems to be at least these three points:

1. Christ died for our sins
2. He was buried
3. He was resurrected on the third day and is alive now

And also, come into agreement that Jesus is Lord in your heart and with your mouth:

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

The seriousness of modifying the gospel:

Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

No one is modifying the gospel. We are just trying to establish what are considered fundamental teachings. In Galatians Christians are jumping ship for another gospel. The problem is that after Paul converted a number of Gentiles to faith in Christ in the region of Galatia, other missionaries came and insisted that believers must follow parts of the Jewish Law. The men had to accept circumcision. He knew that Gentiles who underwent circumcision didn't understand the meaning of the gospel. He is furious and he refers back to the same problem he had with Peter in the book of Acts.

We are not recommending as a fundamental principle that everyone of us need to be circumcised. Paul was angry and this is the only letter he writes that he does not start out by thanking God for the congregation.

I think you need to quote things in context.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

No one is modifying the gospel. We are just trying to establish what are considered fundamental teachings.

I understand, my intent was not to accuse anyone of modifying the Gospel but just to lay out the fundamentals as Paul may have seen it.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

We are not recommending as a fundamental principle that everyone of us need to be circumcised. Paul was angry and this is the only letter he writes that he does not start out by thanking God for the congregation.

I think you need to quote things in context.

He was angry when people were changing the gospel in that instance, as he would be in any other instance. It's a principle that applied then and would in any case now whether it be circumcision or people denying the resurrection or teaching that Jesus is not fully God or fully man.

1 Cor 15:14
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by HERn

For me when the bible states words like sunrise, sunset, four corners of the earth the intent was not to teach astronomy but to communicate something possibly far more important.

Hi HERn. We still use figures of speech like that as metaphors to describe phenomena even when we learn that they are scientifically inaccurate. Do you perhaps see some kind of wisdom in the figures of speech?

I don't feel comfortable forcing the bible into current scientific understanding...which is good for me because I don't have to revise my interpretation every time a new scientific paradigm is revealed (or discarded).

I'm not comfortable with that either. I think the writers were looking at the world without the benefit of modern technology and the scientific method. Old scientific paradigms are not replaced rather they are transcended. Newtonian picture is founded on physics that explains accurately the motions of a single star’s planetary entourage, but not the entire universe. Until the late twentieth century, there was virtually no reliable information about the universe as a whole. That has now changed.

Then there's this from WL in one of the online LSM training classes I took "every word in the bible is inspired by God, but not every word in the bible is the word of God". I'm wary of this phrase because LSM has used it to steer believers away form some of the books in the bible including James and Psalms. Just my two cents...nothing I'm willing to fight for.

And yet, many Christians including those in Lee's churches refer to the Bible as "The Word God." Lee seems to question the inerrancy doctrine. But, his observation seems to be the case. If, in the Bible, Cain asks "Am I my brother's keeper", those are Cain's words not God's. Right? But, God said "Let there be light." Yet the whole anthology of documents we call the Bible might be inspired by God and thus be called "The Word of God", which after all may be a figure of speech like "sunrise." Or am I wrong? Yes let's not fight about. I agree. What is needed is an explanation of how divine inspiration works. I haven't seen that yet. If the Bible doesn't explain it, then where would we find one and how would we validate it?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is talk on the slippery edge of reality. The whole Bible is written by humans, yet it is the word of God. So would you now say that you like to hear God and know what God says, but you don't buy a thing that the bible has to offer? This is what many of your posts seem to be saying.

See my reply to HERn below. In what sense exactly is the Bible the "Word of God"? The Bible never makes that claim about itself as a totality so what is your basis for the claim? The canonization of scriptures was traditioning process that was carried out under the authority of leaders of the historic church. The book is held sacred by Christians. Exactly how God figures into it, I do not know. I don't deny that the scriptures can be a vehicle of divine revelation, because I have experienced that. But, it can also be a vehicle of hate, prejudice, ignorance and subjugation. I've experienced that too.

For a person who claims to be a Christian to say that "Islamic and Christian conceptions of God have common elements," is like saying "my colorful back yard full of weeds and mushrooms has common elements to the local restaurant salad bar." No sane and hungry person would say such a thing, and likewise no Christian would say such a thing about Islam.

It seems to me that, many of the basic theological concepts of Islam are virtually identical with those of Judaism and Christianity, its forerunners. Muslims believe in the oneness of God, who is the creator of everything, immaterial, invisible, opposed to idolatry, merciful, compassionate, ruler of the day of Judgment, who pours out grace on the faithful. Whatever the differences, those characteristics, at least, the Islamic conception of God holds in common with the Judeo-Christian concept.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

There are different levels of heaven (1st, 2nd, 3d) so heaven can refer to different things in the bible, such as the visible sky, space.. However I personally believe there is a planet/world in the 1st heaven where God resides that is not unlike earth. I believe if the New Jerusalem is a literal city descends from heaven onto earth, then heaven must contain a world like our own. This is unlike Lee & Nee who taught that the New Jerusalem was allegorical/spiritual and not literal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq5wy3-QJdo

Yes, people have visions. Wikipedia lists some more: Vision of God in the Book of Ezekiel chapter number 1. (6th century BC)
Vision of a heavenly figure "like a son of man" in Daniel 7:13 (6th century / 2nd century BC)
St Paul's vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus (1st century)
Marian apparitions (visions or visitations of Mary, mother of Jesus) (1st century AD - present)
Visions of the afterlife in the martyr accounts of Perpetua and Felicity (2nd century AD)
The theoria (Vision of God) by which a Christian mystic may discern a deep aspect of God (in the Eastern Orthodox tradition) (3rd-6th centuries AD)
Constantine's vision of Christ's sign (312 AD)
Jakob Böhme's vision of 1600, revealed when he observed the beauty of a beam of sunlight in a pewter dish
René Descartes' series of dreams on the night of 11 November 1619, which set the course of his life in science
Blaise Pascal's vision of 23 November 1654, which reinvigorated his spiritual commitment
Emanuel Swedenborg's visions, which formed the basis of a newly revealed doctrine (beginning in 1740s)
Joseph Smith's First Vision (1820)
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa had several visions of religious figures including Kali, Sita, Krishna, Jesus, and Muhammed. (mid/late 19th century).
I would add Augustine's City of God, Dante's Inferno and a few of my own to the list. But, whether or not the visions correspond to Ultimate Reality is a question. And how anyone could know what the answer to that question is another.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I posit that in order to more fully reflect fundamentalism, as it has come down to us today, we need to add to the Five Fundamentals.

Shortly after the formation of the five fundamentals came the Scopes monkey trial in Tennessee.

So the 6th fundamental should be:

6) Creationism. Anti-evolution.

And maybe there needs to be a 7th fundamental:

7) Disbelief in science.

However more fundamentals we add to list, the last one, to properly reflect actions, should be:

8) The church rejects all those that don't hold to all the fundamentals.

So far we have 8 fundamentals. Anyone care to add more? Let's be honest about our fundamentalism ...

I suppose we each have to decide what if anything is fundamental to us. These are our core values. Values are not purely rational determined, our emotions are involved. That's why a discussion like this can evoke strong feelings.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

I suppose we each have to decide what if anything is fundamental to us. These are our core values. Values are not purely rational determined, our emotions are involved. That's why a discussion like this can evoke strong feelings.

This would probably not be a core value but would believing in Satan's existence be a fundamental belief Eph 2:2b. Let's say you don't believe that Satan exists and you are a Christian. Does it matter? It seems that Christian fundamental belief involves believing in some level of spiritual warfare. Satan attacks Christians Eph 6:10. I know the Bible indicates that God can read our thoughts--there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that Satan can read our thoughts but apparently he can predict behavior James 4:7b., Genesis 3 shows failure on our part.

We know that the Lord asked Satan where he came from in Job and Satan answered, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it." Job 1:7 It appears that God uses Satan as well 1 Cor. 5:5, 1 Tim. 1:20 (Paul writes that he has turned over a couple believers to Satan, so they may learn not to blaspheme).

For me there is just too much drama bringing Satan into this issue. It seems we can blame Satan for tempting us and excuse our own behavior. In the end we are responsible for own actions. I guess that is my fundamental belief.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

This would probably not be a core value but would believing in Satan's existence be a fundamental belief Eph 2:2b. Let's say you don't believe that Satan exists and you are a Christian. Does it matter? It seems that Christian fundamental belief involves believing in some level of spiritual warfare. Satan attacks Christians Eph 6:10. I know the Bible indicates that God can read our thoughts--there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that Satan can read our thoughts but apparently he can predict behavior James 4:7b., Genesis 3 shows failure on our part.

We know that the Lord asked Satan where he came from in Job and Satan answered, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it." Job 1:7 It appears that God uses Satan as well 1 Cor. 5:5, 1 Tim. 1:20 (Paul writes that he has turned over a couple believers to Satan, so they may learn not to blaspheme).

For me there is just too much drama bringing Satan into this issue. It seems we can blame Satan for tempting us and excuse our own behavior. In the end we are responsible for own actions. I guess that is my fundamental belief.

If one accepts inerrancy as a fundamental, belief in Satan follows. P1 The Bible is absolutely true. P2 The Bible posits Satan. Conclusion: Therefore, Satan exists.

As a beleaguered Gospel preacher, Satan was a handy cipher that explained why I was so often misunderstood in the world at large as for example 2 Corinthians 4:4 which says "in whom the god of this world [read Satan] hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them." I could preach night and day, but only the intervention of Christ to heal the blindness of an individual so that the light of the gospel could dawn of him/her.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

This would probably not be a core value but would believing in Satan's existence be a fundamental belief

Yes, to be totally honest the fundamentals should include belief in the devil.

So far we have this list of the fundamentals:

1) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
2) Virgin birth of Jesus
3) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
4) Bodily resurrection of Jesus
5) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
6) Creationism. Anti-evolution.
7) Disbelief in science.
8) The actual existence of Satan (New)
9) The church rejects all those that don't hold to all the fundamentals.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, to be totally honest the fundamentals should include belief in the devil.

So far we have this list of the fundamentals:

1) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
2) Virgin birth of Jesus
3) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
4) Bodily resurrection of Jesus
5) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
6) Creationism. Anti-evolution.
7) Disbelief in science.
8) The actual existence of Satan (New)
9) The church rejects all those that don't hold to all the fundamentals.

Okay...rather than disbelief in science and #6 you could combine them in "Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the the Bible". You are also missing some such as:
1. Trinity -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each wholly God, co-equal and distinct yet One God
2. Christ was 100% human and 100% God
3. God is omnipresent and omniscient

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

If one accepts inerrancy as a fundamental, belief in Satan follows. P1 The Bible is absolutely true. P2 The Bible posits Satan. Conclusion: Therefore, Satan exists.

As a beleaguered Gospel preacher, Satan was a handy cipher that explained why I was so often misunderstood in the world at large as for example 2 Corinthians 4:4 which says "in whom the god of this world [read Satan] hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them." I could preach night and day, but only the intervention of Christ to heal the blindness of an individual so that the light of the gospel could dawn of him/her.

Good point Zeek. How come "Must be born again" isn't a fundamental? Shouldn't it be the first? New list (we've doubled them):

1) Must be born again (New)
2) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
3) Virgin birth of Jesus
4) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
5) Bodily resurrection of Jesus
6) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
7) Creationism. Anti-evolution.
8) Disbelief in science.
9) The actual existence of Satan (New)
10) The church rejects all those that don't hold to all the fundamentals.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did you ever study the "scientific facts" presented to the SCOTUS during Roe?

Talk about a fib wrapped up in a falsehood and packaged in a fabrication. Proven science! Yesirree!

Good point bro Ohio. Pro-Life should be in the list of fundamentals. So taking Dave's changes and additions we now come with:

1) Must be born again
2) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
3) Virgin birth of Jesus
4) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
5) Bodily resurrection of Jesus
6) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
7) Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the Bible
8) The actual existence of Satan
9) The Trinity
10) Jesus was 100% human and 100% God
11) God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient
12) Pro-Life
13) The church rejects all those that don't hold to all the fundamentals.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good point bro Ohio. Pro-Life should be in the list of fundamentals. So taking Dave's changes and additions we now come with:

1) Must be born again
2) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
3) Virgin birth of Jesus
4) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
5) Bodily resurrection of Jesus
6) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
7) Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the Bible
8) The actual existence of Satan
9) The Trinity
10) Jesus was 100% human and 100% God
11) God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient
12) Pro-Life
13) The church rejects all those that don't hold to all the fundamentals.

1. Rapture, Heaven and Kingdom of God
2. Christ's Ascension --- although you could combine that with Christ's resurrection
I am not sure that I agree that Pro-Life should be in the list since I think it fits into #7
Maybe #7 could have subtitles such as:
a. Creation
b. Pro-Life

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

1. Rapture, Heaven and Kingdom of God
2. Christ's Ascension --- although you could combine that with Christ's resurrection
I am not sure that I agree that Pro-Life should be in the list since I think it fits into #7
Maybe #7 could have subtitles such as:
a. Creation
b. Pro-Life

Latest list of Fundamentals:

1) Must be born again
2) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
3) Virgin birth of Jesus
4) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
5) Bodily resurrection & ascension of Jesus
6) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
7) Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the Bible
- a) Creationism
- b) Pro-Life
8) Rapture, Heaven and Kingdom of God
9) The actual existence of Satan
10) The Trinity
11) Jesus was 100% human and 100% God
12) God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient
13) Rapture, Heaven and Kingdom of God
14) The church rejects all those that don't hold to all the fundamentals

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Latest list of Fundamentals:

1) Must be born again
2) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
3) Virgin birth of Jesus
4) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
5) Bodily resurrection & ascension of Jesus
6) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
7) Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the Bible
- a) Creationism
- b) Pro-Life
8) Rapture, Heaven and Kingdom of God
9) The actual existence of Satan
10) The Trinity
11) Jesus was 100% human and 100% God
12) God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient
13) Rapture, Heaven and Kingdom of God
14) The church rejects all those that don't hold to all the fundamentals

With WL an additional fundamental was the recovery. If you were not part of one of the local churches affiliated with his movement you were outside of the body of Christ. So for Christians today what is their mandate regarding associations if there are any? In other words, is there a fundamental Scripture or doctrine which encompasses those outside the LC or includes the LC? e.g. the Body of Christ ------ BTW awareness number 8 and 13 are the same. You accidentally placed it in the list twice.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

With WL an additional fundamental was the recovery. If you were not part of one of the local churches affiliated with his movement you were outside of the body of Christ. So for Christians today what is their mandate regarding associations if there are any? In other words, is there a fundamental Scripture or doctrine which encompasses those outside the LC or includes the LC? e.g. the Body of Christ ------ BTW awareness number 8 and 13 are the same. You accidentally placed it in the list twice.

On the first part, I'm not sure yet what you are driving at. Please go on.

On the last part: WELL! FIX IT DAMN IT! Am I master of the list? If I am we're in trouble, obviously. Am I my brothers keeper?

And you have made me wonder if we shouldn't come up with a list of fundamentals required of the Recovery?.?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

On the first part, I'm not sure yet what you are driving at. Please go on.

On the last part: WELL! FIX IT DAMN IT! Am I master of the list? If I am we're in trouble, obviously. Am I my brothers keeper?

And you have made me wonder if we shouldn't come up with a list of fundamentals required of the Recovery?.?

I don't know why you think that's required. But, I thought it might be interesting to look at how Nee and Lee viewed the relation of the Lord's Recovery to Christian fundamentalism.

Watchman Nee had this to say about fundamentalism:

In [Matthew 13] verse 30 there is the binding into bundles. Men have now bound themselves into associations. In an effort to become more intimate, they have bound themselves into " bundles." This bundling has already begun. By studying church history in detail, we can see that within the past one hundred years since 1828, the truths of the Bible have been selected out one by one. Those who believe, believe; those who do not believe, do not believe. Those who preach the personal gospel, preach the personal gospel; those who preach the social gospel, preach the social gospel. Those who preach premillennialism, preach premillennialism; those who preach postmillennialism, preach postmillennialism. Yes is yes, and no is no. Twenty years ago the mixing in the church was very serious. It was not until 1915 that fundamentalism came into existence, and a division took place. Now the tares are being bound into bundles. A sign of Christ's second coming is this "binding into bundles," that is, the so-called fellowship. Men such as Fosdick have been exposed as modernists by the missionaries of the China Inland Mission. The binding into bundles is for burning. (Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 1) Vol. 15: Study on Matthew, Chapter 14, Section 6)

Witness lee had this to say:

Today the Lord's desire is to recover the proper church life. From the time of Martin Luther, the Lord began His recovery work in a definite way. Within the Lord's recovery there have been four main categories of things: (1) the teachings or doctrines of fundamentalism, (2) the gifts of Pentecostalism, (3) the preaching and spreading of the gospel of evangelicalism, and (4) the inner life. The Lord's recovery has passed through these stages to reach the present-day recovery of the local churches. All the previous recovery work is for this present-day recovery, the building up of the local churches for the building up of the Body of Christ. We need to take Christ as our inner life for the building up of the church.(The Experience of Christ as Life for the Building Up of the Church, Chapter 6, Section 4)

May the Lord make us very clear that the local churches in the Lord's recovery are absolutely different from today's Christianity. Christianity is composed mainly of formalism or fundamentalism or Pentecostalism. Formalism stresses correct forms; fundamentalism emphasizes teachings and doctrines; Pentecostalism emphasizes the gifts. However, in the local churches we need one unique thing—the growth in life. We do not need other things. Although people may have been helped by formalism, fundamentalism, or Pentecostalism, the subtle enemy will do his best to prevent them from proceeding further than these three things. We all must see that the Lord's recovery primarily needs the growth in life. Although we may have received some help from formalism, fundamentalism, or Pentecostalism, we must proceed further to seek the growth in life. Only the growth in life can bring us to the goal. The Kingdom, Chapter 14, Section 5)

Under all the devastating heresies and the incomplete fundamentalism, the truth concerning the all-inclusive Christ of God needs a drastic recovery in many aspects. (The Crucial Points of the Major Items of the Lord's Recovery, Chapter 1, Section 8)

As the ultimate manifestation of the fullness of the Godhead, He[Christ] is the reality of every part of the holy city. He will be magnified there with all His riches to the uttermost as everything in the ultimate manifestation of God's economy. There will be no more religion, no more doctrine, no more teaching, and no more regulations, forms, and rituals. There will be no more “-isms”—no more heathenism, no more paganism, no more Catholicism, no more Protestantism, no more fundamentalism, no more Pentecostalism, no more denominationalism, and no more sectarianism. Christ will be everything. All religious things will be past; everything will be purely Christ. There will be no ground for anything religious—Christ will have all the ground. Everywhere and everything will be Christ. Christ will be the center and the circumference. Christ will be the inward content and the outward expression. Christ will be all in all! Hallelujah! May Christ be such in every local church today! Amen!(Christ versus Religion, Chapter 14, Section 4)

From these quotations I take it that Nee and Lee embraced fundamentalism as part of the Lord's Recovery that had not gone far enough. I take Lee's last quote to be an utterance of a kind of ecstatic vision rather than as a negation of the other statements. What do you think?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

On the first part, I'm not sure yet what you are driving at. Please go on.

On the last part: WELL! FIX IT DAMN IT! Am I master of the list? If I am we're in trouble, obviously. Am I my brothers keeper?

And you have made me wonder if we shouldn't come up with a list of fundamentals required of the Recovery?.?

I let you and zeek work on the last question you stated. Here is updated list since we are all in this together:
Latest list of Fundamentals:

1) Must be born again
2) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture
3) Virgin birth of Jesus
4) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
5) Bodily resurrection & ascension of Jesus
6) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
7) Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the Bible
- a) Creationism
- b) Pro-Life
8) Rapture, Heaven and Kingdom of God
9) The actual existence of Satan
10) The Trinity -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each wholly God, co-equal and distinct yet One God
11) Jesus was 100% human and 100% God
12) God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient
13) The Church---the Body of Christ
14) The church rejects all those that don't hold to all the fundamentals

[aron]

Originally Posted by Dave

I let you and zeek work on the last question you stated. Here is updated list since we are all in this together:
Latest list of Fundamentals:

1) Must be born again
2) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture
3) Virgin birth of Jesus
4) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
5) Bodily resurrection & ascension of Jesus
6) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
7) Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the Bible
- a) Creationism
- b) Pro-Life
8) Rapture, Heaven and Kingdom of God
9) The actual existence of Satan
10) The Trinity -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each wholly God, co-equal and distinct yet One God
11) Jesus was 100% human and 100% God
12) God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient
13) The Church---the Body of Christ
14) The church rejects all those that don't hold to all the fundamentals

Women are subordinate. "I do not permit a woman to teach", etc.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Women are subordinate. "I do not permit a woman to teach", etc.

WOW! aron. That's an obvious one. Well grounded in scripture, the second fundamental (or first - the scripture reveals the need for being born again, so on second thought, inerrancy comes first - chicken/egg thing).

And maybe "Women are subordinate" with sub-categories: a) No Pants, b) Head Covering

So new list. I'll try not to mess this one up. I'll just copy Dave's, -- thanks Dave -- and add subordinated women somewhere in the list.

What about the wine/grape juice requirements for Lord's table? Not sure about that one. But Lord's table should be a fundamental, don't you think?

I'm still warming up to a list of Recovery fundamentals. In spite of the quotes Zeek presented, where Lee basically claims the Recovery goes beyond formalism, fundamentalism, and Pentecostalism -- Lee's Recovery always had to be God's latest and greatest -- seems to me the two lists would overlap.

New List:

1) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture
2) Must be born again
3) Virgin birth of Jesus
4) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
5) Bodily resurrection & ascension of Jesus
6) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
7) Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the Bible
- a) Creationism
- b) Pro-Life
8) Rapture, Heaven and Kingdom of God
9) The actual existence of Satan
10) The Trinity -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each wholly God, co-equal and distinct yet One God
11) Jesus was 100% human and 100% God
12) God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient
13) The Church---the Body of Christ
14) Lord's Table
15) Women are subordinate
- a) No Pants
- b) Head Covering
16) The church rejects all those that don't hold to all the fundamentals

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

WOW! aron. That's an obvious one. Well grounded in scripture, the second fundamental (or first - the scripture reveals the need for being born again, so on second thought, inerrancy comes first - chicken/egg thing).

And maybe "Women are subordinate" with sub-categories: a) No Pants, b) Head Covering

So new list. I'll try not to mess this one up. I'll just copy Dave's, -- thanks Dave -- and add subordinated women somewhere in the list.

What about the wine/grape juice requirements for Lord's table? Not sure about that one. But Lord's table should be a fundamental, don't you think?

I'm still warming up to a list of Recovery fundamentals. In spite of the quotes Zeek presented, where Lee basically claims the Recovery goes beyond formalism, fundamentalism, and Pentecostalism -- Lee's Recovery always had to be God's latest and greatest -- seems to me the two lists would overlap.

New List:

1) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture
2) Must be born again
3) Virgin birth of Jesus
4) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
5) Bodily resurrection & ascension of Jesus
6) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
7) Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the Bible
- a) Creationism
- b) Pro-Life
8) Rapture, Heaven and Kingdom of God
9) The actual existence of Satan
10) The Trinity -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each wholly God, co-equal and distinct yet One God
11) Jesus was 100% human and 100% God
12) God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient
13) The Church---the Body of Christ
14) Lord's Table
15) Women are subordinate
- a) No Pants
- b) Head Covering
16) The church rejects all those that don't hold to all the fundamentals

I am reordering the fundamentals listing the most fundamentals which Christians would agree upon and, for example, the last two where there might be some debate even though scripture seems to support those fundamentals. We could add "...baptism on behalf of the dead..." 1 Corinthians 15:29 but again there would be debate on that issue. I just have not read anything that clarifies what Paul wrote in that verse including the idea that there was a nearby city where pagans were practicing this, Paul was just referencing them but in 1 Corinthians 15 he is trying to clarify some pagan teachings so why would he all of a sudden reference a pagan teaching in a nearby city to support what he is trying to clarify. Doesn't make any sense but it is not noted elsewhere in the NT that I can find. I have added "physical rapture" to combat the idea that the rapture is merely "spiritual". Also, 2nd Coming is added to that line of Rapture, Heaven etc.

Latest list of Fundamentals:

1) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of all 66 books of scripture (OT and NT)
2) Must be born again
3) God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient
4) Virgin birth of Jesus
5) Jesus was 100% human and 100% God
6) The Trinity -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each wholly God, co-equal and distinct yet One God
7) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
8) Bodily resurrection & ascension of Jesus
9) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
10) The actual existence of Satan
11) The 2^nd Coming, Physical Rapture, Heaven, Kingdom of God
12) Body of Christ – Oneness with all Christians -- in reality and practice
13) Lord's Table
14) Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the Bible
- a) Creationism
- b) Pro-Life
15) Women are subordinate
- a) No Pants
- b) Head Covering
- c) No teaching in Church
16) The church rejects all those that don't hold to all the fundamentals

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

We could add "...baptism on behalf of the dead..." 1 Corinthians 15:29 but again there would be debate on that issue.

Yes, it would be in the list of fundamentals for Mormons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism...hurch_doctrine

But I doubt the founders at Princeton, of the five fundamentals, would accept it in their list.

However, I think "Baptism by immersion" would be included.

Thanks for your work on the list bro Dave, and to Ohio and aron, and of course Zeek.

Latest list of Fundamentals:

1) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of all 66 books of scripture (OT and NT)
2) Must be born again
3) Baptism by immersion
4) God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient
5) Virgin birth of Jesus
6) Jesus was 100% human and 100% God
7) The Trinity-Father, Son & Holy Spirit each wholly God, co-equal, distinct yet One God
8) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
9) Bodily resurrection & ascension of Jesus
10) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
11) The actual existence of Satan
12) The 2nd Coming, Physical Rapture, Heaven, Kingdom of God
13) Body of Christ – Oneness with all Christians -- in reality and practice
14) Lord's Table
15) Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the Bible
- a) Creationism
- b) Pro-Life
16) Women are subordinate
- a) No Pants
- b) Head Covering
- c) No teaching in Church
17) The church rejects all Christians that don't hold to all the fundamentals

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, it would be in the list of fundamentals for Mormons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism...hurch_doctrine

But I doubt the founders at Princeton, of the five fundamentals, would accept it in their list.

However, I think "Baptism by immersion" would be included.

Thanks for your work on the list bro Dave, and to Ohio and aron, and of course Zeek.

Latest list of Fundamentals:

1) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of all 66 books of scripture (OT and NT)
2) Must be born again
3) Baptism by immersion
4) God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient
5) Virgin birth of Jesus
6) Jesus was 100% human and 100% God
7) The Trinity-Father, Son & Holy Spirit each wholly God, co-equal, distinct yet One God
8) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
9) Bodily resurrection & ascension of Jesus
10) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
11) The actual existence of Satan
12) The 2nd Coming, Physical Rapture, Heaven, Kingdom of God
13) Body of Christ – Oneness with all Christians -- in reality and practice
14) Lord's Table
15) Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the Bible
- a) Creationism
- b) Pro-Life
16) Women are subordinate
- a) No Pants
- b) Head Covering
- c) No teaching in Church
17) The church rejects all Christians that don't hold to all the fundamentals

I am adding #19, The church rejects all extra fundamental doctrines. Someone could possibly believe all of the fundamental doctrines but also believe for example in the Pope as an extra fundamental doctrine. You can’t hold any beliefs outside of the fundamental doctrines. I also added, Christ is the Head of the Church #14


Latest list of Fundamentals:

1) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of all 66 books of scripture (OT and NT)
2) Must be born again
3) Baptism by immersion
4) God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient
5) Virgin birth of Jesus
6) Jesus was 100% human and 100% God
7) The Trinity-Father, Son & Holy Spirit each wholly God, co-equal, distinct yet One God
8) Christ's death was the atonement for sin
9) Bodily resurrection & ascension of Jesus
10) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
11) The actual existence of Satan
12) The 2nd Coming, Physical Rapture, Heaven, Kingdom of God
13) Body of Christ – Oneness with all Christians -- in reality and practice
14) Christ is the Head of the Church
15) Lord's Table
16) Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the Bible
- a) Creationism
- b) Pro-Life
17) Women are subordinate
- a) No Pants
- b) Head Covering
- c) No teaching in Church
18) The church rejects all Christians that don't hold to all the fundamentals
19) The church rejects all extra fundamental doctrines

[awareness]

19 so far.

Latest list of Fundamentals - Some modifications:

1) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of all 66 books of scripture (OT and NT)
2) Must be born again
3) Baptism by immersion
4) God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient
5) Virgin birth of Jesus
6) Jesus was 100% human and 100% God
7) The Trinity-Father, Son & Holy Spirit each wholly God, co-equal, distinct yet One God
8) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
9) Bodily resurrection & ascension of Jesus
10) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
11) The actual existence of Satan
12) The 2nd Coming, Physical Rapture, Heaven, Kingdom of God
13) Body of Christ–Oneness with all Christians of the fundamentals-in reality and practice
14) Christ is the Head of the Church
15) Lord's Table
16) Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the Bible
- a) Creationism
- b) Pro-Life
17) Women are subordinate
- a) No Pants
- b) Head Covering
- c) No teaching in Church
18) The church rejects all Christians that don't hold to all the fundamentals
19) The church rejects all extra fundamental doctrines

[zeek]

Can you guys point to any prominent representative of Christian Fundamentalism out there who professes exactly those 19 fundamentals? If not, I mean, you're not claiming that they're your fundamentals are you?

As your list grew, it occurred to me that on the basis of inerrancy someone might conclude that everything the bible teaches is fundamental. Then I came across this:

Confessional Lutheran churches reject the fundamentalist position and believe that all Biblical teachings are essential:
Are there some "non-essential" or "non-fundamental" teachings about which we can safely disagree? If they believe the answer is "yes," that in itself is already reason for alarm. The Bible teaches that no teachings of the Bible can safely be set aside. "Agreeing to disagree" is really not God-pleasing agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Can you guys point to any prominent representative of Christian Fundamentalism out there who professes exactly those 19 fundamentals? If not, I mean, you're not claiming that they're your fundamentals are you?
]As your list grew, it occurred to me that on the basis of inerrancy someone might conclude that everything the bible teaches is fundamental. Then I came across this:

Confessional Lutheran churches reject the fundamentalist position and believe that all Biblical teachings are essential:
Are there some "non-essential" or "non-fundamental" teachings about which we can safely disagree? If they believe the answer is "yes," that in itself is already reason for alarm. The Bible teaches that no teachings of the Bible can safely be set aside. "Agreeing to disagree" is really not God-pleasing agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism

Thanks zeek I just added your two inputs to the list of fundamental teachings i.e. #15 and #16. However, your inputs become relevant because of the other fundamentals that we have listed. Otherwise, they would be questionable. What we have listed are foundational Christian teachings which fundamentalists teach and believe. Find us a fundamentalist who doesn't agree with our list:

Latest list of Fundamentals:

1) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of all 66 books of scripture (OT and NT)
2) Must be born again
3) Baptism by immersion
4) God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient
5) Virgin birth of Jesus
6) Jesus was 100% human and 100% God
7) The Trinity-Father, Son & Holy Spirit each wholly God, co-equal, distinct yet One God
8) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
9) Bodily resurrection & ascension of Jesus
10) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
11) The actual existence of Satan
12) The 2nd Coming, Physical Rapture, Heaven, Kingdom of God
13) Body of Christ – Oneness with all Christians -- in reality and practice
14) Lord's Table
15) All Biblical Teachings are Essential
16) No teachings of the Bible can safely be set aside
17) Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the Bible
- a) Creationism
- b) Pro-Life
18) Women are subordinate
- a) No Pants
- b) Head Covering
- c) No teaching in Church
19) The church rejects all Christians that don't hold to all the fundamentals
20) The church rejects all extra fundamental doctrines

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Thanks zeek I just added your two inputs to the list of fundamental teachings i.e. #15 and #16. However, your inputs become relevant because of the other fundamentals that we have listed. Otherwise, they would be questionable. What we have listed are foundational Christian teachings which fundamentalists teach and believe. Find us a fundamentalist who doesn't agree with our list:

Latest list of Fundamentals:

1) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of all 66 books of scripture (OT and NT)
2) Must be born again
3) Baptism by immersion
4) God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient
5) Virgin birth of Jesus
6) Jesus was 100% human and 100% God
7) The Trinity-Father, Son & Holy Spirit each wholly God, co-equal, distinct yet One God
8) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
9) Bodily resurrection & ascension of Jesus
10) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
11) The actual existence of Satan
12) The 2nd Coming, Physical Rapture, Heaven, Kingdom of God
13) Body of Christ – Oneness with all Christians -- in reality and practice
14) Lord's Table
15) All Biblical Teachings are Essential
16) No teachings of the Bible can safely be set aside
17) Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the Bible
- a) Creationism
- b) Pro-Life
18) Women are subordinate
- a) No Pants
- b) Head Covering
- c) No teaching in Church
19) The church rejects all Christians that don't hold to all the fundamentals
20) The church rejects all extra fundamental doctrines

Good point Dave. Clearly, the list you and awareness and aron have compiled is well supported by research showing that everyone who calls him or her self a Christian Fundamentalist always and everywhere proclaims the 20 items you have listed. So, it follows that the burden falls upon me to produce that black swan: the fundamentalist who balks at at least one of these items or adds at least one item to them. If you would be so kind as to simply add one more item to the list, I will jump right on my assignment. Just add a description what a fundamentalist looks like so I will know for sure if I have found one or not before I interrogate him or her with your list.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Good point Dave. Clearly, the list you and awareness and aron have compiled is well supported by research showing that everyone who calls him or her self a Christian Fundamentalist always and everywhere proclaims the 20 items you have listed. So, it follows that the burden falls upon me to produce that black swan: the fundamentalist who balks at at least one of these items or adds at least one item to them. If you would be so kind as to simply add one more item to the list, I will jump right on my assignment. Just add a description what a fundamentalist looks like so I will know for sure if I have found one or not before I interrogate him or her with your list.

There is a link on this forum which outlines "Systematic Theology" and within the framework of this are additional fundamental teachings which would help us further identify "fundamental" teachings--- make sure you scroll down to the last post which has outline of fundamental teachings: http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=3179 I would note that Wayne Gruden's book, "Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine" is 1264 pages so it is not a quick read but if you wish to have a better understanding of fundamentalism then reading it would be helpful. Another book by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears titled, “Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe” was mentioned as an alternative which is only 464 pages. Or you could help us in our endeavor in identifying what are considered fundamental doctrines that every fundamentalist could/should agree to. What does this person look like? You'll know one when you meet one. Back to our list:

Latest list of Fundamentals:

1) Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of all 66 books of scripture (OT and NT)
2) Must be born again
3) Baptism by immersion
4) God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient
5) Virgin birth of Jesus
6) Jesus was 100% human and 100% God
7) The Trinity-Father, Son & Holy Spirit each wholly God, co-equal, distinct yet One God
8) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
9) Bodily resurrection & ascension of Jesus
10) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
11) The actual existence of Satan
12) The 2nd Coming, Physical Rapture, Heaven, Kingdom of God
13) Body of Christ – Oneness with all Christians -- in reality and practice
14) Lord's Table
15) All Biblical Teachings are Essential
16) No teachings of the Bible can safely be set aside
17) Disagreement with scientific findings which directly conflict with the Bible
- a) Creationism
- b) Pro-Life
18) Women are subordinate
- a) No Pants
- b) Head Covering
- c) No teaching in Church
19) The church rejects all Christians that don't hold to all the fundamentals
20) The church rejects all extra fundamental doctrines

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

If you would be so kind as to simply add one more item to the list, I will jump right on my assignment. Just add a description what a fundamentalist looks like so I will know for sure if I have found one or not before I interrogate him or her with your list.

But fundamentalists looks like everybody else.

Once I called my cousin, a very conservative Southern Baptist, a fundamentalist. He took offense and said, "so now I'm a fundamentalist." When I asked if he held to the five fundamentals he said yes.

So if you want to find out what a fundamentalist looks like you're gonna have to interrogate first to find out.

But Dave is right, my cousin would not disagree with one thing on our list of fundamentals. Just don't call him a fundamentalist. Real fundamentalists prefer to be stealth. If they encounter someone new to their faith they will not tell them at first that they have to join the fundamentals. They will say, "all you need is Jesus." The fundamentals will come along eventually, after they are hooked. Then they need more than just Jesus.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would join up if they read all the fundamentals first.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

But fundamentalists looks like everybody else.

Once I called my cousin, a very conservative Southern Baptist, a fundamentalist. He took offense and said, "so now I'm a fundamentalist." When I asked if he held to the five fundamentals he said yes.

So if you want to find out what a fundamentalist looks like you're gonna have to interrogate first to find out.

But Dave is right, my cousin would not disagree with one thing on our list of fundamentals. Just don't call him a fundamentalist. Real fundamentalists prefer to be stealth. If they encounter someone new to their faith they will not tell them at first that they have to join the fundamentals. They will say, "all you need is Jesus." The fundamentals will come along eventually, after they are hooked. Then they need more than just Jesus.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would join up if they read all the fundamentals first.

I don't think you need to interrogate anyone. It's like the sayings we have all heard, "you might be a redneck". Same thing, there are certain actions/words that fundamentalists perform/say where you would say, "You might be a fundamentalist"... If someone says, "I belong to the Tea Party", I would say, "You might be a fundamentalist". If they say they are Pro-life and are going to march in front of an abortion clinic, I would say, "You might be a fundamentalist" IF they believe in Intelligent Design, I would say, "You might be a fundamentalist" If someone says, "I teach Bible studies at the Baptist Church", I would say, "You might be a fundamentalist". ...Can you think of any others?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

But fundamentalists looks like everybody else.

Once I called my cousin, a very conservative Southern Baptist, a fundamentalist. He took offense and said, "so now I'm a fundamentalist." When I asked if he held to the five fundamentals he said yes.

So if you want to find out what a fundamentalist looks like you're gonna have to interrogate first to find out.

But Dave is right, my cousin would not disagree with one thing on our list of fundamentals. Just don't call him a fundamentalist. Real fundamentalists prefer to be stealth. If they encounter someone new to their faith they will not tell them at first that they have to join the fundamentals. They will say, "all you need is Jesus." The fundamentals will come along eventually, after they are hooked. Then they need more than just Jesus.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would join up if they read all the fundamentals first.

It is an historical fact that a group of people defined themselves by five fundamental beliefs. Maybe some still do. That anyone defines themselves by the 20 beliefs you have listed is a proposition without evidence to support it at the moment. As I indicated when I started this thread, fundamentalism has taken on negative connotations so people don't like to be labeled by the term.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

I don't think you need to interrogate anyone. It's like the sayings we have all heard, "you might be a redneck". Same thing, there are certain actions/words that fundamentalists perform/say where you would say, "You might be a fundamentalist"... If someone says, "I belong to the Tea Party", I would say, "You might be a fundamentalist". If they say they are Pro-life and are going to march in front of an abortion clinic, I would say, "You might be a fundamentalist" IF they believe in Intelligent Design, I would say, "You might be a fundamentalist" If someone says, "I teach Bible studies at the Baptist Church", I would say, "You might be a fundamentalist". ...Can you think of any others?

"Red neck" is a stereotype. Maybe that's what "fundamentalist" has become. "Might be" implies "might not be". In other words, the ontological status of the proposed entity is shaky.

[UntoHim]

So fellows, I'm getting a pretty good picture of what you think the Bible is NOT - It's not inerrant, the presentation of creation is not accurate, the presentation of the miracles and resurrection of Jesus Christ were just fairy tells and wishful thinking by a group of gullible followers (in other words the Gospels are not an accurate testimony/account) Satan is just some make believe character invented in the wild imagination of Moses or whoever wrote the book of Genesis (Satan is not a real being/creature as portrayed in the OT or NT) There is not a heaven or hell (as clearly depicted in the Bible) If there is an afterlife we have absolutely no way to know anything about it.

I won't get into all the stereotypes/ad hominems because they have nothing to do with the Bible and that's all I care about in the context of "fundamentalism". My interest is in what DO YOU BELIEVE? I think we've all got a good grasp on what you DO NOT BELIEVE. Is your whole spiritual worldview just a collection of what you don't belief? You have faith IN NOTHING? If God exists he is just as impotent and limited as we mortals?

Sorry to sidetrack you guys for a minute or two.

Carry on!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Red neck" is a stereotype. Maybe that's what "fundamentalist" has become. "Might be" implies "might not be". In other words, the ontological status of the proposed entity is shaky.

What's really getting a bit finny is the way that fundamentalists are beginning to be chastised in this thread the way the fundamentalists we are speaking about talk about everyone else. That sort of makes each of us into our own variant of fundamentalists. We like our fundamentals and don't like those of certain others. And so we make a big deal about people who don't toe our line.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So fellows, I'm getting a pretty good picture of what you think the Bible is NOT - It's not inerrant, the presentation of creation is not accurate, the presentation of the miracles and resurrection of Jesus Christ were just fairy tells and wishful thinking by a group of gullible followers (in other words the Gospels are not an accurate testimony/account) Satan is just some make believe character invented in the wild imagination of Moses or whoever wrote the book of Genesis (Satan is not a real being/creature as portrayed in the OT or NT) There is not a heaven or hell (as clearly depicted in the Bible) If there is an afterlife we have absolutely no way to know anything about it.

I won't get into all the stereotypes/ad hominems because they have nothing to do with the Bible and that's all I care about in the context of "fundamentalism". My interest is in what DO YOU BELIEVE? I think we've all got a good grasp on what you DO NOT BELIEVE. Is your whole spiritual worldview just a collection of what you don't belief? You have faith IN NOTHING? If God exists he is just as impotent and limited as we mortals?

Sorry to sidetrack you guys for a minute or two.

Carry on!

As I have noted repeatedly I am a Unitarian Christian. My basic beliefs include the inherent worth and dignity of every person (this is taught in the NT by Jesus in the way he treated women, the downtrodden, the sick, the poor etc), revelation is open and continuous (which means "in part" that we need to take into consideration science if it is relevant to our beliefs), relationships should be consensual and not coercive (I am opposed to relationships in churches where there is a hierarchy—e.g. Pope, Bishops), encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations etc. I mentioned Intelligent Design but I have Stephen Meyer’s book, Darwin’s Doubt and have listened to him on youtube. It is an interesting concept and I am open to hearing his point of view because it might be a twist in science but Christians have rallied to that concept thinking that it will solve so many problems and he is aware it will not necessarily help them prove creation as outlined in the Bible.

We listed the fundamentals of Christian faith on this Alternative Views thread titled, “Fundamentalism” because we thought it was appropriate and interesting to do so. zeek wanted to know how he could determine if someone was a fundamentalist. I thought the example of “you might be a redneck” based on actions of a fundamentalist might fit. My basis for this in part are my relatives many of whom I brought into the LC back in Detroit and who followed me to Ft. Lauderdale but are now out of the LC (years after I left) and have turned into “fundamentalists” if you will. They all spew hate toward the President, people who believe differently than they do etc. They are all Tea Party, gun carriers, Bible quoters, Messianic Jewish Christians but they are my “friends” on facebook, also we talk on the phone on occasion and I visit them occasionally. They tolerate me and I tolerate them I guess in the scheme of things but we all get along.

For me, the LCD is a fish bowl of interest…after I left the LC in 1978 I went through several phases of withdrawal which I would imagine everyone does. I can only identify them now as I look back. In fact, based on my observations it appears that the more involved a person was in the LC the more difficulty they have in separation. While the book Snapping with Conway and Siegelman does not include the LC they could very well have included them if they were aware of the LC at the time of their writing. On the LCD I see a variety of people who have been in the LC for different periods of time or maybe are still there. There are those whose parents raised them in the LC and it caused me to reflect upon one of the reasons I didn’t stay in the LC, I didn’t want to raise my children in it because it was becoming problematic.

BTW...I am glad you can believe in all the things you have listed in the first paragraph where you indicated that we do not believe in them. It is your conclusion that we believe they are "fairy tales" ...never said that but all of those issues are a matter of faith and a litmus test for being a "believer" and so is everything you listed. If you just want me to quote scripture (which I have quoted frequently) and not talk about anything that is not theological then just let me know. Let's just throw out historical, textual and just quote people who agree with the basic fundamentalist point of view. Where does that lead us to?: probably boredom

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

My basis for this in part are my relatives many of whom I brought into the LC back in Detroit and who followed me to Ft. Lauderdale but are now out of the LC (years after I left) and have turned into “fundamentalists” if you will. They all spew hate toward the President, people who believe differently than they do etc. They are all Tea Party, gun carriers, Bible quoters, Messianic Jewish Christians

"THEY ALL"...I thought liberal, open-minded people never use terms like this...and didn't stereotype cause that would be thinking like a ignorant, backward thinking fundamentalist But maybe you are taking your que from our President who proclaimed that anyone of faith is "bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them". Again, much of what you guys have characterized as "fundamentalism" has NOTHING to do with the actual Biblical Gospel which is the basis of the genuine Christian Faith. You guys list a bunch of biblical teachings but you really want to delve into cultural, sociopolitical stuff...and that's fine I guess, but I wish you wouldn't disguise it under the banner of biblical "fundamentalism".

BTW...I am glad you can believe in all the things you have listed in the first paragraph where you indicated that we do not believe in them. It is your conclusion that we believe they are "fairy tales" ...never said that but they are simply a matter of faith and so is everything you listed.

Originally Posted by awareness

2) Virgin birth of JesusMedical and scientific learning calls such a thing as human virgin births impossible. In fact it's fantasy land thinking.

This was re-quoted by several posters without the slightest wince from anyone...except me. I doubt you missed this quote.

If you just want me to quote scripture (which I have quoted frequently) and not talk about anything that is not theological then just let me know. Let's just throw out historical, textual and just quote people who agree with the fundamentalists.

Never said that but if you have no interest in discussing matters of the Christian faith (of which the Local Church - the STATED TOPIC of this forum - is a sect within) without abject stereotyping and pathetic pigeonholing then I've just gotta tell you that that is not what I had in mind for "Alternative Views". I plainly asked you guys for a description of what you had in mind for this forum board and I guess I misread you guys because I didn't think you wanted to turn it into a sociopolitical discussion, only using the Bible and the teachings and practices of the Local Church as a cover to get to what you really want to rant about.

PS: I don't get so much of this impression from zeek, mostly from Dave and awareness.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So fellows, I'm getting a pretty good picture of what you think the Bible is NOT - It's not inerrant, the presentation of creation is not accurate, the presentation of the miracles and resurrection of Jesus Christ were just fairy tells and wishful thinking by a group of gullible followers (in other words the Gospels are not an accurate testimony/account) Satan is just some make believe character invented in the wild imagination of Moses or whoever wrote the book of Genesis (Satan is not a real being/creature as portrayed in the OT or NT) There is not a heaven or hell (as clearly depicted in the Bible) If there is an afterlife we have absolutely no way to know anything about it.

I won't get into all the stereotypes/ad hominems because they have nothing to do with the Bible and that's all I care about in the context of "fundamentalism". My interest is in what DO YOU BELIEVE? I think we've all got a good grasp on what you DO NOT BELIEVE. Is your whole spiritual worldview just a collection of what you don't belief? You have faith IN NOTHING? If God exists he is just as impotent and limited as we mortals?

Sorry to sidetrack you guys for a minute or two.

Carry on!

Well said old man! And a right cheery riposte it was! I do believe in God after all!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

What's really getting a bit finny is the way that fundamentalists are beginning to be chastised in this thread the way the fundamentalists we are speaking about talk about everyone else. That sort of makes each of us into our own variant of fundamentalists. We like our fundamentals and don't like those of certain others. And so we make a big deal about people who don't toe our line.

I asked what are everybody's fundamentals were a while back. Got no ANSWER. [Didn't answer myself.] It's easier for the EGO to identify another's hypothetical values than to discover what your own might be. The fundamentalist has become the OTHER. The fundamentalist was once someone's self -confessed self identity. Is it still? Stay tuned.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"THEY ALL"...I thought liberal, open-minded people never use terms like this...and didn't stereotype cause that would be thinking like a ignorant, backward thinking fundamentalist But maybe you are taking your que from our President who proclaimed that anyone of faith is "bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them". Again, much of what you guys have characterized as "fundamentalism" has NOTHING to do with the actual Biblical Gospel which is the basis of the genuine Christian Faith. You guys list a bunch of biblical teachings but you really want to delve into cultural, sociopolitical stuff...and that's fine I guess, but I wish you wouldn't disguise it under the banner of biblical "fundamentalism".





This was re-quoted by several posters without the slightest wince from anyone...except me. I doubt you missed this quote.



Never said that but if you have no interest in discussing matters of the Christian faith (of which the Local Church - the STATED TOPIC of this forum - is a sect within) without abject stereotyping and pathetic pigeonholing then I've just gotta tell you that that is not what I had in mind for "Alternative Views". I plainly asked you guys for a description of what you had in mind for this forum board and I guess I misread you guys because I didn't think you wanted to turn it into a sociopolitical discussion, only using the Bible and the teachings and practices of the Local Church as a cover to get to what you really want to rant about.

PS: I don't get so much of this impression from zeek, mostly from Dave and awareness.

Whoa Bro! Tell me how you really feel! But seriously I posted earlier about the positions of Nee and Lee with regard to Fundamentalism. Nee was well aware of the movement and I would say embraced it at least as far as it went from his point of view. They both regarded the fundamentals as recovered truths. But the Lord's Recovery had moved on. As Lee said, " the building up of the local churches for the building up of the Body of Christ. We need to take Christ as our inner life for the building up of the church."

And Lee said this, "....we must proceed further to seek the growth in life. Only the growth in life can bring us to the goal." Have they succeeded? Was the goal too lofty? Too vague? Would we know it if we saw it? Is it what God wants? Where did they go wrong? Can they get back on track? What about the rest of us?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

I asked what are everybody's fundamentals were a while back. Got no ANSWER. [Didn't answer myself.]

This is absolutely a legitimate beef. The reason I didn't chime in right away is I wanted to see if the discussion would actually address what biblical fundamentalism is (should be?) all about - to wit - believing by faith in the primary metanarrative of the creation, the fall and affects of the fall to all of said creation; the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Gospels, and the primary mission of the church as clearly stated by Jesus Christ and by the scripture writing apostles. These are the fundamentals and everything else is of secondary (at best) significance. The church has been divided and the true Gospel has been clouded and/or corrupted by those who would make the secondary issues as something primary to the Christian faith.

What's even more sad, in my view, is that there are people who have now equated the Christian faith with all sorts of sociopolitical controversies that have NOTHING to do with the core teachings of the genuine Christian Gospel, or even the Christian faith in general. This includes many within "Christianity" itself, those who would include themselves as "former members of Christianity" and those who have never had any experience with Christianity at all. Even a casual reader of the Gospels could easily see that Jesus Christ did not address any of the sociopolitical ills of his time (of which there were many). His "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's" quip was probably about as close as you could get to this. And believe you me, there was an abundance of such concerns during the times of the scripture writing apostles, yet we don't see them spend much time or energy addressing such issues or concerns. And I would submit that Jesus Christ was the ultimate fundamentalist, with the scripture writing apostles coming in at a close second.

We later day followers can't even hold a puny little candle to the scripture writing apostles, much less the Original Apostle of our faith. Everyone else is a far, far distant third place. So all this talk and fuss about fundamentalist in the 21st century is really missing the point about what Christian fundamentalism is all about. Christian fundamentalism is about CHRIST and His Gospel, which by extension is expounded and expanded by the scripture writing apostles. All the other extraneous things (secondary teachings, sociopolitical concerns, etc, etc, etc) are NOT fundamental to the Christian faith and never have been.

It's easier for the EGO to identify another's hypothetical values than to discover what your own might be. The fundamentalist has become the OTHER. The fundamentalist was once someone's self -confessed self identity. Is it still? Stay tuned.

Whoa bro! Lost me on this one.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"THEY ALL"...I thought liberal, open-minded people never use terms like this...and didn't stereotype cause that would be thinking like a ignorant, backward thinking fundamentalist But maybe you are taking your que from our President who proclaimed that anyone of faith is "bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them". Again, much of what you guys have characterized as "fundamentalism" has NOTHING to do with the actual Biblical Gospel which is the basis of the genuine Christian Faith. You guys list a bunch of biblical teachings but you really want to delve into cultural, sociopolitical stuff...and that's fine I guess, but I wish you wouldn't disguise it under the banner of biblical "fundamentalism".

When I used the words "THEY ALL" I specifically was referencing my relatives which I thought I made clear. I have spoken with them enough to say "THEY ALL". Unfortunately, this is also true for "fundamentalists" on my wife's side of the family. Do you see a pattern here? On the other hand, I am sure there are those in the Christian faith who are focused on Christ and not on sociopolitical issues. I just haven't encountered them. In addition, you just quoted the President out of context but I could care less what he states. In addition, we were listing the "fundamentals" and it was other posters who brought up the sociocultural issues which were added to the list rather than awareness or I.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This was re-quoted by several posters without the slightest wince from anyone...except me. I doubt you missed this quote.

You responded earlier to the quote so I didn't think it was necessary to make any further statement.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Never said that but if you have no interest in discussing matters of the Christian faith (of which the Local Church - the STATED TOPIC of this forum - is a sect within) without abject stereotyping and pathetic pigeonholing then I've just gotta tell you that that is not what I had in mind for "Alternative Views". I plainly asked you guys for a description of what you had in mind for this forum board and I guess I misread you guys because I didn't think you wanted to turn it into a sociopolitical discussion, only using the Bible and the teachings and practices of the Local Church as a cover to get to what you really want to rant about.

When zeek asked how we would identify a "fundamentalist" after we listed many of the fundamentalist doctrinal staples what came to mind was my relatives. Unfortunately, they seem rather typical i.e. sociopolitically focused which I find to be the downfall of the Christian faith rather than having their focus on the Christian faith.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

PS: I don't get so much of this impression from zeek, mostly from Dave and awareness.

1 out of 3 ain't bad. I alluded to this in my previous post but zeek, awareness and I had not been in contact for nearly 30 years. I had not been in contact with zeek since 1985 at which time he was still in the LC. However, when we reflected on our time since we exited from the LC we discovered that we had taken similar paths and arrived at similar destinations. Certainly they were different paths in many respects but they were similar enough that we could reflectively relate our experiences to a similar outlook. It's all related to our experience in the LC, with the Christian faith etc. our search for the truth etc. However, we each have a different way of expressing our perspectives on this forum. In general, mine is more intentionally concrete and direct, awareness is more outlandish but thought provoking and zeek is more philosophical but again thought provoking. Hopefully all of our viewpoints are worthy of some level of discussion.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is absolutely a legitimate beef. The reason I didn't chime in right away is I wanted to see if the discussion would actually address what biblical fundamentalism is (should be?) all about - to wit - believing by faith in the primary metanarrative of the creation, the fall and affects of the fall to all of said creation; the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Gospels, and the primary mission of the church as clearly stated by Jesus Christ and by the scripture writing apostles. These are the fundamentals and everything else is of secondary (at best) significance. The church has been divided and the true Gospel has been clouded and/or corrupted by those who would make the secondary issues as something primary to the Christian faith.

Nicely put. Interesting that you use the term "metanarrative." Per Wikipedia a metanarrative is:

"a grand narrative common to all. The term refers, in critical theory and particularly in postmodernism, to a comprehensive explanation, a narrative about narratives of historical meaning, experience or knowledge, which offers a society legitimization through the anticipated completion of a (as yet unrealized) master idea.
The term was brought into prominence by Jean-François Lyotard in 1979, with his claim that the postmodern was characterized precisely by a mistrust of the grand narratives (Progress, Enlightenment emancipation, Marxism) that had formed an essential part of modernity."

The idea of the Bible as a counter-metanarrative to modernity may be precisely what Christian Fundamentalism proposes.

What's even more sad, in my view, is that there are people who have now equated the Christian faith with all sorts of sociopolitical controversies that have NOTHING to do with the core teachings of the genuine Christian Gospel, or even the Christian faith in general. This includes many within "Christianity" itself, those who would include themselves as "former members of Christianity" and those who have never had any experience with Christianity at all. Even a casual reader of the Gospels could easily see that Jesus Christ did not address any of the sociopolitical ills of his time (of which there were many). His "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's" quip was probably about as close as you could get to this. And believe you me, there was an abundance of such concerns during the times of the scripture writing apostles, yet we don't see them spend much time or energy addressing such issues or concerns. And I would submit that Jesus Christ was the ultimate fundamentalist, with the scripture writing apostles coming in at a close second.

Fundamentalism seems to be essentially a reaction against modernity. As such, it can take on political dimensions. That doesn't mean that there are not quietistic fundamentalists. Witness Lee's group was relatively quietist as compared with say Jerry Falwell's. Fundamentalism strikes me as anti-intellectual and rigidly but selectively moralistic. The insistence on literalism is unjustified even by the Bible itself. Paul preached against literalism for instance. Faith for him was a matter of the spirit not the letter, a direct refutation of literalism. The fundamentalist insistence on literalism has put it in conflict with science. Science needs the ethical critique of faith, but to treat the Bible as a science book is lunacy. Further to use the Bible to justify subordination of women, a negative attitude toward gays and women, and to make it about personal righteousness over justice, well let's just say that we need to talk about those choices and this might be a fitting place to do so. Finally, there is the fundamentalist exclusivity. To maintain fundamentalist integrity seems to require condemning everyone else. How can it be that God is known only to one religion and then only to the right form of that religion? That's what we ended up with in Lee's local church. It isn't the only way to look at the matter, and other ways of looking are not necessarily wrong.

We later day followers can't even hold a puny little candle to the scripture writing apostles, much less the Original Apostle of our faith. Everyone else is a far, far distant third place. So all this talk and fuss about fundamentalist in the 21st century is really missing the point about what Christian fundamentalism is all about. Christian fundamentalism is about CHRIST and His Gospel, which by extension is expounded and expanded by the scripture writing apostles. All the other extraneous things (secondary teachings, sociopolitical concerns, etc, etc, etc) are NOT fundamental to the Christian faith [B]and never have been.

You raise some interesting positions there, Unto. When Dave humorously suggested the "You might be a fundamentalist if..." trope, I tried it on and sure enough, I'm not a fundamentalist. But, I'm not ready to consign the Bible to obsolescence as Dave has suggested a la Bart Ehrman either. There is much in the Bible that speaks to me but not always as literal historical fact.

Whoa bro! Lost me on this one.

The terms the Other and Otherness refer to who is and what is alien and divergent from the norm, from identity, and from the self. The next step is to demonize the other. Some of us may look at the Fundamentalist as the Other while others may look at the Liberal that way. I want to resist the temptation to do that on this thread.

[awareness]

Finally a true fundamentalist speaks out. We've been needing that.

Today fundamental is a pejorative term, that's being used against Muslim extremists. We've been talking about Christian fundamentalism. What do they have in common, other than religion? What they have in common is their problem and contention with modernity.

The five fundamentals are a direct result of modernity, with its scientific discoveries, methods, and facts. It had become obvious that science was debunking many Christian conceptions and superstitions, that had been held dear to Christianity for centuries. As a result it had become more than obvious that Christianity was under attack by science, so that basic beliefs of Christianity had to be declared to buttress this attack. Thus, in the early 20th century Princeton Theological Seminary took a stand, and declared the five fundamentals of faith. Then, Christian fundamentalism was officially born.

It has been claimed that Jesus was the first fundamentalist. Maybe, but not of the Princeton version. Where, for example, in the record, does Jesus claim that we have to believe in the virgin birth to follow him, or enter into the kingdom? Where does he claim we have to believe the Bible is inerrant? Where does he speak of inerrancy at all? Same for his miracles? Were they fundamental to following him, or entering the kingdom?

We've been criticized for stereotyping fundamentalists. That's a fair complaint. Cuz the fundamentalists are always changing. As it turns out the church has been changed by the world more than the world has been changed by the church. Fundamentalism is evolving.

Just take a look at Princeton Theological Seminary today. After becoming fluent in Greek Bart Ehrman wanted to continue his studies of the Greek manuscripts under Bruce Metzger, the most revered scholar of Greek biblical manuscripts in the country, who happened to teach at Princeton Theological Seminary.

He says,

"so I applied to Princeton, knowing nothing— absolutely nothing— about it, except that Bruce Metzger taught there and that if I wanted to become an expert in Greek manuscripts, Princeton was where I needed to go. I guess I did know one thing about Princeton Seminary: it was not an evangelical institution. And the more I learned about it in the months leading up to my move to New Jersey, the more nervous I became. I learned from friends that Princeton was a “liberal” seminary where they did not hold to the literal truth and verbal inspiration of the Bible. My biggest challenge would not be purely academic, doing well enough in my master’s-level classes to earn the right to go on to do a Ph.D. It would be holding on to my faith in the Bible as the inspired and inerrant Word of God."

So in 60 years PTS went from being fundamental to being liberal, even abandoning the first fundamental. Why? Because they did not hold to, "if our faith is at odds with the facts, so much the worse for the facts." They were honest, and went with the facts. Same with Ehrman, and my self.

I was born into fundamentalism. I held tight to it, even entering the local church; that, as it turned out, was even more fundamental. When that came to a dead end it taught me something: always question everything before backing it.

And so, I can identify with PTS and Bart Ehrman. The facts have changed me. It's taken me my whole life to evolve out of fundamentalism. First I had to get my mind free of the local church. Then I had to get my mind free of fundamentalism. Now it is me that is under attack; from my fundamentalist family, and now the LCD ... and good ol' UntoHim. Light sabers on!

Ha ....

And methinks perchance Zeek is a in-the-closet-still-in-denial saint.

Quotes from:
Ehrman, Bart D. (2009-02-20). Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) . HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I asked what are everybody's fundamentals were a while back. Got no ANSWER. [Didn't answer myself.] It's easier for the EGO to identify another's hypothetical values than to discover what your own might be. The fundamentalist has become the OTHER. The fundamentalist was once someone's self -confessed self identity. Is it still? Stay tuned.

My fundamentals are irrelevant. The key to not being one of those we call fundamentalist is to hold onto your beliefs for yourself, be willing to discuss your beliefs, but do not fight others about theirs. Hope that if there is truth in yours it will be seen — at least by some.

At one level, fundamentalist is no longer anyone's self-professed identity — unless they want to use a different definition than the world around them. The world has come to view fundamentalists as those who are dogmatic enough to go to war (verbal or otherwise) against those who do not hold to their version of the fundamentals. So pointing at those who do that is not a problem.

My comment was that we were beginning to take the appearance of being just like them as we point and finger-wag at them — just like they do at us. We (hopefully) have not gone to a kind of war yet. And discussion is not war. But it can become so.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Today fundamental is a pejorative term, that's being used against Muslim extremists. We've been talking about Christian fundamentalism. What do they have in common, other than religion? What they have in common is their problem and contention with modernity.

The five fundamentals are a direct result of modernity, with its scientific discoveries, methods, and facts. It had become obvious that science was debunking many Christian conceptions and superstitions, that had been held dear to Christianity for centuries. As a result it had become more than obvious that Christianity was under attack by science, so that basic beliefs of Christianity had to be declared to buttress this attack.

I was born into fundamentalism. I held tight to it, even entering the local church; that, as it turned out, was even more fundamental. When that came to a dead end it taught me something: always question everything before backing it.

The facts have changed me. It's taken me my whole life to evolve out of fundamentalism. First I had to get my mind free of the local church. Then I had to get my mind free of fundamentalism.

We seem to have traveled some of the same roads, yet have arrived at different destinations. Let me throw out some random thoughts ...

Words sometimes get ruined in the course of events, and such has been "fundamentalism." It got its bad name from church Bible thumpers and its current association with Mooslem extremists. If the word is thus spoiled, then lets chooses another word, perhaps "evangelical," to describe those who cling to the basic tenets of the Christian faith. Nobody likes a vindictive hypocrite nor bearded guys with explosives under their clothes, so why should I be associated with them just because I still believe in the virgin birth of Jesus?

As far as the list goes, some I hold dear. Have you rejected them all? As they say, "he who stands for nothing, will fall for anything." What are the "facts" which have caused you to discard the specific items in the list. For example, if believing in the Creator (Jesus Christ) includes a strict 6-day literal interpretation, then do you now embrace evolution because of the fossil records?

Princeton seems little different than other major universities. It is one of America's greatest anomalies that so many major institutions like universities, hospitals, social services, etc. were begun by God-fearing Christians to serve all people, and yet today God is no longer welcome in these same great edifices. Case in point is Harvard's seal which reads in Latin, "Truth for Christ and the Church," yet today Mooslims are more welcome to speak in Ivy League schools that someone bringing "truth, Christ, or the church."

The Bible tells us to "test all things and hold on to the good." Have you found nothing good? Do a few scriptural variants now cause you to discard the whole? Is the fact that God will one day judge unrighteousness and unbelief so incompatible with a loving Father who gave His Son to die on the cross?

[zeek]

[QUOTE=awareness;36569]

And methinks perchance Zeek is a in-the-closet-still-in-denial saint.

"Saint" that's funny applied to me. Yes and the closet I am in is the ineffability of the object of my faith. I have never denied it. Been accused of not having it. I forgive my accusers. They knew not what they did. After all, I try not to confuse faith with knowledge. Or to base it on the Known. So epistemologically, I am a mustard seed away from an agnostic. But, I've never actually seen a mustard seed. To me it is a metaphor for infinitesimal. I would call my position "fideist", but I hesitate to embrace what was originally a term of ridicule. At any rate, I aspire to be authentically myself having reconciled myself to that goal after my failure to succeed at being anything else. Which means I can't be you or anyone else here. So, at least temporally, there must be a difference. I take my true self as my person.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm not ready to consign the Bible to obsolescence as Dave has suggested a la Bart Ehrman either.

zeek knows better but that statement is a complete mischaracterization of anything I have stated on this forum or privately to anyone. As I have stated repeatedly, I am a Unitarian Christian which essentially means that I find the Bible to have value and meaning and especially the teachings of Jesus. In fact, I have the Bible in front of me open all the time to various passages as I sit here on the internet and reference it all the time.

In regards to Bart Ehrman, zeek is also wrong. Ehrman calls himself a happy agnostic but the reason he is agnostic is not because he found problems with the Biblical text or the historical record (he became a liberal Christian as a result of these issues) but because he couldn’t reconcile the Biblical God with the suffering that goes on in the world. Certainly Ehrman has not resigned the Bible to obsolescence himself because if he has you wouldn’t know it by listening to him. He has stated that from the late Roman Empire all the way to our own time, no continuously existing institution or belief system has wielded as much influence as Christianity, no figure as much as Jesus. Worshiped around the globe by more than a billion people today, Ehrman states that Jesus is undoubtedly the single most important figure in the story of Western civilization and one of the most significant in world history altogether.(summarization from "The New Testament" by Ehrman)

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

It has been claimed that Jesus was the first fundamentalist. Maybe, but not of the Princeton version. Where, for example, in the record, does Jesus claim that we have to believe in the virgin birth to follow him, or enter into the kingdom?

Where does he claim we have to believe the Bible is inerrant? Where does he speak of inerrancy at all?

Jesus taught that the scriptures cannot be set aside:

John 10:35
"If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be set aside--"

And he faulted the Pharisees for not actually believing God's word even though they were so steeped in scriptures:

John 5:46-47
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

Jesus says, if one can't even believe in the OT scriptures, how can one believe in what he says?

Believing in Jesus doesn't just mean to believe he existed, but to believe (pisteuo - place trust and confidence) in his words and what he taught and stood for. John 5:24 is one of the gospel verses that makes it clear that Jesus understood this as a condition to inherit eternal life.

John 5:24
Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

Regarding the virgin birth, If Jesus believed that OT scriptures cannot be set aside then neither can Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Same for his miracles? Were they fundamental to following him, or entering the kingdom?

If you can't believe in Jesus' miracles, how can you believe that he was raised from the dead? Perhaps the greatest miracle claimed to have occurred. Belief in Jesus' resurrection is unequivocally required for salvation:

1 Cor 15:14
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

Yet to boil the Christian faith to a few fundamentals does seem to miss the whole picture. Many "fundamentalists" seem very sure about their fundamentals but forget Jesus' first and second commands to love God and love their neighbor which actually makes their faith vain (Galatians 5:6, 1 Cor 13, James 2:14-16). However God wants us to do both, we can't miss the former while doing the latter and vice versa. Jesus didn't forget about loving the poor and those who came to him, but he also adamantly stood for the truth which got him killed.

It ultimately comes down to the condition of the human heart which is corrupt and not able to believe and come to God by itself (Rom 3:10-12). That is why we need to realize our need for a Savior and to come to Jesus Messiah for salvation.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

My comment was that we were beginning to take the appearance of being just like them as we point and finger-wag at them — just like they do at us. We (hopefully) have not gone to a kind of war yet. And discussion is not war. But it can become so.

...which is what I meant by The Other.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Words sometimes get ruined in the course of events, and such has been "fundamentalism." It got its bad name from church Bible thumpers and its current association with Mooslem extremists. If the word is thus spoiled, then lets chooses another word, perhaps "evangelical," to describe those who cling to the basic tenets of the Christian faith. Nobody likes a vindictive hypocrite nor bearded guys with explosives under their clothes, so why should I be associated with them just because I still believe in the virgin birth of Jesus?

While Evangelicals include fundamentalism I would not call Evangelical Christianity the same as the Christian fundamentalists who include a political agenda. Evangelicals are more focused on Christ and the gospel. While maybe it was going on I don't recall even in the LC while I was there a meshing of the Christian message and a political agenda. OF course they both hold to most of the fundamentalist beliefs we have outlined previously but nonetheless Evangelical Christianity is often distinct.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

While Evangelicals include fundamentalism I would not call Evangelical Christianity the same as the Christian fundamentalists who include a political agenda. Evangelicals are more focused on Christ and the gospel. While maybe it was going on I don't recall even in the LC while I was there a meshing of the Christian message and a political agenda. OF course they both hold to most of the fundamentalist beliefs we have outlined previously but nonetheless Evangelical Christianity is often distinct.

And that is precisely the reason that few have the problem with evangelicalism on the whole. It is about Christ and the gospel. They do believe in the fundamentals, but not in a way that makes them fundamentalists in the pejorative sense.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

zeek knows better but that statement is a complete mischaracterization of anything I have stated on this forum or privately to anyone. As I have stated repeatedly, I am a Unitarian Christian which essentially means that I find the Bible to have value and meaning and especially the teachings of Jesus. In fact, I have the Bible in front of me open all the time to various passages as I sit here on the internet and reference it all the time.

In regards to Bart Ehrman, zeek is also wrong. Ehrman calls himself a happy agnostic but the reason he is agnostic is not because he found problems with the Biblical text or the historical record (he became a liberal Christian as a result of these issues) but because he couldn’t reconcile the Biblical God with the suffering that goes on in the world. Certainly Ehrman has not resigned the Bible to obsolescence himself because if he has you wouldn’t know it by listening to him. He has stated that from the late Roman Empire all the way to our own time, no continuously existing institution or belief system has wielded as much influence as Christianity, no figure as much as Jesus. Worshiped around the globe by more than a billion people today, Ehrman states that Jesus is undoubtedly the single most important figure in the story of Western civilization and one of the most significant in world history altogether.(summarization from "The New Testament" by Ehrman)

Sorry if I misunderstood you, Dave. I got that impression from statements you made like this one:

Unless we recognize that maybe Jesus believed and scripture testifies to that he believed that the 2nd Coming was during his generation the synoptic gospels don’t make a lot of sense. Why was he baptized by John the Baptist? He believed he was the Messiah for that age. There was no indication that he actually believed the kingdom of God was beyond his generation. History has borne this out. Okay, we could be wrong and the Kingdom of God could come in another 2000 years. Just keep believing and it will be true. I just believe that Jesus thought that he was the Messiah and he was bringing in the Kingdom of God in his generation with the disciples under Him ruling the Kingdom of God.

If Jesus was wrong about himself being the messiah, i.e. Christ and the Kingdom of God, doesn't that make the New Testament obsolete for our age?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Dave

Unless we recognize that maybe Jesus believed and scripture testifies to that he believed that the 2nd Coming was during his generation the synoptic gospels don’t make a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by zeek

If Jesus was wrong about himself being the messiah, i.e. Christ and the Kingdom of God, doesn't that make the New Testament obsolete for our age?

I don't see the connection. My point was trying to make sense out of the Synoptic gospels. Mark 1:15; Matt. 19:28 cf. Luke 22:30; Mark 8:38-9:1; 13:30. Note that he states "this generation shall not pass away until all these things have taken place....some of you who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God has come in power". The most pronounced statements regarding his imminent return are in Mark the earliest gospel. It changes over the course of the later gospels possibly realizing that Jesus was not coming again during his generation.

Of course, I could quote verses which also show that Paul appears to have believed that Christ's return was within his generation. In addition, the NT seems to show that after the death and resurrection of Christ and the subsequent appearances of Christ to believers that Christianity became not so much the religion of Jesus (i.e. the religion he himself proclaimed) as the religion about Jesus (i.e. the religion that is based on his death and resurrection).

I don't see how my concern about these issues raised in the NT makes it obsolete. In fact, it makes it more intriguing and more challenging in making it relevant for our age considering the impact the NT has had on modern civilization.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

I don't see the connection. My point was trying to make sense out of the Synoptic gospels. Mark 1:15; Matt. 19:28 cf. Luke 22:30; Mark 8:38-9:1; 13:30. Note that he states "this generation shall not pass away until all these things have taken place....some of you who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God has come in power". The most pronounced statements regarding his imminent return are in Mark the earliest gospel. It changes over the course of the later gospels possibly realizing that Jesus was not coming again during his generation.

Of course, I could quote verses which also show that Paul appears to have believed that Christ's return was within his generation. In addition, the NT seems to show that after the death and resurrection of Christ and the subsequent appearances of Christ to believers that Christianity became not so much the religion of Jesus (i.e. the religion he himself proclaimed) as the religion about Jesus (i.e. the religion that is based on his death and resurrection).

I don't see how my concern about these issues raised in the NT makes it obsolete. In fact, it makes it more intriguing and more challenging in making it relevant for our age considering the impact the NT has had on modern civilization.

So you don't see how the proposition that Jesus was wrong about when his second coming would occur opens a floodgate of problems beginning with undermining his infallibility as God and including the possibility that he was speaking only to and for his time and not in all cases eternal truth? Likewise, you don't see how whether or not the NT had impact on civilization is a question of historicity and not of eternal truth?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

So you don't see how the proposition that Jesus was wrong about when his second would occur opens a floodgate of problems beginning with undermining his infallibility as God and including the possibility that he was speaking only to and for his time and not in all cases eternal truth? Likewise, you don't see how whether or not the NT had impact on civilization is a question of historicity and not of eternal truth?

In Mark he still is crucified and resurrected so all of the theological issues are intact for Paul and later writers of the NT so I don't see how it undermines his being God (if that is your theological perspective). Maybe God the Father led him to believe that the kingdom would come within his lifetime or he just didn't know but assumed it would. This is all speculation but it appears that he thought the kingdom was coming soon. There is no scripture that let's us know what was the discussion between the Father and the Son in this regard. In any case, the NT is not obsolete either way since all of the parables, ethical issues and his associations with and empathy for the poor, sick, downtrodden, women etc are written down which have value for today. The other stuff I'll leave to the theologians and scholars to sort out.

It's not that I don't believe there may be a problem with the NT with this perspective. I just have a problem with the idea that it assumes that I think it makes the NT obsolete which I don't nor does Ehrman for that matter.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

In Mark he still is crucified and resurrected so all of the theological issues are intact for Paul and later writers of the NT so I don't see how it undermines his being God (if that is your theological perspective)

Doesn't Ehrman teach that Paul's epistles came before the Gospel of Mark. So then, Mark didn't need to be "intact" for Paul but rather maybe vice versa?

Maybe God the Father led him to believe that the kingdom would come within his lifetime or he just didn't know but assumed it would.

"Led him to believe" as in deceived him? No that can't be it.

This is all speculation but it appears that he thought the kingdom was coming soon. There is no scripture that let's us know what was the discussion between the Father and the Son in this regard. In any case, the NT is not obsolete either way since all of the parables, ethical issues and his associations with and empathy for the poor, sick, downtrodden, women etc are written down which have value for today. The other stuff I'll leave to the theologians and scholars to sort out.

So a social gospel but not a saving one?

It's not that I don't believe there may be a problem with the NT with this perspective. I just have a problem with the idea that it assumes that I think it makes the NT obsolete which I don't nor does Ehrman for that matter.

So there may be a problem with the NT for you but I just haven't hit on what it is yet? Doesn't Ehrman teach that Jesus preached his ethics only to the Jews so therefore, his was not a universal gospel but rather those came after made it so? I though you claimed something like that below. Did I get that wrong?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Doesn't Ehrman teach that Paul's epistles came before the Gospel of Mark. So then, Mark didn't need to be "intact" for Paul but rather maybe vice versa?

Sorry for the confusion since I didn’t explain myself very well and of course Ehrman, Hurtado, Wallace and most reputable scholars teach that Mark was the first gospel written after many of the writings of Paul. However, what I meant to state was the oral tradition which led to the writing of Mark contained the death and resurrection since we know that some 3-4 decades after the death of Christ the author of Mark just didn’t pick up a pen and start writing but he most likely was using some documents that are no longer available and oral tradition. Luke 1:1 "…many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us…" Additionally we know that Paul had contact with the apostles (Acts 15) and the oral tradition and he mentions the oral tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "…the traditions you were taught...by spoken word…" In any case Paul was well aware of the oral traditions which led to the writings of Mark.

Originally Posted by zeek

"Led him to believe" as in deceived him? No that can't be it.

I said “maybe” and when you figure out how the Son and the Father discuss issues between themselves you let me know because there is not much in the way of dialogue between them to help us in the Bible. Of course, based on what little we do know you are probably correct.

Originally Posted by zeek

So a social gospel but not a saving one?

The NT evolved. It wasn’t written at one sit down to one audience although it appears to me that many Christians treat it as though it was written this way. All the gospels were written to different audiences and all of the epistles were written to different audiences dealing with different issues. Many of the issues Paul wrote about have absolutely nothing to do with us today such as the circumcision of Gentiles or the pagan rituals and even the gospel of Matthew, for example, was written to the Jews to show that Jesus was king of the Jews. In the first century we had a developing Christianity which had to deal with all of the problems of growth throughout a vast region. We know that originally “Christianity” was only preached to the Jews and it was a Jewish Christianity. It branched out by Paul to the Gentiles. To me, throughout the centuries as Christianity has evolved it became a social gospel. There is no such thing as a saving gospel without a social gospel. James 2:14-26 We have all of the good deeds of Jesus in the gospels as well and all of the parables. Note that the author of the gospel of John ends with “…many other things that Jesus did…” John 21:25 It is all about deeds as the NT evolved. Rev. 3:1-2.

Originally Posted by zeek

So there may be a problem with the NT for you but I just haven't hit on what it is yet? Doesn't Ehrman teach that Jesus preached his ethics only to the Jews so therefore, his was not a universal gospel but rather those came after made it so? I though you claimed something like that below. Did I get that wrong?

While Jesus only preached to Jews his statements and actions can be applied universally. e.g . the Beatitudes, Sermon on the Mount. The same holds true for other writings of founders of various religions. Just because there may be problems with the NT doesn’t mean it is obsolete in regards to a message for us today. We weren’t discussing the problems I have with the NT (I have written some of them elsewhere on this forum) just the fact that I never said the NT was obsolete.

[awareness]

This was a heart felt and intellectually honest response. It more than deserves a response in kind.

Originally Posted by Ohio

We seem to have traveled some of the same roads, yet have arrived at different destinations.

I think we're both traveling some of the same roads, and neither of us have arrived. I've just been on these roads longer than you, since leaving the LC, and have had more time to go thru more changes. And I'm not saying my changes are more complete than yours, or better.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Words sometimes get ruined in the course of events, and such has been "fundamentalism." It got its bad name from church Bible thumpers and its current association with Mooslem extremists. If the word is thus spoiled, then lets chooses another word, perhaps "evangelical," to describe those who cling to the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nobody likes a vindictive hypocrite nor bearded guys with explosives under their clothes, so why should I be associated with them just because I still believe in the virgin birth of Jesus?

I don't wish to be associated with them either.

Originally Posted by Ohio

As far as the list goes, some I hold dear. Have you rejected them all? As they say, "he who stands for nothing, will fall for anything."

My friend Hosepipe tells me that all the time. But that's because I don't buy into all HIS crazy ideas, which are far out from anything fundamental, or remotely maybe related to the Bible.

Originally Posted by Ohio

What are the "facts" which have caused you to discard the specific items in the list.

I won't list them all. Time doesn't allow. But I do have a problem with the first fundamental which is inerrancy, that all the rest on the list depend upon. You mention a few variations in the manuscripts. Just one is enough to sink inerrancy. When in fact there are only around 138,000 words in the NT, but more than 400,000 variations in the manuscripts. Those are "facts" that sink inerrancy for me.

You also mention the virgin birth. Of course I can't find facts one way or the other on that one. I just don't know why it's so important to believe it. For example, legend has it that Alexander the Great was born of a virgin. I'm sure you don't have the slightest problem not believing that one. Still, it doesn't change the fact that Alexander is responsible for all the NT books being written in Greek. Thanks Alexander. God used you. Maybe you were divinely born, or driven.

Originally Posted by Ohio

For example, if believing in the Creator (Jesus Christ) includes a strict 6-day literal interpretation, then do you now embrace evolution because of the fossil records?

I don't embrace evolution. I consider it. If you want to know about evolution just ask your bug exterminator why he has to change poison from time to time. Anyway, I agree with Mark Twain when he said, "I don't believe in evolution. Man devolved ... into the lowest form of animal on the earth."

Originally Posted by Ohio

Princeton seems little different than other major universities. It is one of America's greatest anomalies that so many major institutions like universities, hospitals, social services, etc. were begun by God-fearing Christians to serve all people, and yet today God is no longer welcome in these same great edifices. Case in point is Harvard's seal which reads in Latin, "Truth for Christ and the Church," yet today Mooslims are more welcome to speak in Ivy League schools that someone bringing "truth, Christ, or the church."

Maybe they're just being Christian and loving their neighbors.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible tells us to "test all things and hold on to the good." Have you found nothing good?

Well I certainly have a host of questions, that I didn't have back when I had certitude. But the mystery is wonderful.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is the fact that God will one day judge unrighteousness and unbelief so incompatible with a loving Father who gave His Son to die on the cross?

It's not the judgment that bothers me. It's the suffering of innocents that crosses me with the supposed judgment and wrath of God upon them, depicted in the Bible. Have you seen the list of fundamentals? Would a righteous God torment those that rejected them, for all of eternity?

I grew up being told that Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for our/my sin. As a result I accepted it without question, like it was as much a fact as a tree. But eventually, after the local church taught me to question, and it took a long time, it didn't make sense to me. It took just one question that one day popped into my mind: Why would a loving God require the human sacrifice of His son to forgive us? something He forbade in His OT?

This question was raised by a brother in the first Sunday School class at a Church of Christ I attended. He asked the preacher that was teaching the class this very question. And He was smart. He pointed out that God forgave evil King Manasseh, who sacrificed his son, before Jesus died on the cross. He asked why God couldn't forgive us in the same way. He finished by asking: Why would God use such as questionable method? (Immediately Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" sprang into my mind.)

The class went tense. The preacher looked stunned. A lawyer, an elder, sitting in a corner spoke up, and saved the day. He said, "The cross is efficacious for all eternity, even eternity past." The cognitive dissonance immediately dropped back to its normal tolerated range. The preacher said, "right." It was settled.

For the class. But not to my mind. That troubling question wasn't reconciled completely for me, by the elders answer. I still saw/see an irony in that God had to sacrifice His son, to forgive Manasseh for sacrificing his. That looked pretty funny to me.

So now what? Questions and questions and more questions. Oh the sweet memory of certitude .... long lost. So I do recognize my need for divine intervention. Seems I have no other hope without it, so far.

Maybe I just don't understand it, and the death of Jesus on the cross is just the divine intervention I'm needing. If so, done. But those darn questions keep disturbing my certitude. Seems the need for certitude drives all our spiritual pursuits and beliefs ... and I'm just having more problems acquiring it than most. Does God forgive the crazies, and those out of whack? If so, I'm in like Flynn.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

I grew up being told that Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for our/my sin. As a result I accepted it without question, like it was as much a fact as a tree. But eventually, after the local church taught me to question, and it took a long time, it didn't make sense to me. It took just one question that one day popped into my mind: Why would a loving God require the human sacrifice of His son to forgive us? something He forbade in His OT?

This is a good question. here's my stab at it:

Yes, God requires blood as propitiation for sin, to make atonement for life (Lev. 17:11)

Jesus' death on the cross wasn't merely a human sacrifice, if Jesus was just a man, his blood being finite would not have been enough to atone for the sins of all who repent and turn to God. Instead Jesus, being born of a virgin, was also born of God by the Holy Spirit. The sacrifice of a divine being whose blood, by being divine, would have infinite capacity to cover the sins of potentially anyone. This comes back to the importance of the virgin birth which makes room for Jesus being equal to God.

Also no one else's blood would have also sufficed because we were all born into sin (Psalm 51:5). Only the blood of someone innocent could suffice which only Jesus could provide. The sacrifices in the OT representationally pointed to the sacrifice of the Messiah hundreds of years later. They weren't efficacious by themselves, and neither would Manasseh's son's sacrifice be efficacious.

The prohibition in Deut 18:10 says "don't let your son or daughter pass through the fire" and was probably in reference to the Caananites surrounding them that practiced child sacrifice via Molech. The practice involved putting your baby on the hands of statue with fire burning underneath. The child would slowly burn and cook to death. Not only was this sick, but it was a violation of the child's free will.

It was the Father's will to not spare his one and only Son so that those who believe in Him would be saved (John 3:16). However he never forced Jesus to do it. Jesus went to the cross out of his own free will and laid down his own life willingly because he loved us.

1 John 3:16
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

Just one is enough to sink inerrancy. When in fact there are only around 138,000 words in the NT, but more than 400,000 variations in the manuscripts. Those are "facts" that sink inerrancy for me.

Many NT scholars view these 400,000 variations as a misleading number because they're mostly all copyist errors such as spelling and grammar mistakes that can be deduced away. The controversial variations are pretty well known and IMO don't reveal anything earth shattering.

Either way you have it, I believe God will always plant "evidence" so that anyone can believe what their hearts want them to believe. Yes God performed miracles for the Israelites as they crossed over the Red Sea, but he also planted 30 foot tall giants in the land of Canaan, seemingly going against the promises he made.

In the same way, Jesus miraculously fulfilled 353 prophecies in the OT, and there is plenty of other evidence to indicate the supernatural nature of the bible (see my post #107), yet there's also these 400,000 variations, along with other things like evolution, which I believe is a red herring just like the 30 foot tall giants were in Canaan.

To see the reality of God's promises we need to have the eyes of our hearts opened. Seeing with our physical eyes is good, but by itself isn't enough and will cause us to ignore the eternal realities of the spiritual realm.

Jesus talked about this a lot:

Mark 8:18
Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember?

Matthew 13:16
But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.

and Paul:

2 Cor 4:18
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Many NT scholars view these 400,000 variations as a misleading number because they're mostly all copyist errors such as spelling and grammar mistakes that can be deduced away. The controversial variations are pretty well known and IMO don't reveal anything earth shattering.

Either way you have it, I believe God will always plant "evidence" so that anyone can believe what their hearts want them to believe. Yes God performed miracles for the Israelites as they crossed over the Red Sea, but he also planted 30 foot tall giants in the land of Canaan, seemingly going against the promises he made.

In the same way, Jesus miraculously fulfilled 353 prophecies in the OT, and there is plenty of other evidence to indicate the supernatural nature of the bible (see my post #107), yet there's also these 400,000 variations, along with other things like evolution, which I believe is a red herring just like the 30 foot tall giants were in Canaan.

To see the reality of God's promises we need to have the eyes of our hearts opened. Seeing with our physical eyes is good, but by itself isn't enough and will cause us to ignore the eternal realities of the spiritual realm.

Jesus talked about this a lot:

Mark 8:18
Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember?

Matthew 13:16
But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.

and Paul:

2 Cor 4:18
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

To me, these verses are out of context but I don't have the time to try and clarify these verses. As long as it helps you, go for it. BTW---of the 400,000 textual variances only about 1% matter but of that 1% some of them are significant.

After I left the LC in 1978 I tried different churches and even taught adult Sunday school at one but after the brainwashing from the LC it was difficult to get involved. Options were limited so I drifted and focused my time and effort on work and family. I found that the LC affects every aspect of our Christian devotional life i.e. how you pray to God (Oh Lord Jesus), how you approach the Bible (pray-read), how you study the Bible (Life Studies), etc.

I read the book Snapping back in 1978 and realized that while in the LC, I and probably others had gone through an intense problematic transitional life experience which affected every aspect of our lives. WL in conjunction with his trainees had dismantled every aspect of our past Christian experience and there was no going back, at least not for me. I had run the gamut of Christian personal/church life experience and that was enough. It wasn’t as though I would stop being a seeker but I knew that it wasn’t through fundamental Christianity that I would find answers. I had been to the mountain top and I didn’t like the view. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

It has been a long road and I’ve read quite extensively along the way. So, what brought me back to the Bible: Bart Ehrman. It wasn't as though I had never opened the Bible and read it but here is someone who knows the Bible as well as anyone, who can quote scripture, and yet isn’t trying to cram it down anyone’s throat. He is not forming a religion around himself but is simply trying to inform people about the Bible from a unique perspective: scholarship. Take it or leave it. While I had concluded that I was a Unitarian Christian after reading James Luther Adams’ book, On Being Human, Religiously, Ehrman provided a framework for approaching the Bible in a way where it wasn’t all dressed up with doctrinal or fundamentalist overtones. It’s actually an enjoyable experience going through the Bible where it seemed almost depressing after the LC experience.

I am surprised at how many people I am running across who are getting back into the Bible because of Ehrman. There is a group of 40 people (I am not one of them) here in this small city who are watching Erhman's video presentations on "How Jesus Became God" each week and one of these individuals who is a Buddhist attends and she is thrilled with his presentation and is now reading the Bible. A couple of ex-nuns are also involved and probably reading the Bible like they have never before. Of course, it is not as though I take everything Ehrman says at face value and I have even read books from his critics e.g. Michael Kruger The Orthodoxy of Heresy and you can listen to Kruger's videos against Ehrman at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...A66CB81EAAB1BC I have listened to them but after viewing several of Ehrman's debates with other scholars I find Kruger's videos misleading and short sighted. I also am reading a book by a NT scholar, Larry Hurtado from the University of Edinburgh, How on Earth Jesus Became a God which is intriguing but Hurtado who agrees with Ehrman on many fronts disagrees with Ehrman on others (see Hurtado's review of Ehrmans' book How Jesus Became God but make sure you read his revision of his review after he and Ehrman discuss it). Hurtado is also the author of a monumental work on the early devotion to Jesus, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. In any case, I am not going to take anyone at face value after having been in the LC and neither should you.

[awareness]

Dave is right.

Lee taught us:

"Do not think that the Lord is in the circle of Protestantism. He is outside the door. Judaism is Satanic, Catholicism is demonic, and Protestantism is without Christ."

So where do we go after the local church?

After the LC my wife and I tried to find Christians to meet with. We even met with Pastor Bob Coy's group, long before he built his church to 20,000 members. But Bob was very established in the clergy/Laity system and we felt we couldn't fit. We eventually quit trying. My wife gave up on it all, and went back to being a Chinese atheist.

When I moved here in Ky, I tried many churches. Now the problem was me. Just the questions I raised turned them off, and I got the proverbial cold shoulder. Some of them I just couldn't stomach.

I just can't fit back into any traditional Christian group. The local church ruined me for all of them. And forget the fundamentalist groups. I tried the Southern Baptist church, but my cousin who has been deeply involved in it all his life told me straight out I didn't belong in the SBC.

But I'm still God obsessed. And I have my Bible open on my computer all the time, reading and referencing it every day. (Dave, download eSword, and all the free Bibles, and maybe buy some. It's a great tool. Trust me.)

And bearbear. I'm not sure you realize what you are claiming by quoting Lev. 17:11. I know you are quoting scripture, and so feel good about your premise, but it paints God as a blood lust, blood obsessed, and blood thirsty. This reduces God from the status of being God. It makes God look like a vampire. It rubs my moral sensibilities the wrong way. Do we really feel good about painting God in such a way? No wonder the Gnostic's claimed that the OT God was a demiurge to be avoided, for the high God of Jesus.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

I said “maybe” and when you figure out how the Son and the Father discuss issues between themselves you let me know because there is not much in the way of dialogue between them to help us in the Bible. Of course, based on what little we do know you are probably correct.

The Gospel of John probably has the most data about the relationship between the Father and Son. But, taken on its own, it seems to propose a different eschatology than the synoptics, one that is realized in the present rather than looking forward to a second coming. If Jesus as the Christ with his Kingdom is fully realized in the present as in John, it illogical on the face to predict when he is returning whether in one generation or another. This is just one instance of the problem of reconciling the Gospels to one another, a problem that Witness Lee claimed he had solved for us with his "Recovery Version." But, for those who have left the Local Churches, it's an open question.

The NT evolved. It wasn’t written at one sit down to one audience although it appears to me that many Christians treat it as though it was written this way. All the gospels were written to different audiences and all of the epistles were written to different audiences dealing with different issues.

Apparently so.

Many of the issues Paul wrote about have absolutely nothing to do with us today such as the circumcision of Gentiles or the pagan rituals and even the gospel of Matthew, for example, was written to the Jews to show that Jesus was king of the Jews.

So, not the whole Bible, but parts of it are irrelevant to you. Apparently you are using a literalist hermeneutic like the fundamentalist espouses. As I mentioned before, even Paul recommended reading spiritually not literally. Like many things in life, what you put into it seems to determine what you get out of it. That suggests to me that Ehrman won't have the last word on the Bible. Don't you agree?

In the first century we had a developing Christianity which had to deal with all of the problems of growth throughout a vast region. We know that originally “Christianity” was only preached to the Jews and it was a Jewish Christianity. It branched out by Paul to the Gentiles. To me, throughout the centuries as Christianity has evolved it became a social gospel. There is no such thing as a saving gospel without a social gospel. James 2:14-26 We have all of the good deeds of Jesus in the gospels as well and all of the parables. Note that the author of the gospel of John ends with “…many other things that Jesus did…” John 21:25 It is all about deeds as the NT evolved. Rev. 3:1-2.

These days the social gospel has been eclipsed by the culture war. Although the conservatives claim the majority, there are professing Christians on both sides. I hope we can have a fruitful discussion of it on this thread but attempts often break down due to passionate feelings.

While Jesus only preached to Jews his statements and actions can be applied universally. e.g . the Beatitudes, Sermon on the Mount. The same holds true for other writings of founders of various religions. Just because there may be problems with the NT doesn’t mean it is obsolete in regards to a message for us today. We weren’t discussing the problems I have with the NT (I have written some of them elsewhere on this forum) just the fact that I never said the NT was obsolete.

But, if Jesus only intended his ministry for the Jews, wouldn't applying it universally be to misappropriation of it? You have clarified that you did not mean to imply that the whole Bible was obsolete, but you stated above that there are passages that are irrelevant to us today. In practice, the fundamentalist might do the same, but she would at least in theory be able to proclaim that it is the "inerrant Word of God" thus keeping alive the authority of the Book as a powerful symbol.

This forum has this going for it: that ostensibly most of us if not all, were at one time, if we are not now, more or less fundamentalists of the Witness Lee stripe. What we believed in our heart of hearts was then as it is now a private personal matter. But, we were receiving and stood in close fellowship with a tradition of ministry that accepted the fundamentals and saw itself as going beyond them.

Now, that "beyond" creates a problem. Someone might have supposed that by going beyond the fundamentals, the "Lord's Recovery" put the fundamentals in a whole new light. And, more often than not, that's what I, for one, thought Witness Lee was doing. That's how I read his claims to have gone beyond Christianity, for instance. Where that has left today's Local-churchers is an open question on this forum.

So, all of us here may suppose we have at least some experience with fundamentalism from the inside even if it was limited to fundamentalism of the Local Church variety. I don't know, is that assumption a help or a hindrance to understanding one another here?

Anyway, working from that assumption, I suppose that a fundamentalist doesn't usually think of himself to be a fundamentalist but rather a true Christian. Who is and who is not a true Christian is a matter of significant interest to him. He sees those without a "Born again" experience as Christian in name only and not the genuine article. Indeed, he may conclude that one who does not share his political point of view could not possibly be a real Christian.

Are those kinds of assumptions operating among us here? If so, can we, all the ex-local churchers [and local churchers if you are interested] , come to a better understanding? Or, do we merely restate and harden our positions against one another?

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

To me, these verses are out of context but I don't have the time to try and clarify these verses.

I don't see how I could have taken them out of context. Jesus told the Pharisees that they were blind even though they weren't (John 13:35-41). He was then differentiating between two kinds of seeing: physical eyes and the spiritual eyes of the heart which require faith and it's a theme that is interwoven throughout the NT.

Jesus told his disciples he spoke in parables so that people wouldn't understand him (Luke 8:10). He wanted people to connect with him via the eyes/ears of their heart through faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). Likewise I don't think you can really understand what God is saying in the bible without faith. There are so many scriptures that seem to be deliberately set up to stumble those without faith starting from Genesis 1 all the way through to Revelation.

1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Facts will always be there for all to see, but people will interpret them differently depending on their perspective which comes from their heart. The ten spies saw the giants and interpreted it as God's promise failing based on their earthly perspective, Joshua and Caleb however saw it as a challenge and an opportunity for God to display his glory. They also focused on the good parts of the promised land, and not the bad.

I think Ehrman is sincere, though it's evident that he has trouble hiding his anger towards the God of the bible in his debate with Michael Brown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhBrCf4Vnx4

Ehrman may treat the facts fairly from his worldview, but his perspective and therefore his conclusions will always differ from someone who is viewing the scriptures from a background of faith.

[bearbear]

And bearbear. I'm not sure you realize what you are claiming by quoting Lev. 17:11. I know you are quoting scripture, and so feel good about your premise, but it paints God as a blood lust, blood obsessed, and blood thirsty.

To me, it's actually the opposite. If you read the following verses after 11, God prohibits the Israelites from eating or drinking blood, because the life is in the blood.

Interestingly vampirism is really a thing in Satanism rather than being just a thing of the movies. Ex-Satanists have described experiences where they can go months without food by drinking a little human blood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSbADIwK3oM

From my perspective, God of course would rather avoid shedding blood but it's God's way of communicating the seriousness of sin. To a holy and righteous God, sin is so offensive that the only way you can atone for it is with something just as offensive, the life of an innocent. He is not into killing innocents at all, and such a thing is a revulsion to him and was the reason why he poured his wrath on the Israelites who murdered innocents, but his holy, righteous nature requires payment for sin, just as when people commit crimes in any society, the judge requires time in prison as payment.

Furthermore because God loves us, he doesn't want us to shed our own blood to pay for our sin, but he provided the sacrifice, as he foreshadowed in the story of Abraham and Isaac which Abraham prophesied without knowing:

Genesis 22:8
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Romans 12:1
Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God--this is your true and proper worship.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

I don't see how I could have taken them out of context. Jesus was talking about two kinds of seeing: physical eyes and the spiritual eyes of the heart which require faith and it's a theme that is interwoven throughout the gospels.

Jesus told his disciples he spoke in parables so that people wouldn't understand him (Luke 8:10). He wanted people to connect with him via the eyes/ears of their heart through faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). Likewise I don't think you can really understand what God is saying in the bible without faith. There are so many scriptures that seem to be deliberately set up to stumble those without faith to believe.

1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Facts will always be there for all to see, but people will interpret them differently depending on their perspective which comes from their heart. The ten spies saw the giants and interpreted it as God's promise failing based on their earthly perspective, Joshua and Caleb however saw it as a challenge and an opportunity for God to display his glory. They also focused on the good parts of the promised land, and not the bad.

I think Ehrman is sincere, though it's evident that he has trouble hiding his anger towards the God of the bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhBrCf4Vnx4

Ehrman may treat the facts fairly from his worldview, but his perspective and therefore his conclusions will always differ from someone who is viewing the scriptures from a background of faith.

I am sure you believe that you are a spiritual person and have some level of discernment. But, how can you be so sure? While in the LC didn't we believe we were touching the deep things of God, the hidden things of God, the mystery's of the universe. How long did we pray-read, how long did we call upon the Lord, how long did we study the Life Studies, attend conferences, preach the gospel, and all the while we believed that we were in the Lord's recovery which would bring him back and vault us into the heavenly kingdom?

So, I am glad that you are confident that you are spiritual and can discern what is going on so readily. However, if you had just kept pray-reading and calling on the Lord and studying the Life Studies you too could still be involved in the LC. Unfortunately, those in the LC come out only to often trade religious practices learned from the LC to new practices learned in Babylon. It doesn't necessarily change them. That's why I feel it is important to take 10 steps back.

While I have not watched this video I don't know if Ehrman is upset with the God of the Bible so much as he is upset with the fact that people can believe that God of the Bible can allow the tragic human suffering that goes on this world without intervening or believe that God is actually creating it since God said in the OT, I...create evil..

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, not the whole Bible, but parts of it are irrelevant to you. Apparently you are using a literalist hermeneutic like the fundamentalist espouses. As I mentioned before, even Paul recommended reading spiritually not literally. Like many things in life, what you put into it seems to determine what you get out of it. That suggests to me that Ehrman won't have the last word on the Bible. Don't you agree?

The entire Bible is relevant but from a historical viewpoint and not a theological viewpoint. You can spiritualize any of the verses in the Bible but only from a theological standing not a historical standing. That was part of the problem in the LC and really set us back because we let WL spiritualize the Bible since he was the Oracle of God (the entire Bible was the unveiling of Christ) rather than trying to understand the context of verses whether from a textual standpoint or a historical standpoint.

No, I think Ehrman will have the last word…well, not necessarily Ehrman himself but Biblical scholarship is coming to the front of the line. In addition, not only has Ehrman published “trade books” such How Jesus Became God (he is writing another one currently which should be released next year) and scholarly works such as Forgery and Counterforgery which came out in 2013 but as I have stated elsewhere he has been publishing text books for years which are used in major universities. In fact, he is putting the final touches on his sixth edition of The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings for universities but he has other textbooks. Aside from his writings over the years he has given video lectures for various courses for the company “The Great Courses”, such as The NT, The Historical Jesus, After the New Testament: The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Lost Christianities etc (if you haven’t checked “The Great Courses” out you might find it interesting since they have a lot more than just Ehrman). As you may know he has probably 20+ videos online of his debates with a variety of NT scholars from various theological seminaries. He also has a blog which he updates almost daily etc etc.

Originally Posted by zeek

These days the social gospel has been eclipsed by the culture war. Although the conservatives claim the majority, there are professing Christians on both sides. I hope we can have a fruitful discussion of it on this thread but attempts often break down due to passionate feelings.

You are correct from a general point of view but from a personal point of view I see it as a social gospel.

Originally Posted by zeek

But, if Jesus only intended his ministry for the Jews, wouldn't applying it universally be to misappropriation of it? You have clarified that you did not mean to imply that the whole Bible was obsolete, but you stated above that there are passages that are irrelevant to us today. In practice, the fundamentalist might do the same, but she would at least in theory be able to proclaim that it is the "inerrant Word of God" thus keeping alive the authority of the Book as a powerful symbol.

Certainly there are verses that are irrelevant to us today in context but relevant from a historical and textual point of view so to have a better understanding of what Paul or others were writing about. I can’t throw any of them out if I want to understand what the Bible is all about and it is the most important book of the last 2000 years so understanding what it is about has value.

Originally Posted by zeek

This forum has this going for it: that ostensibly most of us if not all, were at one time, if we are not now, more or less fundamentalists of the Witness Lee stripe. What we believed in our heart of hearts was then as it is now a private personal matter. But, we were receiving and stood in close fellowship with a tradition of ministry that accepted the fundamentals and saw itself as going beyond them.

Now, that "beyond" creates a problem. Someone might have supposed that by going beyond the fundamentals, the "Lord's Recovery" put the fundamentals in a whole new light. And, more often than not, that's what I, for one, thought Witness Lee was doing. That's how I read his claims to have gone beyond Christianity, for instance. Where that has left today's Local-churchers is an open question on this forum.

When I took a cult class in Bible college in the 1960s I learned about the fundamentals e.g. inerrancy, Trinity, etc since I understood that JWs don’t view Jesus as God but only man and the Mormons view Jesus as God but not man etc. The problem with the LC is that when we started getting into “mingling” and the definition of the Truine God among other issues it started to get a little confusing as to the fundamentals but because it was WL we pretty much accepted it. When the Mindbenders came out I could see they had exaggerated some things but they also raised some interesting questions.

Originally Posted by zeek

Anyway, working from that assumption, I suppose that a fundamentalist doesn't usually think of himself to be a fundamentalist but rather a true Christian. Who is and who is not a true Christian is a matter of significant interest to him. He sees those without a "Born again" experience as Christian in name only and not the genuine article. Indeed, he may conclude that one who does not share his political point of view could not possibly be a real Christian.

Are those kinds of assumptions operating among us here? If so, can we, all the ex-local churchers [and local churchers if you are interested] , come to a better understanding? Or, do we merely restate and harden our positions against one another?

I am sure that because there is such a history of the Southern Baptists or AOG that people who attend those churches may not even know the fundamentals but just know they belong to a Christian church and that they are Christians attending. On this forum I would hope people would understand the fundamentals but whether they actually “believe” the fundamentals is another question. Hopefully we can come to a better understanding and agree to disagree when necessary.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

I am sure you believe that you are a spiritual person and have some level of discernment.

My faith has definitely grown since I left the LC but I can only comfortably compare against myself and I wouldn't go so far to say that I'm "spiritual" but that I'm growing and still have a lot of areas to improve. My hope is in Jesus who is interceding for my faith in heaven, otherwise I would have fallen long ago.

But, how can you be so sure? While in the LC didn't we believe we were touching the deep things of God, the hidden things of God, the mystery's of the universe.
How long did we pray-read, how long did we call upon the Lord, how long did we study the Life Studies, attend conferences, preach the gospel, and all the while we believed that we were in the Lord's recovery which would bring him back and vault us into the heavenly kingdom?

My ticket out of the LC came down to reading God's word for myself and seeing how ridiculous some of the contradictions were. God's word, rather than being a stumbling block, was a source of my salvation from the LC system.

For example, repeatedly chanting "O Lord Jesus" seemed to go directly against Jesus' commands to not pray like the heathens do with repetition (Matthew 6:7). And bragging about being God-men went directly against Phil 2:6 where Jesus did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped. Ultimately those in the LC seem to place their trust in a man and a system which means they are literally putting their faith in something apart from Jesus Christ. It's hard to not conclude that people in the LC are not really reading the bible and mainly feeding off Witness Lee literature, or if they are reading the bible, only with Witness Lee goggles on.

After leaving, I do question myself more now, where I am targeting my faith towards.

So, I am glad that you are confident that you are spiritual and can discern what is going on so readily. However, if you had just kept pray-reading and calling on the Lord and studying the Life Studies you too could still be involved in the LC. Unfortunately, those in the LC come out only to often trade religious practices learned from the LC to new practices learned in Babylon. It doesn't necessarily change them. That's why I feel it is important to take 10 steps back.

Taking steps back sounds like a good idea to get a different perspective. However, I am afraid some have taken too many steps back to fall off the cliff of faith, which I do not think is necessary.

While I have not watched this video I don't know if Ehrman is upset with the God of the Bible so much as he is upset with the fact that people can believe that God of the Bible can allow the tragic human suffering that goes on this world without intervening or believe that God is actually creating it since God said in the OT, I...create evil..

God does intervene when people cry out to him and come to him. Despite God's holiness and righteousness being such a terrifying thing as displayed in the OT, he promises in Jeremiah 29:13 that if you seek God with all your heart you will find him. This is the true context of Romans 10:13.. Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. The context is that you have no where to turn and no hope, you've used up all your lifelines and you recognize that only God can save you and you cry out to him with all your heart.

I have seen with my own eyes lives changed from God's own intervention. My small group recently had an unbelieving husband attend starting less than a year ago. He was jobless and had to take care of two children by himself because his wife was steeped in so much depression that she refused to take care of the children or leave the house. However over time, He came to believe after experiencing God's love and his wife also saw changes in him. She got interested and started attending the small group. She started reading the bible for herself and for the first time in a long time she testified that she finally felt joy in her life. They're now living lives of joy and happiness, even serving in the church, whereas before they had no hope and only sadness.

My wife remarked to me last week how we actually see others lives and our own lives changed and transformed for the better, whereas in the LCs we never witnessed this kind of transformation in people's lives and as a result we were just living in powerless religion (2 Tim 3:5).

Luke 7:35
But wisdom is proved right by all her children.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by bearbear

My wife remarked to me last week how we actually see others lives and our own lives changed and transformed for the better, whereas in the LCs we never witnessed this kind of transformation in people's lives and as a result we were just living in powerless religion (2 Tim 3:5).

Before Lee took over the controls, and the LC's had some liberty in the Spirit, there were lots of genuine life-changing testimonies.

Perhaps the biggest deception was this fantasy that Elden Hall was so marvelously blessed because they were "absolutely one" with Lee. This sleight of hand was incredibly effective in expediting Lee's domination of the saints.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

My faith has definitely grown since I left the LC but I can only comfortably compare against myself and I wouldn't go so far to say that I'm "spiritual" but that I'm growing and still have a lot of areas to improve. My hope is in Jesus who is interceding for my faith in heaven, otherwise I would have fallen long ago.

My ticket out of the LC came down to reading the God's word for myself and seeing how ridiculous some of the contradictions were. God's word, rather than being a stumbling block, was a source of my salvation from the LC system.

For example, repeatedly chanting "O Lord Jesus" seemed to go directly against Jesus' commands to not pray like the heathens do with repetition (Matthew 6:7). And bragging about being God-men went directly against Phil 2:6 where Jesus did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped. Ultimately those in the LC seem to place their trust in a man and a system which means they are literally putting their faith in something apart from Jesus Christ. It's hard to not conclude that people in the LC are not really reading the bible and mainly feeding off Witness Lee literature, or if they are reading the bible, only with Witness Lee goggles on.

After leaving, I do question myself more now, where I am targeting my faith towards.

I am glad it worked for you. Sounds like you took a sensible approach to leaving the LC and your church seems quite nice, friendly and open.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Taking steps back sounds like a good idea to get a different perspective. However, I am afraid some have taken too many steps back to fall off the cliff of faith, which I do not think is necessary.

I can understand from your perspective how it might seem that way but we don’t all fit into a neat box of the faith of others. Each of us needs to find our own path and how that plays out is different for each person. Some of us tried the path you mentioned but it just didn’t work for us so we moved on. When I left the LC I did it without making an issue out of it. I had brought many people into the LC including family members. I didn’t want to convince anyone anymore to believe in something or become a part of something. I felt I had done enough damage and I just wanted to move on. If they had questions I would answer them but I am not into convincing someone to believe in a faith religion anymore. Certainly I am interested in discussing issues, disagreeing, agreeing etc but not into convincing someone to believe. While certainly scary at first one can step away and live on.

Originally Posted by bearbear

God does intervene when people cry out to him and come to him. Despite God's holiness and righteousness being such a terrifying thing as displayed in the OT, he promises in Jeremiah 29:13 that if you seek God with all your heart you will find him. This is the true context of Romans 10:13.. Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. The context is that you have no where to turn and no hope, you've used up all your lifelines and you recognize that only God can save you and you cry out to him with all your heart.

I have seen with my own eyes lives changed from God's own intervention. My small group recently had an unbelieving husband attend starting less than a year ago. He was jobless and had to take care of two children by himself because his wife was steeped in so much depression that she refused to take care of the children or leave the house. However over time, He came to believe after experiencing God's love and his wife also saw changes in him. She got interested and started attending the small group. She started reading the bible for herself and for the first time in a long time she testified that she finally felt joy in her life. They're now living lives of joy and happiness, even serving in the church, whereas before they had no hope and only sadness.

My wife remarked to me last week how we actually see others lives and our own lives changed and transformed for the better, whereas in the LCs we never witnessed this kind of transformation in people's lives and as a result we were just living in powerless religion (2 Tim 3:5).

Great stories! I have seen many lives changed over the years of my Christian faith before the LC and during the LC. Not too long ago I heard from one person I had brought to Jesus in California (Santa Cruz). He had a personal tragedy in his life with his only son dying. However, he appeared to have continued to grow in the faith. He was buffered by being in Santa Cruz away from the mercurial center of the LC.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Furthermore because God loves us, he doesn't want us to shed our own blood to pay for our sin, but he provided the sacrifice, as he foreshadowed in the story of Abraham and Isaac which Abraham prophesied without knowing:

Genesis 22:8
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

But God spared Abraham's son. But not His own son. He did what he wouldn't let Abraham do. If Jesus was human it was a human sacrifice ... previously forbidden. If he was God, then God sacrificed Himself, committing Deicide.

It still impugns my moral sensitivities. And I'm only human, with only human morals. But with more sense than Abraham had.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps the biggest deception was this fantasy that Elden Hall was so marvelously blessed because they were "absolutely one" with Lee. This sleight of hand was incredibly effective in expediting Lee's domination of the saints.

According to Hosepipe, who was there, it was Lee that killed the move of the Spirit at Elden. Lee didn't like the competition.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

According to Hosepipe, who was there, it was Lee that killed the move of the Spirit at Elden. Lee didn't like the competition.

Based on my own experience it was those who migrated out of Elden Hall who were also the problem. The ones I had contact with had a high opinion of themselves as to their spiritual knowledge and level of spirituality and brought this opinion to local churches that received them when they migrated. Of course, that attitude may have been transmitted by WL to these Christians before they migrated. As time went on it was obvious that WL was using these brothers to control the churches based on my experience. Not sure if this discussion lends itself to this thread of "Fundamentalism". I guess we could add that WL's doctrines were also transmitted with those who migrated from Elden Hall and his control of the churches gave him the ability to control the doctrines he proposed through the brothers who migrated, the Life Studies, conferences etc.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

But God spared Abraham's son. But not His own son. He did what he wouldn't let Abraham do. If Jesus was human it was a human sacrifice ... previously forbidden. If he was God, then God sacrificed Himself, committing Deicide.

It still impugns my moral sensitivities. And I'm only human, with only human morals. But with more sense than Abraham had.

The prohibition was against sacrificing your own son / daughters by burning them or offering them up to Molech.

"Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD." Lev 18:21

God didn't sacrifice Jesus himself in the same way that Abraham was getting ready to burn Isaac, Jesus went to the cross willingly out of his own free will. Furthermore, his crucifixion was spurred on by others who were satanically inspired. God simply allowed it by not intervening and had Satan known what was really happening, he wouldn't have gone through with it, but he got tricked. God can play the fool, in the same way that many scriptures appear foolish on the surface, but in the end, it seems that no one can outsmart God.

1 Cor 2:8
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

I can understand from your perspective how it might seem that way but we don’t all fit into a neat box of the faith of others. Each of us needs to find our own path and how that plays out is different for each person. Some of us tried the path you mentioned but it just didn’t work for us so we moved on. When I left the LC I did it without making an issue out of it. I had brought many people into the LC including family members. I didn’t want to convince anyone anymore to believe in something or become a part of something. I felt I had done enough damage and I just wanted to move on. If they had questions I would answer them but I am not into convincing someone to believe in a faith religion anymore. Certainly I am interested in discussing issues, disagreeing, agreeing etc but not into convincing someone to believe. While certainly scary at first one can step away and live on.

Jesus respected free will and never forced his views on anyone. When the rich ruler walked away sad (Matthew 19:22), although Jesus loved him (Mark 10:21) Jesus didn't chase him down and try to barter with him "Howabout if you give 50% away instead?". Instead he simply let him go. Furthermore Jesus spoke in parables *so that* people could not understand and he instructed his disciples to shake the dust off their sandals when people rejected them.

I believe that although God predestinates, we are all masters of our own destiny and given freedom. Perhaps the LC environment was so suffocating because the leadership always seemed to force everyone into adopting the same view but that's not how Jesus operated.

Unfortunately that doesn't change my belief that there is a judgment at the end by a holy God as scriptures describe. Yet perhaps, the judgment can simply be viewed as God respecting free will. Those who reject God by not responding to the gospel will have their wish fulfilled by eternal separation from his presence, including everything good that he made, since all good comes from God (James 1:17).

Yet, I hope everyone reads my writing in "take it or leave it" kind of way, and I don't wish to force my views on anyone. Just read my views as someone who believes scripture to be God's word and tries to believe what it says.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Jesus respected free will and never forced his views on anyone. When the rich man walked away sad (Matthew 19:22), although Jesus loved him (Mark 10:21) Jesus didn't chase him down and try to barter with him "Howabout if you give 50% away instead?". Instead he simply let him go. Furthermore Jesus spoke in parables *so that* people could not understand and he instructed his disciples to shake the dust off their sandals when people rejected them.

I believe that although God predestinates, we are all masters of our own destiny and given freedom. Perhaps the LC environment was so suffocating because the leadership always seemed to force everyone into adopting the same view but that's not how Jesus operated.

Unfortunately that doesn't change my belief that there is a judgment at the end by a holy God as scriptures describe. Yet perhaps, the judgment can simply be viewed as God respecting free will. Those who reject God by not responding to the gospel will have their wish fulfilled by eternal separation from his presence, including everything good that he made, since all good comes from God (James 1:17).

Yet, I hope everyone reads my writing in "take it or leave it" kind of way, and I don't wish to force my views on anyone. Just read my views as someone who believes scripture to be God's word and tries to believe what it says.

Jesus didn't leave options (Mark 13:3-5). It was always his way or the highway. How can you have free will when you have no choice? Here is Jesus and Paul's options for that matter: Either believe or you will rot and burn in hell for eternity. Is that free will? Free will provides a choice and doesn't become coercive. He could have said something to the effect that I will give you riches in the next life but you don't have to jump through hoops to get them. That would be free will. No, either believe or it is fire and brimstone. Honestly, that does not appear to be a just God or a loving God but it appears to be a hateful God in my opinion. Just look at the OT where God will kill thousands of people at a time. Where do you come up with free will? To me, the cross didn't remove the curse but it only gave us another curse.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

To me, the cross didn't remove the curse but it only gave us another curse.

That's a complaint I have about the 3rd fundamental:

Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin

Okay Jesus' death on the cross allowed God to forgive original sin. But if so why didn't God left the curse he put on everything and everyone after the garden failure? Did the cross only satisfy God half the way? Was it not efficacious enough to completely satisfy God? If so He'd a lifted the curse.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

Jesus didn't leave options (Mark 13:3-5). It was always his way or the highway. How can you have free will when you have no choice? Here is Jesus and Paul's options for that matter: Either believe or you will rot and burn in hell for eternity. Is that free will? Free will provides a choice and doesn't become coercive. He could have said something to the effect that I will give you riches in the next life but you don't have to jump through hoops to get them. That would be free will. No, either believe or it is fire and brimstone. Honestly, that does not appear to be a just God or a loving God but it appears to be a hateful God in my opinion. Just look at the OT where God will kill thousands of people at a time. Where do you come up with free will? To me, the cross didn't remove the curse but it only gave us another curse.

There is free will in the sense that God let's you do whatever you want and he will never force his grace and love on you.

However everyone will eventually reap what they have sown. God doesn't just pour out his wrath randomly but his wrath comes forth from his righteousness.

In the same way that if you had a son or daughter you loved, but he/she went on to murder someone, they'd have to answer for their crimes with time in jail or even the death penalty. The fact that you love them, wouldn't change the debt that they incurred for their crime. Yet Jesus paid the debt for our crimes. (However he adds the condition that you have to repent of your sin and turn to God. If you think about it, the goal of most good criminal justice systems is not only to punish but also to reform and rehabilitate. God wants to rehabilitate fallen man which he does through the Holy Spirit made possible by Jesus' death on the cross.)

Unfortunately God's judgment is eternal and that does sounds harsh, but I think it's possible that outside of the physical dimension, where God resides in the heavenly realms, time does not exist. Perhaps any judgment that takes place is by nature eternal since the concept of time only exists in the world we live in, and not in the spiritual world.

[bearbear]

Just look at the OT where God will kill thousands of people at a time. Where do you come up with free will? To me, the cross didn't remove the curse but it only gave us another curse.

Psalms 106:38
They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.

In many cases, God did this when the Israelites were committing gross immorality such as murdering innocents. In any modern society today, you would be harshly judged for shedding innocent blood.

God was executing his righteousness upon the Israelites who refused to repent. However, for those that did repent, God was willing to forgive them and forget their former sins (Ezekiel 18), as he also did in the OT such as in case of the evil king Manasseh mentioned earlier and the city of Nineveh who were previously into some pretty wicked things. This kind of grace isn't even found in human justice systems, hence why the Israelites often sung verses like this:

Psalms 100:5
For the LORD is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations.

[bearbear]

In one of Sadhu Sundar Singh's vision, free will actually extends into the after life:

http://reluctant-messenger.com/sadhu-sundar-singh.htm

He recounts a vision in which sinners who were in hell/hades asked God to take them to paradise in heaven. God actually granted their request but when they were taken there, God's presence was so overwhelmingly painful that they found it to be more tolerable in hell and asked to be cast back down. Their souls which were shackled by unforgiveness, bitterness, envy, hate etc. were incompatible with God's holiness.

There is a theme in the bible that God's presence can either bless you or curse you depending on your disposition towards God. For example when the Ark of the Covenant was with the Philistines, it cursed them and they had all sorts of weird diseases and people died. They hated the Ark so much that they sent it back where it ended up in the house of Obed-edom. From there the Ark blessed Obed-edom's family so greatly that David wanted the ark for himself. So God's presence blesses his own, but curses his enemies by it's very nature. Where there is light, darkness must flee.

And to get sense for how powerful God's presence is, consider Isaiah who was the most holy man of Israel during his time, yet he was undone by God's presence in chapter 6 when he was taken to the throne room to see Christ.

"Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty."

Scripture says God dwells in unapproachable light, he is a consuming fire and no one has ever seen God the Father and lived (John 1:18). Our only hope is to be found in Jesus Christ where we are safe.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

How can you have free will when you have no choice....Free will provides a choice and doesn't become coercive.

Surprisingly, you make statements like this when you know full well that Man did indeed have a choice. God did not create robots, he created Man with a free will, which is why he had to warn them about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. At that point God already had an enemy, a crafty, evil and lying adversary who himself, at one point, exercised his God-given free will to turn against God in rebellion and disobedience.

We know the story...Man, with HIS FREE WILL, also chose the path of rebellion and disobedience and thus, according to the teachings of Jesus and the scripture writing apostles, our free will became subjugated to the disastrous and fatal affects of The Fall. (even all of creation was subjugated to these disastrous and fatal affects, and suffers to this day along with mankind). So, it would be a factual mistake to say that we still do have a free will, yet it is still subjugated to "the law of sin and death". (Rom 8:2) This law of sin and death is just as real and just as active and the law of gravity or any of the other laws of the universe that have been set in order by God.

THIS IS WHERE GRACE COMES IN! THIS IS WHERE THAT OFFENSIVE CROSS COMES IN! "For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death". (Rom 8:2) It is ONLY through the Spirit of life coming into our being that our will can break free from the subjugation to the law of sin and death AND THIS WAS ONLY MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SACRAFICIAL DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST, which brought forth the resurrection which paved the way for the Spirit of life to be available.

This is all basic stuff and I feel like a vacation bible school teacher. The truth according to the Bible is that God is not sending us to hell (which Jesus Christ plainly stated was prepared for the devil and his angels - Matt 25:41) we were already on our way to hell because of the disobedience of Adam. From the get-go we all needed at Savior. Our free will has been subjugated from the get-go.

This is what the Christian Gospel IS ALL ABOUT. It is NOT about ANYTHING ELSE. It is not about how one dresses. It is not about culture. It has NOTHING to do with the tea party or ANY political party. It has NOTHING to do with any nationality or race. It ONLY has to do with what the Lord Jesus Christ did to SAVE US FROM THE CHOICE OF THE ORIGINAL FREE WILLED MAN.

This is my "fundamentals".

[bearbear]

Here's a transcript of Sundar Singh's vision:
http://reluctant-messenger.com/sadhu-sundar-singh.htm

A WICKED MAN PERMITTED TO ENTER HEAVEN
Once in my presence a man of evil life entered at death into the world of spirits. When the angel and saints wished to help him he at once began to curse and revile them, and say, "God is altogether unjust. He has prepared heaven for such flattering slaves as you are, and casts the rest of mankind into hell. Yet you call Him Love!" The angels replied, "God certainly is Love. He created men that they might live forever in happy fellowship with Him, but men, by their own obstinacy, and by abuse of their free will have turned their faces away from Him, and have made hell for themselves. God neither casts any one into hell, nor will He ever do so, but man himself, by being entangled in sin, creates hell for himself. God never created any hell."

Just then, the exceedingly sweet voice of one of the high angels was heard from above saying, "God gives permission that this man may be brought into heaven." Eagerly the man stepped forward accompanied by two angels, but when they reached the door of heaven, and saw the holy and light-enveloped place and the glorious and blessed inhabitants that dwell there, he began to feel uneasy. The angels said to him, "See how beautiful a world is this! Go a little farther, and look at the dear Lord sitting on His throne." From the door he looked, and then as the light of the Sun of Righteousness revealed to him the impurity of his sin-defiled life, he started back in an agony of self-loathing, and fled, with such precipitancy, that he did not even stop in the intermediate state of the world of spirits, but like a stone he passed through it, and cast himself headlong into the bottomless pit.

Then the sweet and ravishing voice of the Lord was heard saying, "Look, My dear children, none is forbidden to come here, and no one forbade this man, nor has any one asked him to leave. It was his own impure life that forced him to flee from this holy place, for, 'Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God' (John 3:3).

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So, it would be a factual mistake to say that we still do have a free will, yet it is still subjugated to "the law of sin and death". (Rom 8:2)

That is another interesting way of looking at it. Jesus said we are all slaves to sin and need to be set free. Our freedom has been hijacked ever since the fall by sin in the same way a heroine addict can't stop his addiction no matter how hard he tries to quit. Indeed, we need to be set free by a Savior.

John 8:34-36
Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave of sin. A slave is not a permanent member of the family, but a son is part of the family forever. So if the Son sets you free, you are truly free.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

The entire Bible is relevant but from a historical viewpoint and not a theological viewpoint.

How is that different than saying that the entire Bible is relevant as the dead letter and not as living truth?

You can spiritualize any of the verses in the Bible but only from a theological standing not a historical standing.

But, when a fact is purely historical doesn't that imply that it is absolutely irrelevant to the present? That is to say, it is about another time that has no direct bearing on our life or destiny. It is strictly an event confined to the past. When history has meaning for me, it is more than historical. it becomes in some way a live option in the present. Thus, the job of the preacher could be construed to be making an ancient text more than historical.

That was part of the problem in the LC and really set us back because we let WL spiritualize the Bible since he was the Oracle of God (the entire Bible was the unveiling of Christ) rather than trying to understand the context of verses whether from a textual standpoint or a historical standpoint.

It is true that as Lee-ites we were expected to totally reject critical thinking about the history behind the Bible. In that regard, the LC continued fundamentalist practice. Lee's absolute authority precluded "alternative views" And of course, not every metaphorical interpretation [that's what I suppose you mean by "spiritualize'] will be valid. But, how would studying the Bible as history result in faith let alone a church?

No, I think Ehrman will have the last word…well, not necessarily Ehrman himself but Biblical scholarship is coming to the front of the line.

Historical knowledge is at best approximate. So, there won't be a last word on the history behind the Bible. There are many important historical questions about the Bible for which there is no evidentiary basis for an answer. The answers historians like Ehrman give are more or less plausible. They don't go beyond that level of certainty. There is nothing like mathematical certainty in historical New Testament research.

The top scholars don't agree about major issues of fact. Even where most of them agree, they are far from certain. Take the idea of Marcan priority for instance. It has been accepted by most scholars since the late nineteenth century and forms the foundation for the widely accepted two-source theory. It's the most likely hypothesis out there at the moment. That doesn't make it a known fact. Not surprisingly a number of scholars reject it altogether. And that's just one example of the present state of historical Bible ignorance. There are almost as many more or less plausible historical Jesuses as there are Jesus scholars.

You are correct from a general point of view but from a personal point of view I see it as a social gospel.

Right, but there are at least two Social Gospels, the religious Right's and the religious Left's. Therein lies the problem.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Apparently you are using a literalist hermeneutic like the fundamentalist espouses. As I mentioned before, even Paul recommended reading spiritually not literally.

Yer a funny guy, calling a Unitarian Universalist a literalist. That's gut splitting.

Poor bro Dave. Everybody is pickin' on him. Right now he's our sacrificial anode. He's not a literalist. He's a Jesus type ; bearing his LCD cross.

And speaking of literalism. Where does "Paul recommended reading spiritually not literally?" Shame on you, acting all academic, and speaking in scholarly philosophical fashion, and not providing references to your audacious claim.

Straighten up and fly right bro.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yer a funny guy, calling a Unitarian Universalist a literalist. That's gut splitting.

Poor bro Dave. Everybody is pickin' on him. Right now he's our sacrificial anode. He's not a literalist. He's a Jesus type ; bearing his LCD cross.

And speaking of literalism. Where does "Paul recommended reading spiritually not literally?" Shame on you, acting all academic, and speaking in scholarly philosophical fashion, and not providing references to your audacious claim.

Straighten up and fly right bro.

Bart Ehrman still thinks like a fundamentalist and so do you some of the time. Train up a child to be a fundamentalist and she will depart from it only with great difficulty.

And you still think like a Bible thumper too, A-Ware. I wondered if anyone would call me on that. Here ya go:

2 Corinthians 3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

Bart Ehrman still thinks like a fundamentalist and so do you some of the time. Train up a child to be a fundamentalist and she will depart from it only with great difficulty.

And you still think like a Bible thumper too, A-Ware. I wondered if anyone would call me on that. Here ya go:

2 Corinthians 3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

The context of 2 Cor 3:6 is Paul comparing the Old Covenant against the New Covenant. The Old Covenant was written on tablets of stone, but in the New Covenant, God writes his word in our heart. In other words, God's word wasn't meant to stay on pieces of paper but it was meant to reach our heart. I don't think Paul meant to instruct us how to interpret scripture in verse 6, rather Paul was saying that the word is meant to be written in our heart which is accomplished by the Spirit dwelling in our heart which coincides with our own abiding in and living by God's word.

That's why Paul was saying that the Corinthian believers themselves were his "letter" in verse 2:

"The only letter of recommendation we need is you yourselves. Your lives are a letter written in our hearts everyone can read it and recognize our good work among you."

Jesus also talks about this in John 15: "Abide in me and in my words... and I will remain in you", and he also repeated stressed not only hearing God's word, but living by them, e.g. actually doing God's word.

Matthew 7:24
Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

So we can interpret scripture literally or spiritually all day as they love to do in the LCs and in the seminaries and in internet forums , which isn't necessarily bad, but if we don't actually do or live by God's word, it's all pointless and scripture may as well be dead letters.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

The context of 2 Cor 3:6 is Paul comparing the Old Covenant against the New Covenant. The Old Covenant was written on tablets of stone, but in the New Covenant, God writes his word in our heart. In other words, God's word wasn't meant to stay on pieces of paper but it was meant to reach our heart. I don't think Paul meant to instruct us how to interpret scripture in verse 6, rather Paul was saying that the word is meant to be written in our heart which is accomplished by the Spirit dwelling in our heart which coincides with our own abiding in and living by God's word.

I had an MRI of my heart done last year and I couldn't see any words on it, but maybe your right.

That's why Paul was saying that the Corinthian believers themselves were his "letter" in verse 2:

I wonder if Paul stuck them in an envelope.

"The only letter of recommendation we need is you yourselves. Your lives are a letter written in our hearts everyone can read it and recognize our good work among you.

"

What part of their bodies were the letters written on? Was it a tatoo?

Jesus also talks about this in John 15: "Abide in me and in my words... and I will remain in you", and he also repeated stressed not only hearing God's word, but living by them, e.g. actually doing God's word.

Wouldn't it get kind of cramped inside Jesus? Can you see Jesus in you on a full body scan?

Matthew 7:24
Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

So it's like building a house out of words? Cool.

So we can interpret scripture literally or spiritually all day as they love to do in the LCs and in the seminaries and in internet forums , which isn't necessarily bad, but if we don't actually do or live by God's word, it's all pointless.

Well as you can see, I'm interpreting them literally now. They don't make any sense to me this way. How do you "do" a word? If I live by his word does that mean I can stop eating food and not starve to death?

Anyway, it's comforting that you know these things, bearbear.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

I had an MRI of my heart done last year and I couldn't see any words on it, but maybe your right.



I wonder if Paul stuck them in an envelope.

"

What part of their bodies were the letters written on? Was it a tatoo?



Wouldn't it get kind of cramped inside Jesus? Can you see Jesus in you on a full body scan?



So it's like building a house out of words? Cool.



Well as you can see, I'm interpreting them literally now. They don't make any sense to me this way. How do you "do" a word? If I live by his word does that mean I can stop eating food and not starve to death?

Anyway, it's comforting that you know these things, bearbear.

I don't see how this helps your point since fundamentalists clearly do not interpret scriptures in this way.

And.. I never said interpreting scriptures spiritually (however you define it) was bad, I think I'd be all for that if the word is being handled rightly (2 Tim 2:15). I'm just saying that verse isn't the best one you want to use to prove your point since it's talking about living the word and not merely interpreting it, which can also fall under treating God's word as dead letters. But who am I to play context police? Perhaps Dave's influence is rubbing off on me I don't think any of the stuff I'm saying is really novel, but I think anyone can gain this understanding from a simple reading of the scriptures.

UntoHim said he felt like he was teaching vacation bible school. But I'm still down with getting into the basics because I find that there are still some interesting revelations to be found down here. IMO the LCs spiritually starved everyone by pushing the "High Peak" revelation at the cost of some real food which comes from basic things anyone can receive by simply reading the scriptures for themselves. In my experience, all you need is a little faith, no oracle or MOTA required.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Surprisingly, you make statements like this when you know full well that Man did indeed have a choice. God did not create robots, he created Man with a free will, which is why he had to warn them about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. At that point God already had an enemy, a crafty, evil and lying adversary who himself, at one point, exercised his God-given free will to turn against God in rebellion and disobedience…..It ONLY has to do with what the Lord Jesus Christ did to SAVE US FROM THE CHOICE OF THE ORIGINAL FREE WILLED MAN… This is my "fundamentals".

I find it surprising that this is your definition of “fundamentals”. I understand what you are saying but you may not have understood what I said. Of course, fundamental Christians believe that because of Adam’s fall all mankind is born in sin etc. i.e. because our grandfather may have killed someone we are born killers by default. Christ died on the cross to rectify that issue. However, if you don’t accept that premise you are doomed to hell so the choice is to accept that premise or you are doomed to hell along with as you noted Satan and the nasty angels. In any case, that ends up as a theological question. Do we really have a choice? I think not if we have to accept that premise or we are doomed to eternal damnation because of our original sin through Adam.

I have another concern. The premise: Adam sinned and therefore we are condemned because he ate some fruit God asked him not to eat as a result of Eve talking him into eating the fruit. In Luke 3:23-38 we have Jesus’ lineage all the way back to Adam so we have an approximate time frame of when Adam was born. I am not talking about Pember’s gap theory which I agree with because the earth is much older than 6000 years. I am talking about the creation of Adam, the source of original sin. We don’t know how many thousands of years between the creation of the earth and the creation of Adam. There are also many lineages in the Old Testament that go back to Adam. We can provide an approximate time frame for the creation of Adam but we don’t have any evidence of his DNA nor of Jesus’ for that matter so everything is approximation. However, today, we can trace our own lineage through DNA analysis and determine approximation as to our lineage history. https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/about/

National Geographic has been performing DNA analysis for several years tracing humans back more than 50,000 years. In fact, I had my DNA swab sent to National Geographic some years ago and they have pinpointed where my ancestors were born and lived---West Africa over 50,000 years ago and their migration has been traced over the years through Europe using DNA analysis. My lineage crossed through the Middle East about 45,000 years ago. Bottom line, it appears that Adam is not my part of my lineage. I guess I may have very well lucked out and avoided original sin from Adam but you make an interesting point. When Paul says “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” he is talking to all those from the Adam lineage because that is Paul’s understanding being Jewish even though he preached to the Gentiles. He did not have the science we have today to understand that maybe not every human originated from Adam like him.

In Genesis there appears to be more than meets the eye beyond the “gap” theory between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. There must have been other humans on the earth at the time Adam and Eve were created because my "human" genealogy starts before their creation and Adam’s genealogy is well preserved and dated. 1 Chronicles 1:1-3:1.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

I don't see how this helps your point since fundamentalists clearly do not interpret scriptures in this way.

I was just following your lead. Your interpretation ended up with "heart" as if that explained anything.

And.. I never said interpreting scriptures spiritually (however you define it) was bad, I think I'd be all for that if the word is being handled rightly (2 Tim 2:15). I'm just saying that verse isn't the best one you want to use to prove your point since it's talking about living the word and not merely interpreting it, which can also fall under treating God's word as dead letters. But who am I to play context police? Perhaps Dave's influence is rubbing off on me I don't think any of the stuff I'm saying is really novel, but I think anyone can gain this understanding from a simple reading of the scriptures.

Ah, "handled rightly." There's the rub. Who decides that? Is that what you are doing? You're saying "living the word" as if that literally means something. Apparently you have been mystified by the tropes you're using. No, its not novel, it's all too common, IMO.

UntoHim said he felt like he was teaching vacation bible school. But I'm still down with getting into the basics because I find that there are still some interesting revelations to be found down here. IMO the LCs spiritually starved everyone by pushing the "High Peak" revelation at the cost of some real food which comes from basic things anyone can receive by simply reading the scriptures for themselves. In my experience, all you need is a little faith, no oracle or MOTA required.

"Basics" is that what you call them? "Down" where? If you take the New Testament model of Bible hermeneutics, you're going to be doing some figurative interpretation. Look at the way they interpreted the Hebrew Bible. If you don't you're going to be talking in circles like the one you traced with "heart" in the previous post.

That kind of thinking is useless from my point of view. But then , so is Lee's. He was talking in another kind of circle, it seems to me. Perhaps he kept back the key in order to make himself indispensable to his followers. Maybe in the process of mystifying others he mystified himself as well. If so, self-mystification served him well.

But, then, where's the verse that tells you to be literal? Or the one that says that every story in the Gospels is meant to be read historically? You believe God intervenes to correct the world he created every day. So it's not likely you're to question if Jesus was a literal king or a literal messiah.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here ya go:

2 Corinthians 3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Ahaaaaa ... there it is. So why do so many fundy Christians use and quote scripture as dead letter? That sort of kills the spirit of the word ... the opposite, obviously, of what they think they are doing. They quote it as if were/is law. That's why they are called Bible thumpers.

bearbear does this all the time ... but he's far from being alone.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ahaaaaa ... there it is. So why do so many fundy Christians use and quote scripture as dead letter? That sort of kills the spirit of the word ... the opposite, obviously, of what they think they are doing. They quote it as if were/is law. That's why they are called Bible thumpers.

bearbear does this all the time ... but he's far from being alone.

Not sure how to get around quoting scripture in a theological discussion, but I'm learning to add testimonies and personal experiences to back up what I say. Jesus as well as the other NT authors also quoted scripture and the NT is filled with citations of OT, but then again satan also quoted scripture. IMO it all depends on the spirit/intent, the heart of the person.

Satan could quote scripture but he could never live it out. The word of God would never be living for him. In the same way, Witness Lee could conduct a lot of great trainings and conferences, but what's the point if he's defrauding and suing people and sinning left and right? Scripture wasn't meant to be stuck on pages but it was meant to be lived out, though that doesn't mean that quoting is necessarily bad. Faith comes by hearing so the word must first be spoken and heard.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was just following your lead. Your interpretation ended up with "heart" as if that explained anything.

Ah, "handled rightly." There's the rub. Who decides that? Is that what you are doing? You're saying "living the word" as if that literally means something. Apparently you have been mystified by the tropes you're using. No, its not novel, it's all too common, IMO.

Again, I'm not taking any sides in the literal vs spiritual interpretation debate (and I'm not sure what you're definitions are for literal vs spiritual are anymore). I just brought the context up because I think 2 Cor 3:16 is commonly misused and stated out of context.

What does living the word mean? Jesus alludes to this in the sermon on the mount. When the word is lived out, the word of God is no longer followed religiously, but by the Spirit of God and through the love of Jesus, it becomes a part of you. For example, maybe we are commanded to tithe and give to the poor. We can treat this as a religious duty and give begrudgingly, but say that after we are transformed by the love of God, we give because it becomes a part of who we are because it gives us joy and blessing to bless and love on others. God loves a cheerful giver.

But, then, where's the verse that tells you to be literal? Or the one that says that every story in the Gospels is meant to be read historically? You believe God intervenes to correct the world he created every day. So it's not likely you're to question if Jesus was a literal king or a literal messiah.

Yea perhaps I shouldn't be in this discussion because I believe all bible is truth.

My take on interpretation is that there are cases when we do need to interpret allegorically, and this is clear in cases when Jesus spoke in parables and when it's clear from the text that such an interpretation is needed such as when the writer is using a figure of speech or well known idiom. For example when Jesus said "seek and you will find, knock and it will be open to you", he was using a Hebrew idiom for someone that had a consuming obsession to know the answer to something. And when Jesus spoke in parables, he wanted us to learn the spiritual principles behind them, such as the parable of the sower, the 5 wise and 5 foolish virgins etc.

In many other cases I believe we need to interpret literally, such as when Jesus commanded his disciples to go and make disciples in all nations, a command that they followed literally until each of their martyrdom.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

Christ died on the cross to rectify that issue. However, if you don’t accept that premise you are doomed to hell so the choice is to accept that premise or you are doomed to hell along with as you noted Satan and the nasty angels. In any case, that ends up as a theological question. Do we really have a choice? I think not if we have to accept that premise or we are doomed to eternal damnation because of our original sin through Adam.

That's one way to look at it, but there are a lot of scriptures to indicate that God views the situation differently that implicates us and not the Creator:

We're living in a burning house and don't know how to leave and many aren't even aware that it is burning. God tells us that we have to leave the house before it's too late (Luke 13:2-3). Unfortunately, there's only one way out of the house, and that's through Jesus (John 14:6, Matt 7:14). God wants everyone to leave the house so they can be saved (1 Tim 2:4), in fact he is practically begging them to leave but he is not allowed to force anyone to do anything against their will (Matt 23:37). In the end the house burns down and the people that left are saved, but those that didn't leave are doomed. God did everything he could do to save them, to the point that he even died to provide the exit out of the house, however he couldn't force anyone to act against their will.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ahaaaaa ... there it is. So why do so many fundy Christians use and quote scripture as dead letter? That sort of kills the spirit of the word ... the opposite, obviously, of what they think they are doing. They quote it as if were/is law. That's why they are called Bible thumpers.

bearbear does this all the time ... but he's far from being alone.

Well that's a big question. Of course, the short answer is "I don't know." I think before we even begin to tackle that question we would have to have a better understanding of literalism and how it relates to inerrancy and supernaturalism. Any thoughts?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

What does living the word mean? Jesus alludes to this in the sermon on the mount.

He does? I must have missed that verse. Where does he talk about living the word?

When the word is lived out, the word of God is no longer followed religiously, but by the Spirit of God and through the love of Jesus, it becomes a part of you.

What is that like? How does the word of God relate to the Spirit of God exactly? How do you know when it is part of you?

For example, maybe we are commanded to tithe and give to the poor. We can treat this as a religious duty and give begrudgingly, but say that after we are transformed by the love of God, we give because it becomes a part of who we are because it gives us joy and blessing to bless and love on others. God loves a cheerful giver.

So then it is automatic like having a robot arm on you that is controlled remotely from an alien command center or something?

Yea perhaps I shouldn't be in this discussion because I believe all bible is truth.

Well, of course, that's entirely up to you. But, I wasn't suggesting that you not believe in the Bible as truth but rather asking how you believe it because it seems that people can believe it in different ways and I am trying to understand how you do it. If you think I'm wrong about any of that feel free to correct me.

My take on interpretation is that there are cases when we do need to interpret allegorically, and this is clear in cases when Jesus spoke in parables and when it's clear from the text that such an interpretation is needed such as when the writer is using a figure of speech or well known idiom. For example when Jesus said "seek and you will find, knock and it will be open to you", he was using a Hebrew idiom for someone that had a consuming obsession to know the answer to something. And when Jesus spoke in parables, he wanted us to learn the spiritual principles behind them, such as the parable of the sower, the 5 wise and 5 foolish virgins etc.

Right.

In many other cases I believe we need to interpret literally, such as when Jesus commanded his disciples to go and make disciples in all nations, a command that they followed literally until each of their martyrdom.

Only you know whether or not that is what you actually believe.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

That's one way to look at it, but there are a lot of scriptures to indicate that God views the situation differently that implicates us and not the Creator:

We're living in a burning house and don't know how to leave and many aren't even aware that it is burning. God tells us that we have to leave the house before it's too late (Luke 13:2-3). Unfortunately, there's only one way out of the house, and that's through Jesus (John 14:6, Matt 7:14). God wants everyone to leave the house so they can be saved (1 Tim 2:4), in fact he is practically begging them to leave but he is not allowed to force anyone to do anything against their will (Matt 23:37). In the end the house burns down and the people that left are saved, but those that didn't leave are doomed. God did everything he could do to save them, to the point that he even died to provide the exit out of the house, however he couldn't force anyone to act against their will.

It seems as though God started the fire (okay, I know if we hadn't eaten the fruit from the wrong tree everything would be A-Okay) but you are saying he only gave us one way out of the burning house? Aside from that he is watching on the sideline looking on at the burning house while everyone burns up who is inside. He doesn't call the firetruck or even try to rescue those burning up in the burning house. He figures that he gave them one way out and if they don't take that way, then, "good riddance"? Just doesn't sound like a loving God.

[Dave]

In a topic at our church in a couple weeks, titled “Fundamentalism is the Problem: Christian or Muslim” it states, “Fundamentalism tends to emerge in socially disorganized regions; its most dangerous aspect is a claim on absolute truth, which has the power to seduce the young, the uneducated, the poor, the dispossessed, and the dispirited. We need to worry.” A great many of the radical fundamentalist groups are disconcerting. I see this kind of stuff and what it is obvious is that this is aberrant: http://www.aryan-nation.org/ANSD_calltoaction.pdf but they start out by telling people “we are all members of the body of Christ”. They believe in the inerrancy of the Bible etc. We know they are a cult but many of these members attend a fundamentalist Christian church, praise the Lord and shout "Hallelujah". I am sure no one on this forum is extreme in this way but we always need to be vigilant.

The speaker notes in her summary that it is "gradations whether Muslim or Christian". I know we can say, "well, it won't happen to those I know". I have studied Christian groups in Germany during Nazism and it is not pretty. It is not just “I am a Fundamentalist and I believe in the Bible” but there are gradations. Honestly, while we say it will never happen to “me” anything can be taken to the extreme when we start judging people. Where do you draw the line? When we start telling people they will go to hell or damnation if they don't do this or that it can lead to serious issues in our culture if actually believed by others. What saves radical fundamentalism is that it is tolerated but not believed widely or supported? In addition, our constitution and laws protect us most of the time although we need to respond when we see our rights violated.

Certainly, many of us feel abused by the LC and that is what we are responding to even though they may claim to be "fundamentalist". This forum is allowing us to express our concerns about the LC and how it has affected many of us.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

It seems as though God started the fire (okay, I know if we hadn't eaten the fruit from the wrong tree everything would be A-Okay) but you are saying he only gave us one way out of the burning house?

It seems that Jesus wanted God to find some other way at Gethsemane, apparently there wasn't, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have had to die.

Aside from that he is watching on the sideline looking on at the burning house while everyone burns up who is inside. He doesn't call the firetruck or even try to rescue those burning up in the burning house.

In the case of the Jews, God sent fireman after fireman but the people decided to kill them rather than listen to their warnings. Finally God sent his only son and they killed him also (Luke 20:9-19, Mark 12:1-12). In NT times, the fireman are Jesus' disciples and he wants us to make other firemen/disciples so that more can be saved.

He figures that he gave them one way out and if they don't take that way, then, "good riddance"? Just doesn't sound like a loving God.

I believe God still loves those headed for destruction, in the same way that Jesus weeped for Jerusalem when they rejected him (Luke 19:41). If your son who you love commits serial murder, he's probably headed for life in prison / death penalty. The fact that you love your son can't change the debt he owes from the crimes he committed because of the law, yet you would weep for him.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

He does? I must have missed that verse. Where does he talk about living the word?

The allusion is spread throughout the sermon and ending in it's conclusion. Jesus takes the written law of Moses and brings it to the level of our heart so that it can be lived out. His disciples who were familiar with scripture would have made the connection with Jeremiah 31:33

"This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people."

So in the sermon, Jesus takes Torah, and brings it to the level of the heart.

Law of Moses / Root Cause & Heart Issue
1. Don't murder / Hate & Anger
2. Don't commit adultery / Lust
3. Fasting, Praying & Tithing / Enjoying Praise of Men vs Pleasing God Secretly
etc.

Jesus then concludes the sermon in Matthew Chapter 7 by saying it's not enough to hear his words which were about all these heart issues, but one also has to put them into practice, e.g. we have to live the word out from the heart and it's not enough to let the words remain on pieces of paper.

This was made possible through the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, which itself was made possible by Jesus' death on the cross.

Romans 8:9 (NLT)
But you are not controlled by your sinful nature. You are controlled by the Spirit if you have the Spirit of God living in you. (And remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.)

The Spirit in turn is given to those who realize their need to obey God and follow through.

Acts 5:32
We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

In a topic at our church in a couple weeks, titled “Fundamentalism is the Problem: Christian or Muslim” it states, “Fundamentalism tends to emerge in socially disorganized regions; its most dangerous aspect is a claim on absolute truth, which has the power to seduce the young, the uneducated, the poor, the dispossessed, and the dispirited. We need to worry.” A great many of the radical fundamentalist groups are disconcerting. I see this kind of stuff and what it is obvious is that this is aberrant: http://www.aryan-nation.org/ANSD_calltoaction.pdf but they start out by telling people “we are all members of the body of Christ”. They believe in the inerrancy of the Bible etc. We know they are a cult but many of these members attend a fundamentalist Christian church, praise the Lord and shout "Hallelujah". I am sure no one on this forum is extreme in this way but we always need to be vigilant.

Sounds like these people are simply racist. Taking away their fundamentalism wouldn't change it. They'd probably take any kind of belief system and hijack it as a channel for their racism. There's no way any honest interpretation of the New Testament could lead to racism:

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

There are racists in every religion including Buddhism. There are even well educated people who are racists and use genetics / eugenics to support their claims. I think these issues relate to the heart rather than things like biblical inerrancy. There are plenty of evangelicals, who believe in biblical inerrancy and that Jesus is the only way to heaven, that are loving others, feeding the hungry and taking care of orphans etc.

Now Islamic inerrantists are another beast to deal with considering there are over 100 verses in the Qur'an that command the believer to kill the infidel. And the muslim who refuses to do so and calls himself a muslim is a hypocrite destined for hell. This is the opposite of how Jesus taught which was to turn the other cheek and be the victim, and to return good for evil.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/qu...3-violence.htm

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

The allusion is spread throughout the sermon and ending in it's conclusion. Jesus takes the written law of Moses and brings it to the level of our heart so that it can be lived out. His disciples who were familiar with scripture would have made the connection with Jeremiah 31:33

"This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people."

So in the sermon, Jesus takes Torah, and brings it to the level of the heart.

Law of Moses / Root Cause & Heart Issue
1. Don't murder / Hate & Anger
2. Don't commit adultery / Lust
3. Fasting, Praying & Tithing / Enjoying Praise of Men vs Pleasing God Secretly
etc.

Jesus then concludes the sermon in Matthew Chapter 7 by saying it's not enough to hear his words which were about all these heart issues, but one also has to put them into practice, e.g. we have to live the word out from the heart and it's not enough to let the words remain on pieces of paper.

This was made possible through the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, which itself was made possible by Jesus' death on the cross.

Romans 8:9 (NLT)
But you are not controlled by your sinful nature. You are controlled by the Spirit if you have the Spirit of God living in you. (And remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.)

The Spirit in turn is given to those who realize their need to obey God and follow through.

Acts 5:32
We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."

So, even though Jesus does not talk about "living the word" in Matthew 5-7, you think that's what he meant to say?

[awareness]

“Fundamentalism tends to emerge in socially disorganized regions; its most dangerous aspect is a claim on absolute truth, which has the power to seduce the young, the uneducated, the poor, the dispossessed, and the dispirited. We need to worry.”

Originally Posted by bearbear

Sounds like these people are simply racist.

bearbear I got'ta give it ta ya. You make me laugh.

One thing we can say for certain about fundamentalism is that, fundamentalists are not a race. Those that hold to the five fundamentals are diverse, and even at odds with each other. They are, in fact, too diverse and disassociated to even be considered a tribe.

For example. Just last night, on cell phones, while helping my Jehovah's Witness friend with a computer problem, I asked him to answer yes or no as I ran the five fundamentals past him. Turned out, to his surprise actually, he's a fundamentalist. Baptist hold to them too, and Church of Christ (Campbellites, so called) too, all at odds with each other.

Turns out Fundamentalism is just a sect of Christianity, and not the largest sect of Christianity either, not by far.

But thanks for the laughs bro bearbear. Ya know. That's the problem with polemics. Sometimes it makes us say things we ordinarily wouldn't say.

Ha ...

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

bearbear I got'ta give it ta ya. You make me laugh.

One thing we can say for certain about fundamentalism is that, fundamentalists are not a race. Those that hold to the five fundamentals are diverse, and even at odds with each other. They are, in fact, too diverse and disassociated to even be considered a tribe.

For example. Just last night, on cell phones, while helping my Jehovah's Witness friend with a computer problem, I asked him to answer yes or no as I ran the five fundamentals past him. Turned out, to his surprise actually, he's a fundamentalist. Baptist hold to them too, and Church of Christ (Campbellites, so called) too, all at odds with each other.

Turns out Fundamentalism is just a sect of Christianity, and not the largest sect of Christianity either, not by far.

But thanks for the laughs bro bearbear. Ya know. That's the problem with polemics. Sometimes it makes us say things we ordinarily wouldn't say.

Ha ...

Heh I was referring to the aryan nation.. But I'm happy I made you laugh.

Perhaps the Pharisees could be considered to be the fundamentalists of their days, but so could Jesus and his disciples who believed in inerrancy of OT scriptures, and the resurrection as the Pharisees did. That means classifying someone as a fundamentalist based on the five fundamentals is perhaps not meaningful.

Acts 23:6
Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead."

Matthew 22:29-33
But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, even though Jesus does not talk about "living the word" in Matthew 5-7, you think that's what he meant to say?

I said he alluded to it in the original post #249.

Matthew 7:24
Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

v26
But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.

Romans 2:13
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

James 1:22
But don't just listen to God's word. You must do what it says. Otherwise, you are only fooling yourselves.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

I said he alluded to it in the original post #249.

Matthew 7:24
Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

v26
But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.

Romans 2:13
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

James 1:22
But don't just listen to God's word. You must do what it says. Otherwise, you are only fooling yourselves.

It seems to me that Jesus quite clearly is advocating practicing his teachings. It's not about "doing the word" or "living the word". To me your tropes seems to obscure the literal meaning of the verses. Since we are discussing the Sermon on the Mount the quotes from Romans and James are irrelevant. Let's not confuse the Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew with Paul and James.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Sounds like these people are simply racist. Taking away their fundamentalism wouldn't change it. They'd probably take any kind of belief system and hijack it as a channel for their racism. There's no way any honest interpretation of the New Testament could lead to racism:

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

There are racists in every religion including Buddhism. There are even well educated people who are racists and use genetics / eugenics to support their claims. I think these issues relate to the heart rather than things like biblical inerrancy. There are plenty of evangelicals, who believe in biblical inerrancy and that Jesus is the only way to heaven, that are loving others, feeding the hungry and taking care of orphans etc.

Now Islamic inerrantists are another beast to deal with considering there are over 100 verses in the Qur'an that command the believer to kill the infidel. And the muslim who refuses to do so and calls himself a muslim is a hypocrite destined for hell. This is the opposite of how Jesus taught which was to turn the other cheek and be the victim, and to return good for evil.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/qu...3-violence.htm

There are extreme radical "fundamentalists" on both sides of the fence and there are plenty of anti-Jewish verses in the scriptures for these people to get riled up about. When you add the wrathful God of the OT who killed people who were not following God's ways it is a combo for militant action. They believe they have Jesus on their side. In both cases (Muslim and Christian) there is an appeal to people's ignorance, prejudice and their fears that drives them into these types of extreme groups where they feel safe in numbers.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

It seems to me that Jesus quite clearly is advocating practicing his teachings. It's not about "doing the word" or "living the word". To me your tropes seems to obscure the literal meaning of the verses. Since we are discussing the Sermon on the Mount the quotes from Romans and James are irrelevant. Let's not confuse the Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew with Paul and James.

Jesus' words are God's words. Practicing his teachings is basically doing his word. Torah which was God's word even means teaching. If you're doing God's word from your heart as the sermon on the mount required, you are basically living Gods word out.

It helps to also read and meditate on his word so that we can live it out.

Matthew 4:4

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

Taken further, according to the gospel of John, Jesus is God's word in the flesh. When Jesus lives in us through the Holy Spirit, the word become flesh is living through us. In John 15, if we abide in Jesus and his word we will bear fruit. These fruits are works which corresponds to the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Jesus' words are God's words. Practicing his teachings is basically doing his word. The word Torah even means teaching. If you're doing God's word from your heart, you are basically living Gods word out. It helps to also read and meditate on his word so that we can live it out.

Matthew 4:4

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

Taken further, according to the gospel of John, Jesus is God's word in the flesh. When Jesus lives in us through the Holy Spirit, the word become flesh is living through us. In John 15, if we abide in Jesus and his word we will bear fruit. These fruits are works which corresponds to the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

"...doing his word" has a different meaning to me than you. Your minister or teacher has given you definitions and mine the same only different. When I hear "...doing his word" it means to me carrying out those messages that Jesus proclaimed in the Sermon on the Mount or the Beatitudes. It means seeing each person as worthy, feeding the poor, helping the homeless etc which is what Jesus practiced not just preached "words". We can all claim that the HS is working through us but what are the words "doing" in us.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

In a topic at our church in a couple weeks, titled “Fundamentalism is the Problem: Christian or Muslim” it states, “Fundamentalism tends to emerge in socially disorganized regions; its most dangerous aspect is a claim on absolute truth, which has the power to seduce the young, the uneducated, the poor, the dispossessed, and the dispirited. We need to worry.” A great many of the radical fundamentalist groups are disconcerting. I see this kind of stuff and what it is obvious is that this is aberrant: http://www.aryan-nation.org/ANSD_calltoaction.pdf but they start out by telling people “we are all members of the body of Christ”. They believe in the inerrancy of the Bible etc. We know they are a cult but many of these members attend a fundamentalist Christian church, praise the Lord and shout "Hallelujah". I am sure no one on this forum is extreme in this way but we always need to be vigilant.

The speaker notes in her summary that it is "gradations whether Muslim or Christian". I know we can say, "well, it won't happen to those I know". I have studied Christian groups in Germany during Nazism and it is not pretty. It is not just “I am a Fundamentalist and I believe in the Bible” but there are gradations. Honestly, while we say it will never happen to “me” anything can be taken to the extreme when we start judging people. Where do you draw the line? When we start telling people they will go to hell or damnation if they don't do this or that it can lead to serious issues in our culture if actually believed by others. What saves radical fundamentalism is that it is tolerated but not believed widely or supported? In addition, our constitution and laws protect us most of the time although we need to respond when we see our rights violated.

Certainly, many of us feel abused by the LC and that is what we are responding to even though they may claim to be "fundamentalist". This forum is allowing us to express our concerns about the LC and how it has affected many of us.

Would you agree that what the different fundamentalisms have in common is their hatred of modern, liberal, secular society?

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

"...doing his word" has a different meaning to me than you. Your minister or teacher has given you definitions and mine the same only different. When I hear "...doing his word" it means to me carrying out those messages that Jesus proclaimed in the Sermon on the Mount or the Beatitudes. It means seeing each person as worthy, feeding the poor, helping the homeless etc which is what Jesus practiced not just preached "words".

I think we have similar definitions. I wasn't trying to say anything different than this, my focus this entire time has been on living out God's word and not merely preaching with spoken words. If words are merely spoken/heard/read then they are dead letters, but they become living when they are put into practice. Jesus was the best representation of this, he was God's word in the flesh, literally the living word put into practice in the form of a person.

To live what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount requires a change in heart by which we genuinely love others. Jesus commanded us to love others as he loved (John 13:34). How is it even possible to reach this level of love? Fortunately we don't have to do it alone.

Jesus made this possible for us by living in us through the Holy Spirit. God's word then becomes written on our hearts instead of pieces of paper. Rather than the written bible being the masterpiece, we become the work, the masterpiece that God created (Eph 2:10).

2 Cor 3:2-3
The only letter of recommendation we need is you yourselves. Your lives are a letter written in our hearts; everyone can read it and recognize our good work among you. Clearly, you are a letter from Christ showing the result of our ministry among you. This “letter” is written not with pen and ink, but with the Spirit of the living God. It is carved not on tablets of stone, but on human hearts.

“Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.”

― Francis of Assisi

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Jesus' words are God's words. Practicing his teachings is basically doing his word. Torah which was God's word even means teaching. If you're doing God's word from your heart as the sermon on the mount required, you are basically living Gods word out.

It helps to also read and meditate on his word so that we can live it out.

Matthew 4:4

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

Taking Jesus' words as God's words requires the essentially Christian leap to faith. Matthew 4:4 which precedes the Sermon on the Mount can indeed be read as evidence that that Matthew intends the Sermon to be taken that way.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

There are extreme radical "fundamentalists" on both sides of the fence and there are plenty of anti-Jewish verses in the scriptures for these people to get riled up about. When you add the wrathful God of the OT who killed people who were not following God's ways it is a combo for militant action. They believe they have Jesus on their side. In both cases (Muslim and Christian) there is an appeal to people's ignorance, prejudice and their fears that drives them into these types of extreme groups where they feel safe in numbers.

It would be interesting to look at and discuss the putative anti-semitic passages in the New Testament. Here are a few verses for consideration to get the discussion started:

Matthew 27:24-25New King James Version (NKJV)

24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.”

25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”
John 8:39New King James Version (NKJV)

39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”

Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.

John 8:44New King James Version (NKJV)

44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.

Romans 11:7-8New King James Version (NKJV)

7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8 Just as it is written:

“God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.”

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

There are extreme radical "fundamentalists" on both sides of the fence and there are plenty of anti-Jewish verses in the scriptures for these people to get riled up about. When you add the wrathful God of the OT who killed people who were not following God's ways it is a combo for militant action. They believe they have Jesus on their side. In both cases (Muslim and Christian) there is an appeal to people's ignorance, prejudice and their fears that drives them into these types of extreme groups where they feel safe in numbers.

Do they not realize that Jesus himself was a Jew, and not only that but the self-proclaimed King of the Jews? Furthermore Paul writes that the gentiles are not to be proud against the Jews, if so, God will cut them off since they were grafted in and weren't even the original thing.

Romans 11
20 Yes, but remember—those branches were broken off because they didn’t believe in Christ, and you are there because you do believe. So don’t think highly of yourself, but fear what could happen. 21 For if God did not spare the original branches, he won’t spare you either.
22 Notice how God is both kind and severe. He is severe toward those who disobeyed, but kind to you if you continue to trust in his kindness. But if you stop trusting, you also will be cut off.

Muslim extremists on the other hand have pretty solid scriptural exegesis on their side.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Would you agree that what the different fundamentalisms have in common is their hatred of modern, liberal, secular society?

And Bart Ehrman ...

Ha

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Do they not realize that Jesus himself was a Jew, and not only that but the self-proclaimed King of the Jews? Furthermore Paul writes that the gentiles are not to be proud against the Jews, if so, God will cut them off since they were grafted in and weren't even the original thing.

Romans 11
20 Yes, but remember—those branches were broken off because they didn’t believe in Christ, and you are there because you do believe. So don’t think highly of yourself, but fear what could happen. 21 For if God did not spare the original branches, he won’t spare you either.
22 Notice how God is both kind and severe. He is severe toward those who disobeyed, but kind to you if you continue to trust in his kindness. But if you stop trusting, you also will be cut off.

Muslim extremists on the other hand have pretty solid scriptural exegesis on their side.

Of course, these extremists parse the Bible to suit their beliefs. The Muslims I have discussed this with indicate that the extremists are taking the Koran verses out of context for their extremists beliefs so it is just a matter of the way you look at it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Of course, these extremists parse the Bible to suit their beliefs. The Muslims I have discussed this with indicate that the extremists are taking the Koran verses out of context for their extremists beliefs so it is just a matter of the way you look at it.

Bill Maher quips: "Islam is a religion of peace. A piece of you here, and a piece of you over there, and another piece there."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

It would be interesting to look at and discuss the putative anti-semitic passages in the New Testament.

Why not blame the Jews? The later the books were written in the first century the more the Jews are blamed.

And why not? The Romans leveled Jerusalem, burnt the temple down, and scattered the Jews. Christians certainly didn't want to get on their bad side.

So blame the Jews, where there's no fear of retaliation or harm; to be as cozy as possible toward the military might of the Romans.

If you follow the chronological development of the gospels, you can spot this development in them, of, painting the Jews as the Jesus killers ... and the Romans innocent.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Why not blame the Jews? The later the books were written in the first century the more the Jews are blamed.

And why not? The Romans leveled Jerusalem, burnt the temple down, and scattered the Jews. Christians certainly didn't want to get on their bad side.

So blame the Jews, where there's no fear of retaliation or harm; to be as cozy as possible toward the military might of the Romans.

If you follow the chronological development of the gospels, you can spot this development in them, of, painting the Jews as the Jesus killers ... and the Romans innocent.

So, you think maybe Hitler had the right idea?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, you think maybe Hitler had the right idea?

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August
1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August
1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

So, you think maybe Hitler had the right idea?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, you think maybe Hitler had the right idea?

So bearbear is not the only comedian. Of course not. I'm just showing what antisemitism in the gospels can lead to.

Many early Christians believed that what the Romans did to Jerusalem, the temple, and the Jews, in AD70, was God's judgment upon them for rejecting and killing Jesus.

Hitler used that attitude to justify his actions against the Jews. So did the RCC, in complicity.

What puzzles me is why? If Jesus had to die for the sins of the world, shouldn't we be thanking the Jesus killers? And Judas as well? Who also became worse as the gospels developed, until in John, the last gospel written, Judas is the devil. (John 6:70)

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm just showing what antisemitism in the gospels can lead to.

And you need a (supposed) quote from Hitler for this? Really Harold? This is really scrapping the bottom of the barrel...even for you. How sad that you would think that there is "anti-Semitism" in the gospels. You do know that The Lord God, Jehovah, The Creator of Heaven and Earth sent His very own Son "only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel".?(Matt 15:24). We gentiles just got grafted in by the love, mercy and grace of God. "Salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22). This was not a sound bite or bumper sticker - this was a declarative statement from Jesus Christ. He said this because it is true. The Jews are the original "chosen people". The disobedience and rebellion of the Jewish leaders paved the way for us gentiles. God just keeps giving us sinful, rebellious and undeserving people a way to Him. He even sent His very own Son to be "The Way"...He even threw in "The Truth and The Life" as a bonus!

What puzzles me is why? If Jesus had to die for the sins of the world, shouldn't we be thanking the Jesus killers

Just read the Bible my man, and you wouldn't be as puzzled as you seem to be. The first thing you need to understand is that NOBODY ACTUALLY KILLED JESUS. HE GAVE HIMSELF UP, VOLUNTARILY. He even asked the Father, "if you are willing, remove this cup from me" But his answer is what changed the outcome for us sinful, rebellious and undeserving people, and really the course of the history of mankind: "Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done".

Goes back to the free will of man. We always seem to choose the way away from and against God. Even the very Son of God had a free will. But thankfully He chose to submit and subordinate His will to that of the Father. And His submission and subordination SAVED US FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

So bearbear is not the only comedian.

Dear brother [an expression that I cannot use without imagining the voice of Brother Lee] that's a double ad hominem! You posted a quote from Hitler without explaining your position relative to the quote in response to my query about what you thought. That kind of ambiguity is bound to evoke comedy.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The first thing you need to understand is that NOBODY ACTUALLY KILLED JESUS. HE GAVE HIMSELF UP, VOLUNTARILY.

Now that really is shocking, UntoHim. Doesn't that make Jesus' death a suicide?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

Now that really is shocking UntoHim. Doesn't that make Jesus' death a suicide?

The B-I-B-L-E, Yes, that's the book for me! I stand alone on the Word of God, The B-I-B-L-E!.....

"even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many"
Matthew 20:28

If you want to call it suicide I can't stop you. You're wrong, but if it makes you feel better that will work just as well. The effect is the very same either way.

"But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed"
Isaiah 53:5

Oh, Thank you Lord Jesus for your atoning sacrifice for our sins!

"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world"
1 John 2:2

Thank you for leaving us with the bread and the wine as a remembrance of your eternal gift. The gift of the ultimate sacrifice. The gift of eternal love. The gift of eternal life. NO GREATER LOVE!

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

Now that really is shocking, UntoHim. Doesn't that make Jesus' death a suicide?

Giving up your life to save someone else wouldn't be considered suicide. For example there are often stories of soldiers who will jump on grenades to body block the blast to save their platoon. Soldiers who die like this are usually lauded as heroes rather than being condemned for suicide.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

What puzzles me is why? If Jesus had to die for the sins of the world, shouldn't we be thanking the Jesus killers? And Judas as well? Who also became worse as the gospels developed, until in John, the last gospel written, Judas is the devil. (John 6:70)

I find that the bible actually addresses these questions. Mark 14:21 suggests that it was predestined that Jesus had to go to the cross, unfortunately someone had to betray him, however the person who betrayed him would be responsible for the crime because they would be doing it out of their free will.

Mark 14:21
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

And 1 Cor 2:8 suggests that Satan was tricked into crucifying Jesus:

"None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

So we should really be thanking God for His genius plan to trick Satan, perhaps the most powerful created being, to crucify Jesus, because if Satan had known better, he wouldn't have done it. There are many hints throughout the OT that point to the Messiah's necessary death for atonement of sins, but Satan who apparently knew scripture well (Matt 4), could not make the connection. Perhaps God had to hide the hints well enough to prevent Satan from figuring things out. The key to unlocking these mysteries would be held by the Spirit of God who gives children of God understanding.

Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The B-I-B-L-E, Yes, that's the book for me! I stand alone on the Word of God, The B-I-B-L-E!.....

"even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many"
Matthew 20:28

If you want to call it suicide I can't stop you. You're wrong, but if it makes you feel better that will work just as well. The effect is the very same either way.

"But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed"
Isaiah 53:5

Oh, Thank you Lord Jesus for your atoning sacrifice for our sins!

"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world"
1 John 2:2

Thank you for leaving us with the bread and the wine as a remembrance of your eternal gift. The gift of the ultimate sacrifice. The gift of eternal love. The gift of eternal life. NO GREATER LOVE!

I don't "want to call it"anything. I want to understand what it was. Each Gospel paints a different portrait. In the Gospel of John, Chapter 10 Jesus says: 17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. Since no one takes it from him, it could be characterized as a self-sacrifice or a self-martyrdom. The other Gospels don't characterize Jesus' death in this way, however.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Giving up your life to save someone else wouldn't be considered suicide. For example there are often stories of soldiers who will jump on grenades to body block the blast to save their platoon. Soldiers who die like this are usually lauded as heroes rather than being condemned for suicide.

Right, but when a soldier is sent by a commanding officer to lay down his life, that is called a "suicide mission", and according to the Gospel of John was sent by the Father to lay down his life, so why wouldn't it be considered the same?

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, but when a soldier is sent by a commanding officer to lay down his life, that is called a "suicide mission", and according to the Gospel of John was sent by the Father to lay down his life, so why wouldn't it be considered the same?

After Kamal Saleem, an ex Muslim, saw Jesus after he cried to God to reveal who he really was, he told Jesus that he would die for him, as Muslims are used to the concept of dying for God via jihad. According to Kamal, Jesus in turn responded "You don't have to die for me, I died for you"

http://youtu.be/k9RVwHsDqcc

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

After Kamal Saleem, an ex Muslim, saw Jesus after he cried to God to reveal who he really was, he told Jesus that he would die for him, as Muslims are used to the concept of dying for God via jihad. According to Kamal, Jesus in turn responded "You don't have to die for me, I died for you"

http://youtu.be/k9RVwHsDqcc

I don't trust a god who sells himself on infomercials.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The B-I-B-L-E, Yes, that's the book for me! I stand alone on the Word of God, The B-I-B-L-E!.....

"even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many"
Matthew 20:28

I always am somewhat troubled by those who say the Bible is the "book". I have heard it so many times from people I have encountered or read about over the years such as: Christian Identity Movement; Seventh-day Adventist Church; Jehovah Witnesses; Davidian Seventh-day Adventists; Branch Seventh-day Adventists; Alamo Christian Foundation; Body of Christ; Maranatha Christian Churches; The Twelve Tribes (Island Pond Community); Jesus People USA; The Way International; Church of Jesus Christ at Armageddon; Israelite House of David; Worldwide Church of God; The Family (Children of God); Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments; Church of the First Born; Church of the Lamb of God; Church of Jesus Christ Christian (Aryan Nations); Covenant, the Swoard and the Arm of the Lord; People's Temple and; many others to include the Local Church.

Most all of them claim the Bible is the Word of God but it is really their interpretation and their practices which run aground. Many of them have had Bible studies which provides instructions as to how to understand the revelation of the Bible. Sometimes they are centered around a "leader" who provides guidance as to the understanding of the Bible. So, just saying that you believe in the Bible and quote scriptures doesn't do much for me. My question is always: what's your twist on the Bible? Didn't all the Plymouth Brethren divide into multiple sects over various scriptures, the Pentecostals where some of them are completely off the wall etc many of which would be happy to reach into your wallet for some inspired words of the Bible.

Didn't belief in the inspired word of the Bible bring us to WL with all of his teachings and practices which affected so many people with many of them still dealing with what he taught and practiced? I have mentioned this before where one time RK had us call out "Oh Lord Jesus" over and over for 30+ minutes. "It's in the Bible"---was it really? You do that for awhile and you can become affected emotionally and intellectually. Thus, as people left the LC they didn't know where to go. If we head them back to the Bible which brought them into the LC are we really helping them? I know you mean well but there is much more to this picture. Raising questions is healthy.

You must be either attending a church, having home meetings or meeting by yourself, like Brother Lawrence? I've told my story several times on this forum. What's yours or where can I find it?

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't trust a god who sells himself on infomercials.

Yet we all fell for an elderly, saintly, clean looking, eloquent Chinese man. Looks can be deceiving. Plus not all infomercial products are bad. The foreman grill for example does a great job at what it's advertised to do.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't "want to call it" anything. I want to understand what it was.

That's why I quoted the verses that I did. They give a very good description of "what it was".
In Isaiah, a prophesy: "and with his wounds we are healed"
In Matthew, the historic fulfillment: "To give His life as a ransom for many"
In 1 John, further explanation: "He is the propitiation for our sins"

These are just a few of the hundreds of verses and passages that give a clear, unambiguous description and explanation of the meaning and significance of the death of the Son of God. It's right there in front of us if we want to accept and believe.

[awareness]

O Zeek, bro Zeek, I can't help myself!!! It's hard to hold back!!! Even if it puts you and bearbear in good company. But after 2 ad hominems I won't commit a third. I won't call bro UntoHim a comedian too.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

And you need a (supposed) quote from Hitler for this? Really Harold? This is really scrapping the bottom of the barrel...even for you.

I'm like water ... and Jesus, when He became human ... I seek the bottom.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

How sad that you would think that there is "anti-Semitism" in the gospels.

I guess this is the first time you've come across or encountered this notion. I can't fault you. We can't be informed about everything. There's just not enough time, even if we lived five lifetimes.

So I'll save you some time. And if it piques yer interest you can look deeper into the matter. Cuz, if I were you, I certainly wouldn't depend just upon me for anything. As you pointed out, I'm very lowly.

This is a quick read, start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antise..._New_Testament

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You do know that The Lord God, Jehovah, The Creator of Heaven and Earth sent His very own Son "only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel".?(Matt 15:24).

Yes, that verse puzzled me even back in my local church days. For some reason I came to think that the Lord God Jehovah, The Creator of Heaven and Earth, sent His very own Son, to the whole world. Not to just Israel.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

We gentiles just got grafted in by the love, mercy and grace of God. "Salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22). This was not a sound bite or bumper sticker - this was a declarative statement from Jesus Christ. He said this because it is true. The Jews are the original "chosen people". The disobedience and rebellion of the Jewish leaders paved the way for us gentiles. God just keeps giving us sinful, rebellious and undeserving people a way to Him. He even sent His very own Son to be "The Way"...He even threw in "The Truth and The Life" as a bonus!

Yes and continued on in the gospel according to John:

Joh 4:23 "But the hour cometh, and now is ..."

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Just read the Bible my man, and you wouldn't be as puzzled as you seem to be.

I've been doing that pretty much most of my life, and just become more puzzled. But I do like the simple explanations. Even if they might be writing a fifth gospel by blending sections and verses of the Bible together. I suppose that was my attraction to Witness Lee. He simplified the Bible, into God's Economy, a fifth gospel.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The first thing you need to understand is that NOBODY ACTUALLY KILLED JESUS. HE GAVE HIMSELF UP, VOLUNTARILY. He even asked the Father, "if you are willing, remove this cup from me" But his answer is what changed the outcome for us sinful, rebellious and undeserving people, and really the course of the history of mankind: "Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done".

Yes, the writer of the first gospel written, that we call Mark, has Jesus going quietly, without even a word, until the very end. He (Mark and Jesus) showed us how to willing accept abandonment, even of God, and suffering.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

We always seem to choose the way away from and against God. Even the very Son of God had a free will. But thankfully He chose to submit and subordinate His will to that of the Father. And His submission and subordination SAVED US FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION.

It's comforting to know others have the problem of "We always seem to choose the way away from and against God." and that I'm not alone ... and will be SAVED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION. Amen to that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

I always am somewhat troubled by those who say the Bible is the "book". I have heard it so many times from people I have encountered or read about over the years such as: Christian Identity Movement; Seventh-day Adventist Church; Jehovah Witnesses; Davidian Seventh-day Adventists; Branch Seventh-day Adventists; Alamo Christian Foundation; Body of Christ; Maranatha Christian Churches; The Twelve Tribes (Island Pond Community); Jesus People USA; The Way International; Church of Jesus Christ at Armageddon; Israelite House of David; Worldwide Church of God; The Family (Children of God); Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments; Church of the First Born; Church of the Lamb of God; Church of Jesus Christ Christian (Aryan Nations); Covenant, the Swoard and the Arm of the Lord; People's Temple and; many others to include the Local Church.

Most all of them claim the Bible is the Word of God but it is really their interpretation and their practices which run aground. Many of them have had Bible studies which provides instructions as to how to understand the revelation of the Bible. Sometimes they are centered around a "leader" who provides guidance as to the understanding of the Bible. So, just saying that you believe in the Bible and quote scriptures doesn't do much for me. My question is always: what's your twist on the Bible? Didn't all the Plymouth Brethren divide into multiple sects over various scriptures, the Pentecostals where some of them are completely off the wall etc many of which would be happy to reach into your wallet for some inspired words of the Bible.

Didn't belief in the inspired word of the Bible bring us to WL with all of his teachings and practices which affected so many people with many of them still dealing with what he taught and practiced? I have mentioned this before where one time RK had us call out "Oh Lord Jesus" over and over for 30+ minutes. "It's in the Bible"---was it really? You do that for awhile and you can become affected emotionally and intellectually. Thus, as people left the LC they didn't know where to go. If we head them back to the Bible which brought them into the LC are we really helping them? I know you mean well but there is much more to this picture. Raising questions is healthy.

You must be either attending a church, having home meetings or meeting by yourself, like Brother Lawrence? I've told my story several times on this forum. What's yours or where can I find it?

Good post bro Dave, and honest.

And it brings to mind a question that's been eating at me since leaving the local church: Is the Bible the way to put together the basis for Christianity and Christian movements? It wasn't true for the Christians in Acts. They didn't have the New Testament. How'd they do that? Apparently, with all the Christian sects you listed, at the least, Christians today can't do it. They're fully dependent on basing everything on the Bible, particularly the New Testament ... à la Witness Lee.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Yet we all fell for an elderly, saintly, clean looking, eloquent Chinese man. Looks can be deceiving. Plus not all infomercial products are bad. The foreman grill for example does a great job at what it's advertised to do.

I try to learn from mistakes so that I don't repeat them. If that's the only place to find salvation, I'll be damned. Good one about the grill though.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

That's why I quoted the verses that I did. They give a very good description of "what it was".
In Isaiah, a prophesy: "and with his wounds we are healed"
In Matthew, the historic fulfillment: "To give His life as a ransom for many"
In 1 John, further explanation: "He is the propitiation for our sins"

These are just a few of the hundreds of verses and passages that give a clear, unambiguous description and explanation of the meaning and significance of the death of the Son of God.

Do those verses exclude suicide? The one from Matthew seems to confirm it. This messiah died like a common criminal among criminals according to the record. The text hints at suicide as an issue: I am going away; you will look for me, but you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come. At this the Jews said among themselves, “Is he going to kill himself, that he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?” (John 8:21–22) He surrenders his life which no one can take from him. So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.(John 19:30)

It's right there in front of us if we want to accept and believe.

I'm not questioning accepting or believing. I'm asking accepting and believing what with regard to suicide? From my point of view you haven't answered the question. Personally, I don't know the answer. I know several hypotheses, but none is sufficiently well supported to force a conclusion of fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

Faith requires a leap. But, in this case, a leap to what? Even the Gospels seem to disagree as the synoptics don't show Jesus laying down his life in the way John does. As for your position, I mean no offense when I say that you seemed to have leaped above the question.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Yet we all fell for an elderly, saintly, clean looking, eloquent Chinese man. Looks can be deceiving. Plus not all infomercial products are bad.

No, infomercials have a long record of success. So why wouldn't a Jesus salesman use them? Thus Sid Roth ... and his theatrics.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

O Zeek, bro Zeek, I can't help myself!!! It's hard to hold back!!! Even if it puts you and bearbear in good company. But after 2 ad hominems I won't commit a third. I won't call bro UntoHim a comedian too.

To a joker "life is but a joke". I'll let you determine if such an instance of projection has anything to do with you. It's a hypothesis not an accusation. Well, anyway nothing substantive here for me to reply to. Bye!

[awareness]

Okay, I the joker, with my goofiness, pooped the party on this thread. Mea Culpa.

But back to the first fundamental -- inerrancy -- and what Dave more than alluded to, with his list of Christian sects that are based upon the Bible, some of them cults, if not all of them, and what I asked outright.

Will any Christian movement and or sect turn out right if they are based upon an inerrant Bible?

We saw close up a clear example with Witness Lee, and Nee too, and what happened: God's Economy, the oracle, the apostle, the MOTA. All based upon the book.

So is the Bible the right premise to start and work from? What has been the fruit of adhering to that premise? What is the fruit of the very first fundamental? I'll just say it outright. Untold cults have come from following that premise. It's almost like the Bible is a cult generator.

Let's take a look at the apostle Paul, our earliest writer of NT books (almost half of them). He claimed that after his revelation of Jesus Christ he didn't even consult with the other apostles; those of the living Jesus, that you’d think he’d run to. Did Paul after getting “knocked off his horse” run to the Septuagint? There’s records that he quoted from it, but no, Paul got his
teachings directly from “the Lord.”

Of course Paul didn't have our New Testament. It didn't exist. So when we base our faith on the NT we’re doing something Paul didn't do.

In fact, the earliest Christians didn't have any of the NT. Yes they had the Septuagint. But the Christian movement was not based upon that book. Something else happened. Something new. Something not based upon a book.

Perhaps that does not answer my question “Will any Christian movement and or sect turn out right if they are based upon an inerrant Bible?” But it does point to a different premise.

So my question stands.

And there is always the possibility of “rightly dividing the word of truth.” Whatever that is.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, I the joker, with my goofiness, pooped the party on this thread. Mea Culpa.

But back to the first fundamental -- inerrancy -- and what Dave more than alluded to, with his list of Christian sects that are based upon the Bible, some of them cults, if not all of them, and what I asked outright.

Will any Christian movement and or sect turn out right if they are based upon an inerrant Bible?

We saw close up a clear example with Witness Lee, and Nee too, and what happened: God's Economy, the oracle, the apostle, the MOTA. All based upon the book.

So is the Bible the right premise to start and work from? What has been the fruit of adhering to that premise? What is the fruit of the very first fundamental? I'll just say it outright. Untold cults have come from following that premise. It's almost like the Bible is a cult generator.

Let's take a look at the apostle Paul, our earliest writer of NT books (almost half of them). He claimed that after his revelation of Jesus Christ he didn't even consult with the other apostles; those of the living Jesus, that you’d think he’d run to. Did Paul after getting “knocked off his horse” run to the Septuagint? There’s records that he quoted from it, but no, Paul got his
teachings directly from “the Lord.”

Of course Paul didn't have our New Testament. It didn't exist. So when we base our faith on the NT we’re doing something Paul didn't do.

In fact, the earliest Christians didn't have any of the NT. Yes they had the Septuagint. But the Christian movement was not based upon that book. Something else happened. Something new. Something not based upon a book.

Perhaps that does not answer my question “Will any Christian movement and or sect turn out right if they are based upon an inerrant Bible?” But it does point to a different premise.

So my question stands.

And there is always the possibility of “rightly dividing the word of truth.” Whatever that is.

Methinks that because of our (and God's) adversary sometimes the greatest truth leads to the greatest evil.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Let's take a look at the apostle Paul, our earliest writer of NT books (almost half of them). He claimed that after his revelation of Jesus Christ he didn't even consult with the other apostles; those of the living Jesus, that you’d think he’d run to. Did Paul after getting “knocked off his horse” run to the Septuagint? There’s records that he quoted from it, but no, Paul got his
teachings directly from “the Lord.”

Of course Paul didn't have our New Testament. It didn't exist. So when we base our faith on the NT we’re doing something Paul didn't do.

In fact, the earliest Christians didn't have any of the NT. Yes they had the Septuagint. But the Christian movement was not based upon that book. Something else happened. Something new. Something not based upon a book.

It's an interesting question considering that Paul states in Gal. 1:11-12, "For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Further, he states in Gal. 1:16-17, "...I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me,..." Paul notes later in Gal. 2:1-2, "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem...I went up in response to a revelation." (NRSV) In fact, the emphasis on revelation is in contrast to Luke who wrote in Luke 1:1-2, "Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the world".

It's an appeal from Paul to a higher source, "revelation", and in Paul's case it is even higher than what the apostles could share with him. In other words, forget the apostles, "I have a direct revelation". What these words of Paul could lead to and maybe have led to are people claiming they have had a "revelation". He apparently did not have access to the gospels so there was no one who could counter anything he said. No counter balance. Most everything he said and wrote was based on "revelation" (except when he clarified that it was from him, Paul).

Mohammed had the arch-angel Gabriel for his revelation, Joseph Smith had the Angel Moroni for his revelation and the list goes on. Using Daniel and Revelation William Miller in the 1830's deciphered the dates of the 2nd coming from which the JWs and 7th Day Adventists emerged.

I am sure there were those who believed/believe that WL was receiving revelation from God as his apostle. How else could he provide a new translation of the NT heavily foot noted or share in depth insight with the Life-studies of the books of the Bible?

Where does inerrancy end and revelation begin or vise versa? WL didn't have a counter balance and many of the revelations that occur today don't have a counter balance. How do you counter balance some one who says that they are having a revelation? Especially when they quote scripture to support their "revelation" which many of them do. I know it says "test everything" but it doesn't seem like a lot of testing is going on.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Will any Christian movement and or sect turn out right if they are based upon an inerrant Bible?

The short answer is NO. The longer answer is that any movement or sect that is based upon, and continued in, secondary, non-essential items will inevitably go off track. Furthermore, such movements or sects, if given enough time focusing on secondary and non-essential things, are susceptible to develop into aberrational, divisive and even spiritually abusive groups. The Local Church of Witness Lee is practically the poster child for this dynamic. The simple truth is that any movement or sect that is not based upon, and is preaching and teaching the essential, irreducible Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ has great potential to go off track and off mission. Unfortunately, this describes a great number of the current Christian sects, movements and denominations today, especially in the Western world.

The apostle Paul, the supreme, preeminent teacher/theologian of the Christian faith, made the Galatians clear about the consequences of sidetracking off of the Gospel - “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8) I don't think Paul was speaking of head covering, meeting on Saturday or Sunday, wine or grape juice or any other minor teaching or practice. Paul also did not consider his own person or work of any consequence compared to the essentials - “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor 1:13)

It's almost like the Bible is a cult generator.

Actually it's us - sinful, selfish and ignorant Mankind that is the cult generator. It's in our fallen nature. We naturally run from the Creator and seek to create some idol, something that will tickle our ears and speak to our supposed sensibilities. Seemingly, we can make a cult out of anything. Did the Quran create a cult, or was a cult created from the Quran? Did the Book of Mormon create a cult or was a cult created from the Book of Mormon? Did Ron Hubbard's Dianetics create a cult or was a cult created from Dianetics? I think you get the picture. Of course it's a lot easier to create a cult out of counterfeit words than it is from the genuine Words of God – but guess what? Man has even figured out how to make a cult out of the Bible. Go figure.

In fact, the earliest Christians didn't have any of the NT. Yes they had the Septuagint. But the Christian movement was not based upon that book. Something else happened. Something new. Something not based upon a book.

Excellent observation Harold! I knew you had it in you!
Yes, something else happened! Yes, something new! And “it” was not actually based upon a book, and the something else was actually SOMEONE else – the Son of God incarnate, Emmanuel, God with us. And he performed the work the Father sent Him to do. This is the Gospel – The Good News. The Gospel is NOTHING MORE or NOTHING LESS than the wonderful news of the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now as it turned out, God saw it fit to have some of Jesus' first followers write down this wonderful news, along with some of His spoken words and works, and this is what we now have in the four Gospels. Contained within these four Gospels in the essential, basic, irreducible Gospel of Jesus Christ, and it is THIS Gospel on which the true, historic Christian faith is based upon.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Did Ron Hubbard's Dianetics create a cult or was a cult created from Dianetics.

Interesting side note: Ron Hubbard was a disciple of Aleister Crowley, founder of the church of Satan.

http://www.lermanet.com/scientologyn...ubbard-666.htm

"L Ron Hubbard Jr., ( Ron DeWolf ): I believed in Satanism. There was no other religion in the house! Scientology and black magic. What a lot of people don't realize is that Scientology is black magic that is just spread out over a long time period. To perform black magic generally takes a few hours or, at most, a few weeks. But in Scientology it's stretched out over a lifetime, and so you don't see it. Black magic is the inner core of Scientology -- and it is probably the only part of Scientology that really works. Also, you've got to realize that my father did not worship Satan. He thought he was Satan. He was one with Satan."

Did the Book of Mormon create a cult or was a cult created from the Book of Mormon?

Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism was also involved in the occult through freemasonry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Freemasonry

Did the Quran create a cult, or was a cult created from the Quran?

There's also evidence Satan and Islam are involved together:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Respo...ah/sverses.htm

The origin of many of these cults can be traced back to Satan.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually it's us - sinful, selfish and ignorant Mankind that is the cult generator. It's in our fallen nature. We naturally run from the Creator and seek to create some idol, something that will tickle our ears and speak to our supposed sensibilities. Seemingly, we can make a cult out of anything.

It's interesting that the Israelites who were given all the commandments, ceremonies, feasts and covenants of God, should have been closest to God. However for much of their history they apostatized to a state that was even worse than the nations around them.

Ezekiel 16:47
You not only followed their ways and copied their detestable practices, but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they.

Yet, although David sinned greatly, God said he was a man after his own heart so there's probably much we can learn from his example. When David was at his lowest, he yearned for God's presence and a clean heart.

Psalm 51:10-11
Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and renew a right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from your presence,
and take not your Holy Spirit from me.

Our fallen nature causes us to fall away from God, even when we have all of God's "stuff": the bible, correct doctrines and theology which are all great and necessary (we are implicitly commanded to adhere to sound doctrine in 2 Timothy 4:3), but without God's presence and a clean heart, we are hopeless to come to God, the giver of eternal life.

John 5:39-40
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

I think Jesus captured this nuance pretty well in the above verse. First, scripture isn't bad, because it points us to God. However, if we don't come to God, then it's pointless and we may be even doing more harm by causing others to blaspheme God because of misrepresenting him (Rom 2:24).

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The apostle Paul, the supreme, preeminent teacher/theologian of the Christian faith, made the Galatians clear about the consequences of sidetracking off of the Gospel - “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8) “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor 1:13)

Yes, you are correct, Paul was the preeminent teacher/theologian of the Christian faith and made it clear about the consequences of sidetracking off of the Gospel, or should I say, Paul's gospel, which he and only he received as a revelation from Jesus Christ which he states in Galatians 1:11-12, "...the gospel that was proclaimed by me..."

The local churches. The Normal Christian Church Life, a revelation by Nee which resulted in cultic like practices performed by Christians? Mingling---mixing God and man making the God men. Revelation? The Triune God proposed by Lee. Revelation? Witness Lee --- Christ vs Religion. Revelation? Watchman Nee… the three volume, The Spiritual Man. Revelation? I already noted the “The Truth….” series of the LC’s response to Melodyland portraying the local churches as heretical and cultic. These were all bible believing people talking “the truth”. We toss scriptures around like we know what we are talking about, but do we really? But, we say, we are basing it on the Bible. WL was basing everything on the Bible so we were confident as to what we were saying while we were in the LC. We thought we were receiving divine revelation from the Oracle but we were wrong. How do we know we are right now? Revelation? "The revelation of Jesus Christ...the entire Bible is an unveiling of God's son, Jesus Christ..." How many times did we hear that in the LC... Revelation? maybe we should tread softly.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

Yes, you are correct, Paul was the preeminent teacher/theologian of the Christian faith and made it clear about the consequences of sidetracking off of the Gospel, or should I say, Paul's gospel, which he and only he received as a revelation from Jesus Christ which he states in Galatians 1:11-12, "...the gospel that was proclaimed by me..."

The local churches. The Normal Christian Church Life, a revelation by Nee which resulted in cultic like practices performed by Christians? Mingling---mixing God and man making the God men. Revelation? The Triune God proposed by Lee. Revelation? Witness Lee --- Christ vs Religion. Revelation? Watchman Nee… the three volume, The Spiritual Man. Revelation? I already noted the “The Truth….” series of the LC’s response to Melodyland portraying the local churches as heretical and cultic. These were all bible believing people talking “the truth”. We toss scriptures around like we know what we are talking about, but do we really? But, we say, we are basing it on the Bible. WL was basing everything on the Bible so we were confident as to what we were saying while we were in the LC. We thought we were receiving divine revelation from the Oracle but we were wrong. How do we know we are right now? Revelation? "The revelation of Jesus Christ...the entire Bible is an unveiling of God's son, Jesus Christ..." How many times did we hear that in the LC... Revelation? maybe we should tread softly.

Jesus seemed to imply there would be many voices competing against the Lord's own voice when he said my sheep know my voice and follow me (John 10:27). So that there are a lot of voices out there claiming to be the real thing should be of no surprise.

We're also given many guidelines in scripture for detecting false prophets and teachers (look at the fruit). And Paul also says the kingdom of God is not a lot of talk but it's living by the power of God (1 Cor 4:20 NLT). Pauls own life asides from signs and wonders was a testimony of Gods power to transform. He went from killing others to selflessly pouring out his life laboring for others through love and his letters self authenticate themselves with a spirit of love and self sacrifice.

Muhammad on the other hand went from being a humble adopted orphan of a merchant to a man who married underage children and beheaded hundreds in cold blood.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Autho...rayza_jews.htm

That said I think many here would agree that the LCs aren't a cult to the extent of JW or Mormonism who deny the deity of Jesus or add to the gospel. I think it's still possible to genuinely love Jesus in the LCs and bear good fruit. Perhaps it would be extremely hard however but i still have a few friends that love Jesus and their neighbors dearly in the LCs despite drinking the kool aid. And many of us may have been in that boat as well before we came out.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The short answer is NO. The longer answer is that any movement or sect that is based upon, and continued in, secondary, non-essential items will inevitably go off track. Furthermore, such movements or sects, if given enough time focusing on secondary and non-essential things, are susceptible to develop into aberrational, divisive and even spiritually abusive groups. The Local Church of Witness Lee is practically the poster child for this dynamic. The simple truth is that any movement or sect that is not based upon, and is preaching and teaching the essential, irreducible Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ has great potential to go off track and off mission. Unfortunately, this describes a great number of the current Christian sects, movements and denominations today, especially in the Western world.

The apostle Paul, the supreme, preeminent teacher/theologian of the Christian faith, made the Galatians clear about the consequences of sidetracking off of the Gospel - “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8) I don't think Paul was speaking of head covering, meeting on Saturday or Sunday, wine or grape juice or any other minor teaching or practice. Paul also did not consider his own person or work of any consequence compared to the essentials - “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor 1:13)


Actually it's us - sinful, selfish and ignorant Mankind that is the cult generator. It's in our fallen nature. We naturally run from the Creator and seek to create some idol, something that will tickle our ears and speak to our supposed sensibilities. Seemingly, we can make a cult out of anything. Did the Quran create a cult, or was a cult created from the Quran? Did the Book of Mormon create a cult or was a cult created from the Book of Mormon? Did Ron Hubbard's Dianetics create a cult or was a cult created from Dianetics? I think you get the picture. Of course it's a lot easier to create a cult out of counterfeit words than it is from the genuine Words of God – but guess what? Man has even figured out how to make a cult out of the Bible. Go figure.


Excellent observation Harold! I knew you had it in you!
Yes, something else happened! Yes, something new! And “it” was not actually based upon a book, and the something else was actually SOMEONE else – the Son of God incarnate, Emmanuel, God with us. And he performed the work the Father sent Him to do. This is the Gospel – The Good News. The Gospel is NOTHING MORE or NOTHING LESS than the wonderful news of the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now as it turned out, God saw it fit to have some of Jesus' first followers write down this wonderful news, along with some of His spoken words and works, and this is what we now have in the four Gospels. Contained within these four Gospels in the essential, basic, irreducible Gospel of Jesus Christ, and it is THIS Gospel on which the true, historic Christian faith is based upon.

Excellent rebuttal, of sorts, bro UntoHim. And I know you have it in you too bro. Thanks.

And we not only have the gospels, we have Paul. And as Dave pointed out, his direct, and ongoing, revelation of Jesus Christ.

And direct revelation is another question, and subject, of will Christian movements be right if based upon it, that I hope to delve into.

But until then I hope everyone has a wonderful Thanksgiving. And to those that don't celebrate holidays, have a nice day.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Interesting side note: Ron Hubbard was a disciple of Aleister Crowley, founder of the church of Satan.

http://www.lermanet.com/scientologyn...ubbard-666.htm

"L Ron Hubbard Jr., ( Ron DeWolf ): I believed in Satanism. There was no other religion in the house! Scientology and black magic. What a lot of people don't realize is that Scientology is black magic that is just spread out over a long time period. To perform black magic generally takes a few hours or, at most, a few weeks. But in Scientology it's stretched out over a lifetime, and so you don't see it. Black magic is the inner core of Scientology -- and it is probably the only part of Scientology that really works. Also, you've got to realize that my father did not worship Satan. He thought he was Satan. He was one with Satan."


Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism was also involved in the occult through freemasonry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Freemasonry



There's also evidence Satan and Islam are involved together:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Respo...ah/sverses.htm

The origin of many of these cults can be traced back to Satan.

bearbear -Congratulations! You get the International Supernatural Award for the Post of the year. There is really nothing mundane in your world is there?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The apostle Paul, the supreme, preeminent teacher/theologian of the Christian faith....

What, has Jesus Christ been demoted or did Paul invent Jesus as Dave seems to suggest?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

What, has Jesus Christ been demoted or did Paul invent Jesus as Dave seems to suggest?

zeek, I never said Paul "invented" Jesus. I said he "reinvented" Jesus in his own image. Kind of like WL reinvented the Christian faith in his own image. Cool, if you can pull it off.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

What, has Jesus Christ been demoted or did Paul invent Jesus as Dave seems to suggest?

Silly goose, Jesus wasn't really a theologian at all, he was an itinerant preacher/evangelist who just happen to be the Son of God, and thus could theoligize with the best of em. (Just ask those Scribes and Pharisees). The theology of the day (1st century Judaism) was old, tired and broken, and so Jesus simply pointed this out to them. I had a feeling that they were trying to pull the theology card out on Him when he sarcastically said "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."

You see, theology may speak of eternal life, but theology is NOT itself eternal life, even the black and white printed words of the Bible are NOT themselves eternal life - ONLY the precious Son of God, Emmanuel, God with us, who ALONE reveals the Father, is eternal life, and thus He is the ONLY One who can bestow eternal life to sinful, fallen, broken and hopeless man.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

...but theology is NOT itself eternal life, even the black and white printed words of the Bible are NOT themselves eternal life - ONLY the precious Son of God, Emmanuel, God with us, who ALONE reveals the Father, is eternal life, and thus He is the ONLY One who can bestow eternal life to sinful, fallen, broken and hopeless man.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God... John 1.1 ... You may be a heretic but I don't think it was intentional...no (symbolic) burning at the stake this time around!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

zeek, I never said Paul "invented" Jesus. I said he "reinvented" Jesus in his own image. Kind of like WL reinvented the Christian faith in his own image. Cool, if you can pull it off.

OK, you didn't say it. But, you seemed to imply it. What with Paul's being the earliest written books in the NT and the Gospels plus Acts coming after Paul, could those later writers have gotten the whole notion of Jesus from Paul and just fleshed out the story in the various ways that the Gospels do?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK, you didn't say it. But, you seemed to imply it. What with Paul's being the earliest written books in the NT and the Gospels plus Acts coming after Paul, could those later writers have gotten the whole notion of Jesus from Paul and just fleshed out the story in the various ways that the Gospels do?

Maybe it seemed like I implied it but I also thought I noted that I believed that Jesus was a real person who walked on this earth who had a following. Now those who believe that Jesus was just a myth (which I don't believe) may have come up with that idea because Paul created the Jesus revolution in his own time which centuries later exploded with Constantine but I don't think Paul "invented" Jesus.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Silly goose, Jesus wasn't really a theologian at all, he was an itinerant preacher/evangelist who just happen to be the Son of God, and thus could theoligize with the best of em.]

Silly me, why would I think one who could "theologize with the best of them" was a theologian?

(Just ask those Scribes and Pharisees). The theology of the day (1st century Judaism) was old, tired and broken, and so Jesus simply pointed this out to them. I had a feeling that they were trying to pull the theology card out on Him when he sarcastically said "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."

You see, theology may speak of eternal life, but theology is NOT itself eternal life, even the black and white printed words of the Bible are NOT themselves eternal life - ONLY the precious Son of God, Emmanuel, God with us, who ALONE reveals the Father, is eternal life, and thus He is the ONLY One who can bestow eternal life to sinful, fallen, broken and hopeless man.

So then even the Bible including Paul's theology Jesus' red letter words cannot bestow eternal life. Only the Son of God [I assume you mean Jesus] can do that. I think I get it. But, some of Jesus' long discourses in the Gospel of John seem like theological reflection to me.

Anyway, it isn't because of your moderator authority that I do not question your faith, UntoHim. It's my general policy. I only have to look at my own to see what a waste of time that would be. Besides, I don't wish to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Maybe it seemed like I implied it but I also thought I noted that I believed that Jesus was a real person who walked on this earth who had a following. Now those who believe that Jesus was just a myth (which I don't believe) may have come up with that idea because Paul created the Jesus revolution in his own time which centuries later exploded with Constantine but I don't think Paul "invented" Jesus.

Since you don't believe that Paul invented Jesus, why not? If Paul's is the earliest extant writings that mention Jesus then his writings are the first place to look. I take the fact that Paul admits that he didn't know Jesus personally before he died and his discussion of his disputes with the apostles who did know Jesus to be powerful evidence against the notion that he invented him. If Paul were inventing Jesus he would more likely claim that he was a faithful follower of Jesus before he died.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Since you don't believe that Paul invented Jesus, why not? If Paul's is the earliest extant writings that mention Jesus then his writings are the first place to look. I take the fact that Paul admits that he didn't know Jesus personally before he died and his discussion of his disputes with the apostles who did know Jesus to be powerful evidence against the notion that he invented him. If Paul were inventing Jesus he would more likely claim that he was a faithful follower of Jesus before he died.

“But even if we leave Paul out of the equation, there is still more than ample reason for thinking that stories about Jesus circulated widely throughout the major urban areas of the Mediterranean from a very early time. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain all the written stories that emerged in the middle and end of the first century. These sources are independent of one another. They were written in different places. They contain strikingly different accounts of what Jesus said and did. Yet many of them, independent though they be, agree on many of the basic aspects of Jesus’s life and death….” Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman

"...the devotion to Jesus that Paul affirms in this letters was manifest already in the very earliest circles of Jewish Christians, including those of the very first years (perhaps months) in Roman Judea." How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God by Larry Hurtado

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Since you don't believe that Paul invented Jesus, why not?

Well if Paul invented Jesus he also had to invent Luke. Else it wouldn't have worked. As this crazy theory goes, Paul sparked Jesus, Mark caught it, and wrote his Readers Digest gospel, adding to Paul's invention. Then Matthew added Jewishness and the OT to Mark, and Paul's invention. Then Paul had no choice but to invent Luke, and Acts ... And finally, John put the cherry on top, and added complete divinity to Paul's invention.

There's only one fly in this ointment: The Revelation of Jesus Christ. That's what happened to Paul. And it's still happening today. Does that mean that we today are re-inventing Jesus?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

“But even if we leave Paul out of the equation, there is still more than ample reason for thinking that stories about Jesus circulated widely throughout the major urban areas of the Mediterranean from a very early time. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain all the written stories that emerged in the middle and end of the first century. These sources are independent of one another. They were written in different places. They contain strikingly different accounts of what Jesus said and did. Yet many of them, independent though they be, agree on many of the basic aspects of Jesus’s life and death….” Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman

Unless there is some document contemporary with or earlier than Paul's, based on Ehrman's reasoning above alone, it is possible that all of the written stories were variations on the Jesus theme of the started by Paul. After all, Paul told us precious little about Jesus except that he was crucified. It would have been only human to fill in the blanks with "strikingly different" imaginative details. The "basic aspects" could be those they got from Paul.

"...the devotion to Jesus that Paul affirms in this letters was manifest already in the very earliest circles of Jewish Christians, including those of the very first years (perhaps months) in Roman Judea." How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God by Larry Hurtado

How does Larry know that Paul is affirming and not originating the devotion? Perhaps he presupposes the historical accuracy of at least some of Acts of the Apostles.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well if Paul invented Jesus he also had to invent Luke. Else it wouldn't have worked. As this crazy theory goes, Paul sparked Jesus, Mark caught it, and wrote his Readers Digest gospel, adding to Paul's invention. Then Matthew added Jewishness and the OT to Mark, and Paul's invention. Then Paul had no choice but to invent Luke, and Acts ... And finally, John put the cherry on top, and added complete divinity to Paul's invention.

The Gospel writers all came after Paul according to modern historians. They apparently have a complex relationship to each other and Paul which may or may not be discoverable. Given the extant evidence what the particular relationship was is more or less hypothetical.

There's only one fly in this ointment: The Revelation of Jesus Christ. That's what happened to Paul. And it's still happening today. Does that mean that we today are re-inventing Jesus?

What fly in whose ointment? The Revelation of Jesus Christ is a proposition. What happened to Paul is a question. People make all kinds of claims "today." To re-invent Jesus, people would have to know who/what he was in the first place. Instead, we have various traditional explanations and an ever-growing plethora of historical hypotheses.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Unless there is some document contemporary with or earlier than Paul's, based on Ehrman's reasoning above alone, it is possible that all of the written stories were variations on the Jesus theme of the started by Paul. After all, Paul told us precious little about Jesus except that he was crucified. It would have been only human to fill in the blanks with "strikingly different" imaginative details. The "basic aspects" could be those they got from Paul.

While I would normally disagree with you just because Ehrman is the scholar and we are just peon "scholars" but you have a point. Luke was supposedly Paul’s friend and trusted companion Philemon 24, Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11. Paul obviously influenced Luke there is no question about that and I guess we are only presupposing that everything Luke wrote was the truth. Interestingly enough in Luke 1:1 Luke notes that he has seen other documents and wanted to set the record straight. Well, he has spent considerable time with Paul...what documents... so you have a point although I will defer to Ehrman.

Originally Posted by zeek

How does Larry know that Paul is affirming and not originating the devotion? Perhaps he presupposes the historical accuracy of at least some of Acts of the Apostles.

Larry doesn't know because the record is sparse. It's an assumption based on the available records. Again, yes, what you are suggesting is also possible.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

What fly in whose ointment? The Revelation of Jesus Christ is a proposition. What happened to Paul is a question. People make all kinds of claims "today." To re-invent Jesus, people would have to know who/what he was in the first place. Instead, we have various traditional explanations and an ever-growing plethora of historical hypotheses.

I don't think awareness would disagree with your hypothesis. He was referencing Gal 1:11-12 where Paul said that what he knew and shared to everyone was a result of a "revelation" to him which is also noted in Acts cf 9:3-22; 22:6-21; 26:12-23.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

While I would normally disagree with you just because Ehrman is the scholar and we are just peon "scholars" but you have a point. Luke was supposedly Paul’s friend and trusted companion Philemon 24, Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11.

My hypothesis there was a logical inference based the facts presented by Ehrman in the quote. Multiple scholars including Ehrman are the ones that tell me there is a dearth of contemporary evidence confirming the historical Jesus of Nazareth. The absence of contemporary evidence confirming the historicity of Jesus are what make the internal evidence of Paul's epistles so important to the question. The principle I am applying to Paul's statements about not knowing Jesus before he died, and being apposed by the leading apostles who did is the principle of embarrassment. At the time he made those admissions, those facts would not have strengthened his cause. There are also references by Paul to oral traditions he received about Jesus independent of his revelatory experience. ironically, those points which would have weakened his position and make him look more like an ordinary believer at the time he made them, strengthen the case for the historicity of Jesus.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

My hypothesis there was a logical inference based the facts presented by Ehrman in the quote. Multiple scholars including Ehrman are the ones that tell me there is a dearth of contemporary evidence confirming the historical Jesus of Nazareth. The absence of contemporary evidence confirming the historicity of Jesus are what make the internal evidence of Paul's epistles so important to the question. The principle I am applying to Paul's statements about not knowing Jesus before he died, and being apposed by the leading apostles who did is the principle of embarrassment. At the time he made those admissions, those facts would not have strengthened his cause. There are also references by Paul to oral traditions he received about Jesus independent of his revelatory experience. ironically, those points which would have weakened his position and make him look more like an ordinary believer at the time he made them, strengthen the case for the historicity of Jesus.

"The Principle of....embarrassment..." I get that but I am not sure where you are taking it. You also note, "There are also references by Paul to oral traditions he received about Jesus independent of his revelatory experience." Could you provide some references (scriptures or ?) so I can understand your perspective? I appreciate your point but some scriptures or other notations would be helpful. Thanks.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

"The Principle of....embarrassment..." I get that but I am not sure where you are taking it. You also note, "There are also references by Paul to oral traditions he received about Jesus independent of his revelatory experience."

The principle of embarrassment is the logical force behind the statement that I made earlier, i. e.

I take the fact that Paul admits that he didn't know Jesus personally before he died and his discussion of his disputes with the apostles who did know Jesus to be powerful evidence against the notion that he invented him. If Paul were inventing Jesus he would more likely claim that he was a faithful follower of Jesus before he died.

Originally Posted by Dave

You also note, "There are also references by Paul to oral traditions he received about Jesus independent of his revelatory experience." Could you provide some references (scriptures or ?) so I can understand your perspective?

Here are some examples where Paul acknowledges that the Christian faith did not begin with him:

1 Corinthians 11:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you."

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Galatians 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

The principle of embarrassment is the logical force behind the statement that I made earlier, i. e.

Here are some examples where Paul acknowledges that the Christian faith did not begin with him:

1 Corinthians 11:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you."

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Galatians 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Why don’t we work with the 3 following methodological principles which I am more familiar with so we can speak the same language.
1. Criterion of independent attestation
a. It is better to have a number of witnesses who can provide consistent testimony than to have only one, especially if the witnesses can be shown not to have conferred with one another to get their stories straight.
b. An event mentioned in several independent documents is more likely to be historically accurate than an event mentioned in only one
c. Although individual documents can provide reliable historical information if there is not corroborating evidence it is often impossible to know whether an individual author has made up an account or, perhaps, provided a skewed version of it.
d. Paul appears to use the point in 1a. in his argument in 1 Cor. 15:5-7
2. Criterion of dissimiliarity
a. A witness in court will naturally tell things the way he or she sees them. The perspective of the witness must be taken into account when trying to evaluate the merits of the case. Sometimes a witness has a vested interest in the outcome of a trial.
b. If the witness testifies counter to his or her vested interests, that testimony is more likely to be true.
3. Criterion of contextual credibility
a. In a court of law, the testimony of a witness will not hold up under cross-examination if it does not coincide with the facts of the case.
b. For ancient documents, reliable traditions must conform to the historical and social contexts to which they relate. Thus, considering the traditions of the Gospels, this means that the sayings, deeds, and experiences of Jesus must be plausibly situated in the historical context of first century Palestine to be trusted as reliable.

In this context your “principle of embarrassment” falls under the “criterion of dissimilarity”. I would agree that those quotes show some evidence of dissimilarity but not conclusive evidence. In addition, I said because Luke was Paul’s companion made your proposition an intriguing idea that Paul created Jesus but it doesn’t mean I agree with it at all. Doesn’t it seem like we are going around in circles on this discussion? Why don’t you lay out your overall point in our discussion so we have a baseline. You were initially disagreeing with my quote of Ehrman but now you are going back to seemingly supporting it to some degree so I am not sure where you are headed (e.g. you indicated that "What happened to Paul is a question" but Ehrman states, "But even if we leave Paul out of the equation" so I am not sure how we ended up with you making your statement since Paul is not part of the equation):

“But even if we leave Paul out of the equation, there is still more than ample reason for thinking that stories about Jesus circulated widely throughout the major urban areas of the Mediterranean from a very early time. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain all the written stories that emerged in the middle and end of the first century. These sources are independent of one another. They were written in different places. They contain strikingly different accounts of what Jesus said and did. Yet many of them, independent though they be, agree on many of the basic aspects of Jesus’s life and death….” Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

To re-invent Jesus, people would have to know who/what he was in the first place. Instead, we have various traditional explanations and an ever-growing plethora of historical hypotheses.

Now, now bro. Calm yer analytic mind down. At this moment I have only one response in mind:

One Jesus, Many Christs : How Jesus Inspired Not One True Christianity, but Many
http://www.amazon.com/One-Jesus-Many.../dp/B002SG6I4G

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Why don’t we work with the 3 following methodological principles which I am more familiar with so we can speak the same language.
1. Criterion of independent attestation
a. It is better to have a number of witnesses who can provide consistent testimony than to have only one, especially if the witnesses can be shown not to have conferred with one another to get their stories straight.
b. An event mentioned in several independent documents is more likely to be historically accurate than an event mentioned in only one
c. Although individual documents can provide reliable historical information if there is not corroborating evidence it is often impossible to know whether an individual author has made up an account or, perhaps, provided a skewed version of it.
2. Criterion of dissimiliarity
a. A witness in court will naturally tell things the way he or she sees them. The perspective of the witness must be taken into account when trying to evaluate the merits of the case. Sometimes a witness has a vested interest in the outcome of a trial.
b. If the witness testifies counter to his or her vested interests, that testimony is more likely to be true.
3. Criterion of contextual credibility
a. In a court of law, the testimony of a witness will not hold up under cross-examination if it does not coincide with the facts of the case.
b. For ancient documents, reliable traditions must conform to the historical and social contexts to which they relate. Thus, considering the traditions of the Gospels, this means that the sayings, deeds, and experiences of Jesus must be plausibly situated in the historical context of first century Palestine to be trusted as reliable.

In this context your “principle of embarrassment” falls under the “criterion of dissimilarity”. I would agree that those quotes show some evidence of dissimilarity but not conclusive evidence. In addition, I said because Luke was Paul’s companion made your proposition an intriguing idea that Paul created Jesus but it doesn’t mean I agree with it at all. Doesn’t it seem like we are going around in circles on this discussion? Why don’t you lay out your overall point in our discussion so we have a baseline. You were initially disagreeing with my quote of Ehrman but now you are going back to seemingly supporting it to some degree so I am not sure where you are headed (e.g. you indicated that "What happened to Paul is a question" but Ehrman states, "But even if we leave Paul out of the equation" so I am not sure how we ended up with you making your statement since Paul is not part of the equation):

“But even if we leave Paul out of the equation, there is still more than ample reason for thinking that stories about Jesus circulated widely throughout the major urban areas of the Mediterranean from a very early time. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain all the written stories that emerged in the middle and end of the first century. These sources are independent of one another. They were written in different places. They contain strikingly different accounts of what Jesus said and did. Yet many of them, independent though they be, agree on many of the basic aspects of Jesus’s life and death….” Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman

Those seem like sound principles. I can appreciate that Ehrman's argument has some probative weight, but unless he can quantify it and compare statistically to how many written stories would be likely at the middle and end of the first century if Paul started the rumor of Jesus versus if the stories were generated independently, it fails to persuade. Even if we had enough data for that statistical comparison, the matter would be far from certain.

It seems to me that we are not now thinking like fundamentalists. They are not looking at the issue this way or asking these questions. Fundamentalism will never be content with the incertitude of history. Paul himself is not manifestly fundamentalist. He didn't declare unambiguously for the virgin birth, for example. Nor did he say definitively "When the New Testament is finished, it will be infallible." "All scripture is God breathed..." literally seems to be a tautology that tells us that if a writing is scripture it is God-breathed and if it's God-breathed, it's scripture.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now, now bro. Calm yer analytic mind down. At this moment I have only one response in mind:

One Jesus, Many Christs : How Jesus Inspired Not One True Christianity, but Many
http://www.amazon.com/One-Jesus-Many.../dp/B002SG6I4G

As summarized here, http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...goryriley.html, that book has a misleading title since the author's thesis is really that Jesus as depicted in the gospels was a typical classical hero/martyr. But, the title is suggestive of a problem with contemporary Jesus scholarship that I suppose fundamentalists deplore i.e. that they have many conflicting hypotheses about whom Jesus was. They each make arguments for why the relevant data supports their hypothesis. But, none is ultimately decisive.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

There are also references by Paul to oral traditions he received about Jesus independent of his revelatory experience. ironically, those points which would have weakened his position and make him look more like an ordinary believer at the time he made them, strengthen the case for the historicity of Jesus.

Precisely. Visionary Revelation or not, why listen to a heartless killer like Saul/Paul?

More on that later.

I'd like to bring up the five fundamentals again. A week or so ago it popped into my mind that prolly the work of deciding and compiling the five fundamentals, at Princeton T.S., didn't happen without debate, contention, and arguments. So on a lark kinda thing I began to search for any historical record of that process.

I was disappointed, and didn't find what I had in mind. But I was surprised at what I did find, if I may use surprise loosely.

During the 19th and 20th centuries there was a lot of tension growing between Christianity, and products of the industrial revolution, namely the spread of making literacy, education, and science, normal aspects of the modern age.

One example of this tension, that will likely ring a bell with most associated with the local church is, G. H. Pember, and his publicizing of the gap theory, in the later half of the 19th c. His was a desperate attempt to bring the Bible in line with science, that was proving that the earth is much older than believed by most Christians up to that time.

So I, and many others, just assumed that fundamentalism sprang up from this tension; the tension, or contention, with modernity with its widespread education of scientific discoveries and thinking.

Not so, kinda. Oddly enough what disturbed the boys at Princeton, was the same thing that is a thorn in UntoHims' side about Bart Ehrman today: Higher Criticism.

And I quote:

"In 1891, [Charles] Briggs was appointed as Union's first-ever Professor of Biblical Theology. His inaugural address, entitled "The Authority of Holy Scripture", proved to be highly controversial. Whereas previously, Higher Criticism had seemed a fairly technical, scholarly issue, Briggs now spelt out its full implications. In this address, he announced that Higher Criticism had now definitively proven that Moses did not write the Pentateuch; that Ezra did not write Ezra, Chronicles or Nehemiah; Jeremiah did not write the books of Kings or the Lamentations; David only wrote a few of the Psalms; Solomon did not write the Song of Solomon or Ecclesiastes and only a few Proverbs; and Isaiah did not write half of the book of Isaiah. The Old Testament was merely a historical record, and one which showed man in a lower state of moral development, with modern man having progressed morally far beyond Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Judah, David, and Solomon. At any rate, the Scriptures as a whole are riddled with errors and the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy taught at Princeton Theological Seminary "is a ghost of modern evangelicalism to frighten children."[3] Not only is the Westminster Confession wrong, but the very foundation of the Confession, the Bible, could not be used to create theological absolutes. He now called on other rationalists in the denomination to join him in sweeping away the dead orthodoxy of the past and work for the unity of the entire church."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundam...926.E2.80.9329

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Precisely. Visionary Revelation or not, why listen to a heartless killer like Saul/Paul?

What are you talking about?

More on that later.

I'd like to bring up the five fundamentals again. A week or so ago it popped into my mind that prolly the work of deciding and compiling the five fundamentals, at Princeton T.S., didn't happen without debate, contention, and arguments. So on a lark kinda thing I began to search for any historical record of that process.

I was disappointed, and didn't find what I had in mind. But I was surprised at what I did find, if I may use surprise loosely.

During the 19th and 20th centuries there was a lot of tension growing between Christianity, and products of the industrial revolution, namely the spread of making literacy, education, and science, normal aspects of the modern age.

One example of this tension, that will likely ring a bell with most associated with the local church is, G. H. Pember, and his publicizing of the gap theory, in the later half of the 19th c. His was a desperate attempt to bring the Bible in line with science, that was proving that the earth is much older than believed by most Christians up to that time.

So I, and many others, just assumed that fundamentalism sprang up from this tension; the tension, or contention, with modernity with its widespread education of scientific discoveries and thinking.

Not so, kinda. Oddly enough what disturbed the boys at Princeton, was the same thing that is a thorn in UntoHims' side about Bart Ehrman today: Higher Criticism.

And I quote:

"In 1891, [Charles] Briggs was appointed as Union's first-ever Professor of Biblical Theology. His inaugural address, entitled "The Authority of Holy Scripture", proved to be highly controversial. Whereas previously, Higher Criticism had seemed a fairly technical, scholarly issue, Briggs now spelt out its full implications. In this address, he announced that Higher Criticism had now definitively proven that Moses did not write the Pentateuch; that Ezra did not write Ezra, Chronicles or Nehemiah; Jeremiah did not write the books of Kings or the Lamentations; David only wrote a few of the Psalms; Solomon did not write the Song of Solomon or Ecclesiastes and only a few Proverbs; and Isaiah did not write half of the book of Isaiah. The Old Testament was merely a historical record, and one which showed man in a lower state of moral development, with modern man having progressed morally far beyond Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Judah, David, and Solomon. At any rate, the Scriptures as a whole are riddled with errors and the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy taught at Princeton Theological Seminary "is a ghost of modern evangelicalism to frighten children."[3] Not only is the Westminster Confession wrong, but the very foundation of the Confession, the Bible, could not be used to create theological absolutes. He now called on other rationalists in the denomination to join him in sweeping away the dead orthodoxy of the past and work for the unity of the entire church."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundam...926.E2.80.9329

Right. Christian fundamentalism was initially a reaction against liberal Christianity.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Precisely. Visionary Revelation or not, why listen to a heartless killer like Saul/Paul?

Over the top Harold. WRONG FORUM FOR THIS KIND OF SPEAKING!

There are probably hundreds and even thousands of forums on the Internet for people to spew out this kind of garbage. THIS FORUM IS NOT ONE OF THEM!
I did NOT open up this forum board for you or anyone else to proselytize for atheism. Discuss is fine. Debate is fine. Vicious and caustic language is NOT FINE.

BOTTOM LINE: One of the main reasons this forum exists is to HELP CURRENT LOCAL CHURCH members by exposing them to matters relating to biblical truth, which is THE ONLY THING THAT IS GOING TO HELP THEM. The answer for them to get back to spiritual and psychological health and normality is getting to know God, his nature, character and ways THROUGH HIS WORD - THE BIBLE. THIS FORUM DOES NOT EXIST TO LEAD THEM FROM A FASLE RELIGION TO ATHEISM - This will be taking them "from the frying pan to the fire", maybe literally. This is NOT going to happen on my watch. Not here on this forum.

I did NOT open up this forum board for you or anyone else to "enlighten" us ignorant, backwards thinking Christians wallowing around in the dark ages by spewing out your atheistic hate speech. TAKE YOUR HATE SOMEWHERE ELSE MY MAN. Again, discussion IS FINE. Debate IS FINE. Vicious, caustic HATE SPEECH IS NOT FINE. Constant and vicious attacks on the integrity of the Bible and the Christian faith are out of bounds on this forum. PERIOD.

If you guys want, I can make this forum board (Alternative Views) a password protected forum board. The threads would only be viewable and accessible to those with a password. In fact I'm probably going to do this anyway. Once this is done, I will be much more lenient about the kind of language used.

Just to be clear, it is not just this one post that set me off, it is the constant attacks on the Bible, the authors of the Bible and the Christian faith.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

What are you talking about?

I thought that was obvious. If Paul was making it up why would he make it up that he was a killer?

But maybe I'm overlaying it with our times. Maybe killing was something to be proud of back then. Maybe it actually increased his standing in the eyes of others to be a killer, and they looked up to someone that was willing to kill for something.

Is there anything of the sort in any of the historical records?

Originally Posted by Zeek

Right. Christian fundamentalism was initially a reaction against liberal Christianity.

Well look at Princeton today. Liberalism won out. Why do you think that is? Are facts just very stubborn?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

I thought that was obvious. If Paul was making it up why would he make it up that he was a killer?

But maybe I'm overlaying it with our times. Maybe killing was something to be proud of back then. Maybe it actually increased his standing in the eyes of others to be a killer, and they looked up to someone that was willing to kill for something.

Is there anything of the sort in any of the historical records?


Well look at Princeton today. Liberalism won out. Why do you think that is? Are facts just very stubborn?

Obviously that statement was upsetting to UntoHim but he didn't understand it either. It is a good point, however, and falls under the criterion of dissimilarity. In other words, it is believable because it is not something Paul would make up about himself as you indicated.

There are some great discussions going on over at the Ehrman blog "forum" regarding the NT. One poster asked Ehrman "...how such extreme differences in belief could have occurred so quickly in the Jesus movement (Gnostics and others now considered non-orthodox and heretical)." Ehrman answered, " Every church Paul is involved with appears to have people who had radically different views from him on matters of faith and practice: Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, Rome, even Thessalonica." Now this doesn't sound like a profound answer but obvious. However, the fact that a NT scholar is responding to people is remarkable and he has responded to every question I have asked of him on his blog. There is very little nonsense but great questions and statements from people and you also have Bart getting into the mix.

I'll still post here but Ehrman's blog and forum are learning experiences, at least for me, and an opportunity to obtain responsible answers rather than pat answers. He knows all the biblical languages (Greek, Hebrew, Coptic, Aramaic etc) and he works with the original copies of texts. You're getting the best of the best.

Here is another post albeit not from Ehrman but just a poster. I thought this was interesting because a good buddy of Erhman, "Dale Martin" at Yale is mentioned teaching a NT class (BTW--according to Ehrman Martin doesn't necessarily agree with Ehrman on various NT issues)... Here is the quote which could be a topic all its own: "In Dale Martin’s Yale Open Course on the New Testament he makes an interesting point about 1 Thessalonians, which is that it seems like the Thessalonians were unaware of the resurrection of the dead — they were concerned that the people in the community who had died were going to miss out on the coming kingdom of God. So, he suggested, it seems like the prominence of the afterlife in Christianity might not have been a characteristic of the very earliest stages of Christianity."

What is also interesting is that the Open Course on the NT by Dale Martin is free and you can download the materials, syllabus and watch the courses online: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I thought that was obvious. If Paul was making it up why would he make it up that he was a killer?

Really? I was supposed to get that from : "Visionary Revelation or not, why listen to a heartless killer like Saul/Paul?" Excuse me while I cough=> "Bull****."

As a result, UntoHim is, without warning and against his avowed intention of creating Alternative Views in the first place, punishing everyone who posts here. You played your Naughty Child card and UntoHim trumped it with to his Strict Father card. Can we go back to conversing openly as reasonable adults, or are we going to go on recapitulating Local Church parent/child behavior?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Just to be clear, it is not just this one post that set me off, it is the constant attacks on the Bible, the authors of the Bible and the Christian faith.

There may have been some of attacks and if so, I wish you would point out where you see them, because, as I'm sure you are aware, not everybody judges things the same way, so it may not appear the same way to each of us.

When I started this thread I hoped that a half dozen stalwart brothers would come out with the best arguments for fundamentalism so that we could have a rousing debate on the issue. Who knows, perhaps if a strong case were made, hearts and minds could be won back to the fundamentalist fold. Or, at least, we might have achieved better understanding among the brothers and sisters in the Lord.

There must be someone out there who can argue a solid rational case for fundamentalism. But, that didn't happen, and now the forum is difficult to access and impossible for some.

I feared that this would happen from the beginning which is why I refused to moderate the forum when you offered me the chance. Nevertheless, I am disappointed because, I still think open discussion could be a valuable tool for healing the spiritual wounds of the ex-local churchers.

I hope you will reconsider, UntoHim. Freedom of speech has worked pretty well in America. People are interested in this thread. There have been 2,626 views of it since I started it less than a month ago. It isn't fair to lock the interested out. It might be refreshing for people who have recently left or are considering leaving Lee's church to see what alternative views look like, and to think about them before they make up their own minds how they will go forward.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

There may have been some of attacks and if so, I wish you would point out where you see them, because, as I'm sure you are aware, not everybody judges things the same way, so it may not appear the same way to each of us.

This whole thread (Fundamentalism) has been almost nothing except an attack on most of the basic tenants of the Christian faith, not the least of which is the authenticity and integrity of the Bible, especially the New Testament. Had I known that's what you guys really meant by "alternative views" then I wouldn't have initiated this forum board in the first place. To be perfectly honest I really don't have a big problem with how you (zeek) and Dave have treated this subject, but Harold has tried my patience to the limit.

When I started this thread I hoped that a half dozen stalwart brothers would come out with the best arguments for fundamentalism so that we could have a rousing debate on the issue. Who knows, perhaps if a strong case were made, hearts and minds could be won back to the fundamentalist fold. Or, at least, we might have achieved better understanding among the brothers and sisters in the Lord.

The problem with "arguments for fundamentalism" is that you and others here have made the definition of fundamentalism a moving target. You also treat fundamentalism is an intrinsically negative thing, when the very term "fundamental" is intrinsically a positive thing. Don't you want your Medical Doctor to a fundamentalist when it comes to medicine? Don't you want you lawyer to be a fundamentalist when it comes to the law? Why then when it comes to Biblical theology do you consider a fundamentalist as some crazed, unreasonable person?

There must be someone out there who can argue a solid rational case for fundamentalism. But, that didn't happen, and now the forum is difficult to access and impossible for some.

As you probably noticed, once you enter the password you never have to do it again (unless you log in from different computer maybe?) All the forum regulars have the password so nothing is really going to change except that lurkers and some of the newest members will have to request the password. Any newer member who seems to be hardy enough to duke it out with you guys will be given the password, no problem.

I feared that this would happen from the beginning which is why I refused to moderate the forum when you offered me the chance. Nevertheless, I am disappointed because, I still think open discussion could be a valuable tool for healing the spiritual wounds of the ex-local churchers.

I already addressed these concerns, but I'll reiterate - the spiritual wounds of every human being, especially those who are the victims of false religion, can only be healed by God Himself. And the healing takes place by coming to the full knowledge of God Himself, and this starts with faith in His Son Jesus Christ, faith in His Person and Work (The glorious Gospel) and faith that God has brought His true and accurate Word to us.

No healing will come by the kind of "questions" raised by people like Bart Ehrman. Discussions and arguments brought up by somebody who doesn't even believe in God anymore will lead someone already damaged by a false teacher like Witness Lee into further darkness. I know you and others here feel otherwise, but since part of the "mission" of this forum is to assist current and former LC members to get that spiritual healing you have mentioned, they need to be lead to Biblical truth, not humanistic/secular concerns and arguments.

I hope you will reconsider, UntoHim. Freedom of speech has worked pretty well in America. People are interested in this thread. There have been 2,626 views of it since I started it less than a month ago. It isn't fair to lock the interested out. It might be refreshing for people who have recently left or are considering leaving Lee's church to see what alternative views look like, and to think about them before they make up their own minds how they will go forward.

I'll reconsider, but it's going to take some time. Again, nobody is being locked out. This forum is already easily accessible to all the regulars, and I'm sure that anybody else who is interested will ask for the password and they will get it immediately upon request. The second part of your concerns here I've already addressed.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The problem with "arguments for fundamentalism" is that you and others here have made the definition of fundamentalism a moving target. You also treat fundamentalism is an intrinsically negative thing, when the very term "fundamental" is intrinsically a positive thing. Don't you want your Medical Doctor to a fundamentalist when it comes to medicine? Don't you want you lawyer to be a fundamentalist when it comes to the law? Why then when it comes to Biblical theology do you consider a fundamentalist as some crazed, unreasonable person?

Actually I thought we were doing rather well with it as we listed the various doctrinal issues supporting fundamentalism. On the other hand, I agree with the statement that fundamentalism is viewed as negative but it is more because of its political connection in today's world and not its Biblical connection. None of us can change that on this forum.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No healing will come by the kind of "questions" raised by people like Bart Ehrman. Discussions and arguments brought up by somebody who doesn't even believe in God anymore will lead someone already damaged by a false teacher like Witness Lee into further darkness. I know you and others here feel otherwise, but since part of the "mission" of this forum is to assist current and former LC members to get that spiritual healing you have mentioned, they need to be lead to Biblical truth, not humanistic/secular concerns and arguments.

There is much to consider outside this world we live in and when you consider the LC world that people live in --- honestly, I don't know what to say. Our best intentions don’t necessarily lead us to the place we want to go. It’s not a matter of believing otherwise. We have gone through a considerable amount of self-reflection on not only the LC but our Christian faith. We have come to different conclusions and quite honestly I don’t believe that what we have arrived at is problematic for those leaving the LC. Why? Because we show that you can leave with different perspectives and you don’t have to force yourself to accept certain doctrines to leave the LC. You can still be a human who loves their families and live a good life. We are not the extreme, we are asking people to seriously consider the steps they want to take as they leave the LC. If they wish to get back into Evangelical Christianity that is great…take the steps necessary to do that but if they want to explore other avenues those are also available but don’t think there is nothing else out there. We are offering hope for many and that is why we have persevered in our efforts to make these views available. I am not going to deal with your Bart Ehrman viewpoint at this time because I disagree with you but that is another discussion. I'll explain why later.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

To be perfectly honest I really don't have a big problem with how you (zeek) and Dave have treated this subject, but Harold has tried my patience to the limit.

While Harold really has a way of pushing your buttons, he has done more for this website than anyone I know of except you. A number of folks wouldn't be here if it weren't for Harold including myself. Yes, he pushes the limits, but often he does it in ways that opens up new issues for discussion. And, he really cares about about the people here.

Is it just possible that Harold is not a fundamentalist, not a dogmatic Christian, not even a doctrinal christian, but that he is a true Christian who somehow embodies what the Christian faith is essentially about?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

BOTTOM LINE: One of the main reasons this forum exists is to HELP CURRENT LOCAL CHURCH members by exposing them to matters relating to biblical truth, which is THE ONLY THING THAT IS GOING TO HELP THEM. The answer for them to get back to spiritual and psychological health and normality is getting to know God, his nature, character and ways THROUGH HIS WORD - THE BIBLE. THIS FORUM DOES NOT EXIST TO LEAD THEM FROM A FASLE RELIGION TO ATHEISM - This will be taking them "from the frying pan to the fire", maybe literally. This is NOT going to happen on my watch. Not here on this forum.

Just turn to your spirit, brother. Don't worry about your problems, just enjoy Christ!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Just turn to your spirit, brother. Don't worry about your problems, just enjoy Christ!

I'm tryin, bro, I'm tryin...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

What is also interesting is that the Open Course on the NT by Dale Martin is free and you can download the materials, syllabus and watch the courses online: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152

I find this very encouraging; that this sort of information is now reaching the masses.

Ehrman has brought it up time and time again that, this is nothing new to anyone that has attended seminaries in Europe and America; that all the preachers know this information on historical criticism and the manuscripts, but don't bring it up to their parishioners when they become preachers; that they don't teach it to the laity.

But now, thanks to those like Ehrman and Dale Martin (is he related to you Dave) it's coming out in spades to the public.

And that is a very good thing. UntoHim proclaims that only God and the Bible can heal those coming out of the local church, and maybe it can for some, but not for all, strictly speaking. As I've pointed out, my friend from 2nd grade, who was an elder in Texas, found his healing by becoming a native American shaman. We're all different. Some walk away from it all. I just can't.

I firmly believe that ultimately truth is the most healing for those coming out of the LC. More lying to them certainly isn't going to help.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I firmly believe that ultimately truth is the most healing for those coming out of the LC. More lying to them certainly isn't going to help.

The difficulty here is that truth is often perceived as merely correct information or accurate facts, kind of like what we see when long-hidden coverups get exposed to the light of day via numerous well-respected eye-witnesses.

Truth is much more than that. In the Christian context we are in, it's almost impossible to separate truth from the Spirit of truth, which is the Spirit of reality. Without a living faith within us, this Spirit of reality almost seems non-existant and completely powerless to truly liberate us. Unfortunately faith is in our heart, and not just in our minds. Just knowing the facts in our mind can cheat us from believing the truth of God in our heart.

We have been instructed to walk by faith and to walk by the Spirit. Only this can connect us with the power of the mighty God. We have not been ordered to walk by the Law or to walk by the Bible. Walking by faith implies a certain amount of uncertainty to our lives, and trusting in God involves not knowing all the facts, or even knowing which facts are absolutely true. If the truth can set us free, it must then be the Spirit of truth who actually liberates us by faith.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The difficulty here is that truth is often perceived as merely correct information or accurate facts, kind of like what we see when long-hidden coverups get exposed to the light of day via numerous well-respected eye-witnesses.

Truth is much more than that. In the Christian context we are in, it's almost impossible to separate truth from the Spirit of truth, which is the Spirit of reality. Without a living faith within us, this Spirit of reality almost seems non-existant and completely powerless to truly liberate us. Unfortunately faith is in our heart, and not just in our minds. Just knowing the facts in our mind can cheat us from believing the truth of God in our heart.

We have been instructed to walk by faith and to walk by the Spirit. Only this can connect us with the power of the mighty God. We have not been ordered to walk by the Law or to walk by the Bible. Walking by faith implies a certain amount of uncertainty to our lives, and trusting in God involves not knowing all the facts, or even knowing which facts are absolutely true. If the truth can set us free, it must then be the Spirit of truth who actually liberates us by faith.

This was a beautiful post bro Ohio.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm tryin, bro, I'm tryin...

Me too ...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

This was a beautiful post bro Ohio.

Regardless of the reading audience, my posts are more therapeutic than anything else.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This whole thread (Fundamentalism) has been almost nothing except an attack on most of the basic tenants of the Christian faith, not the least of which is the authenticity and integrity of the Bible, especially the New Testament. Had I known that's what you guys really meant by "alternative views" then I wouldn't have initiated this forum board in the first place. To be perfectly honest I really don't have a big problem with how you (zeek) and Dave have treated this subject, but Harold has tried my patience to the limit.

What exactly are the tenants of the Christian faith in your opinion UntoHim? Did you ever take a stand on those here on this thread? Twenty were proposed. Do you subscribe to all of them? How many are required to be believed for salvation? I have always thought that all it took was an actual encounter with Christ. What people think about this or that doctrinal factoid is immaterial. I thought others in the Local Church had that experience. Guess I was mistaken. I'd like to read your take on the issue.

The problem with "arguments for fundamentalism" is that you and others here have made the definition of fundamentalism a moving target. You also treat fundamentalism is an intrinsically negative thing, when the very term "fundamental" is intrinsically a positive thing. Don't you want your Medical Doctor to a fundamentalist when it comes to medicine? Don't you want you lawyer to be a fundamentalist when it comes to the law? Why then when it comes to Biblical theology do you consider a fundamentalist as some crazed, unreasonable person?

I have never heard MDs or lawyers referred to as fundamentalists. What would that mean? I don't think fundamentalists crazed or unreasonable unless they act that way. I would like to see reasonable fundamentalists engage me with reasons and arguments supporting their position.

As you probably noticed, once you enter the password you never have to do it again (unless you log in from different computer maybe?) All the forum regulars have the password so nothing is really going to change except that lurkers and some of the newest members will have to request the password. Any newer member who seems to be hardy enough to duke it out with you guys will be given the password, no problem.

I don't think you can refute that you have warned us not to share the password with anyone that you have not already invited to the party. You have even directed us not to make reference to Alternate Views discussion the other forums. Obviously your intention is to keep some people from open discussion on this forum.

I already addressed these concerns, but I'll reiterate - the spiritual wounds of every human being, especially those who are the victims of false religion, can only be healed by God Himself. And the healing takes place by coming to the full knowledge of God Himself, and this starts with faith in His Son Jesus Christ, faith in His Person and Work (The glorious Gospel) and faith that God has brought His true and accurate Word to us.

If all healing comes from God, then whenever healing occurs it is divine healing. So I ask you, does healing only occur when it accords with your approved method? Didn't Jesus say, "he who is not against us is on our side.”? Luke 9:50


No healing will come by the kind of "questions" raised by people like Bart Ehrman. Discussions and arguments brought up by somebody who doesn't even believe in God anymore will lead someone already damaged by a false teacher like Witness Lee into further darkness. I know you and others here feel otherwise, but since part of the "mission" of this forum is to assist current and former LC members to get that spiritual healing you have mentioned, they need to be lead to Biblical truth, not humanistic/secular concerns and arguments.

I'm sorry sir, but it was Witness Lee who taught me not to question. I experienced first hand what it is like to be an unquestioning sheeple. People in the Local Church or those who are coming out need to learn how to question well so that they can begin to re-discover what it is like to be a free thinking person. Yes there is risk in that, but it is a risk God was willing to take the risk when he created us as potentially free thinking beings. I am not trying to sell anyone on my way of thinking. But, if I can help them to find their way back to thinking for themselves again, I believe I will have done well. Wouldn't the one who is called The Truth approve of that?

I'll reconsider, but it's going to take some time. Again, nobody is being locked out. This forum is already easily accessible to all the regulars, and I'm sure that anybody else who is interested will ask for the password and they will get it immediately upon request. The second part of your concerns here I've already addressed.

Thank you for agreeing to reconsider. And please, do communicate with me. I believe there is healing in fellowship if we would only continue in it with mutual respect instead of withdrawing into our private silos. I do honestly want to better understand your viewpoint and see if there is any means by which we can achieve rapprochement.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Just turn to your spirit, brother. Don't worry about your problems, just enjoy Christ!

Probably my original post wasn't clear. This kind of one-size-fits-all answer to our problems didn't work within the Recovery. I for one can't take this approach, for myself, outside the Recovery.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

This kind of one-size-fits-all answer to our problems didn't work within the Recovery.

No misfits allowed. Misfits should be advised to stay away from the Recovery, or to run away from it as fast as they can. There's no fit for them there. Maybe not anywhere. Not even here. Misfits better be tough.

And isn't that what the Five Fundamentals are all about? Those that don't hold to them are misfits. They aren't real Christians, or Christians at all.

In that case, is there really any difference between those of Lees' Recovery and those of the Five Fundamentals? Aren't both defining a in-group?

And btw, aren't both beyond the reach of science? Isn't science a misfit for them?

[UntoHim]

Actually Jesus Christ was the ultimate misfit.

A godly man among the ungodly. A loving man among the unloving. A holy and pure man among the unholy and impure. A generous and selfless man among the stingy and selfish. An upright and honest man among a crooked and perverse generation. A brave, courageous man among traders and cowards. And of course, A Savior among the lost and hopeless.

This is why God's Word, and especially the glorious Gospel, speak of Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life. This is why the Word of God first prophesied about Him, then gave us the Good News of His becoming flesh to dwell among us, and records faithfully and accurately His teachings and the works that His Father sent Him to do, and finally of His death and resurrection, being declared the Son of God in power. Now He stands at the right hand of the Father as our Advocate and is STILL pleading our case to this very day.

...but let us not forget Jesus Christ did not come in glory and power, but came as a misfit of sorts, born to a young, poor woman in the squalor of an animal stall, immediately having to run for their lives. During His entire ministry, Jesus was constantly in danger of being beaten and stoned to death. He was insulted and called every name in the book, including a crazy, demon possessed agent of Satan.

And before He left this earth, He gave his followers a chilled warning - “If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you." (John 15)

If the master was a misfit, surely the servants are misfits as well. And such is the lot of all Christians, the followers of Jesus Christ. The moment we feel comfortable in this world, much less as a popular, perfect fit, we can be assured that we are on the wrong path. This doesn't mean we should attempt to be anti-social (like what happens in the LC) but if we follow Jesus the misfit, obey Jesus and His Word, then we will probably find ourselves as misfits....for now.

And any "fundamentalist" that forgets these things or teaches others to despise these things is forgetting and despising the real fundamentals taught and exemplified by Christ.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually Jesus Christ was the ultimate misfit.

Nice story (I get your point----more from a spiritual point of view and not a practical one although it has practical applications). I agree Jesus was a misfit while he walked on the earth but he was popular among the downtrodden, the destitute, the blind, those who were raised from the grave, women who were second class citizens in a repressed Roman controlled land but all of them believed Jesus was bringing in a kingdom which would change their lot in life. He was a misfit to the power structure whether it was the political structure of the Romans or the religious structure of the Sanhedrin. Of course, he was claiming he was the king of the Jews so they were worried because of his popularity among the ones I mentioned previously.

I also agree that Christians were misfits as well and that is why they were martyred and fed to wild beasts. The change came with Constantine when he made them the “in crowd”. At that point everything changed and in fact Constantine was killing off people who were not Christians in the name of Christ. Thus, you wanted to be a Christian and not a pagan during those times. Later on during the Inquisition/Middle Ages you wanted to be a true believer or suffer beheading or torturing.

I don’t believe fundamentalists are misfits today in most of the U.S nor most of the world. In the US they have political power and we have freedom of religion so they can believe what they wish in their homes or outside their homes. A shy person may not want to walk up to someone and preach the gospel but they probably wouldn’t want to walk up to someone and try to sell them a magazine either.

Unfortunately, the “fundamentalists” are often seen as nut cases with their words of hate quoting from the Bible and telling people that certain groups of people should be killed. This makes national news and it is not an isolated incident. Many years ago I worked with Teen Challenge at one point during the summers while I was attending college and we would go down into the worst places in Detroit and preach the gospel, hand out tracts and try to offer hope to these same people if we encountered them. Today, it appears that a a few of the fundamentalists are projecting hate and as a result some have lost their way as well as their message for the most part. It’s embarrassing. Of course, you and I know it is not true but this is the picture many people on the outside are receiving. I never remember discussing political issues with other Christians when I was younger. I was just out preaching. Now it seems like political issues are all Christians can talk about--at least that is my perception. Admittedly you are not talking about political issues, just Biblical issues, but then again I don't know anything about your background and I have shared mine quite readily.

Of course, from the fundamentalists stand point we are all sinners saved by grace and as you said Jesus is pleading our case on an ongoing basis. From just a practical human perspective you would think he would be tired of this and just bring in the kingdom and get on with it. But, then again, he is God and we are just humans with our limited understanding.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually Jesus Christ was the ultimate misfit.

I don't see how this relates to the discussion we were having, UntoHim. You didn't reply to any of the questions that I asked you in post 345. It seems like you are preaching to us. So, I am left to wonder why you are doing that. The first thing that comes to mind is that you may have no rational argument for your position. Preaching down to the rest us makes it look like you are one up. Please don't be offended. I admit I'm guessing...looking for some kind of explanation since you haven't provided one. I hope you don't suppose that you are being persecuted by that supposition. If you're a "misfit" on this thread maybe it's because the rest of us are having a conversation and you are making proclamations. I welcome you to show me that I'm wrong by actually responding to my questions. After all, you have quarantined this forum from the general public. What is there to be afraid of?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually Jesus Christ was the ultimate misfit.

Good rundown on Jesus being a misfit.

One question:

And any "fundamentalist" that forgets these things or teaches others to despise these things is forgetting and despising the real fundamentals taught and exemplified by Christ.

What what specific fundamentals that were taught by Jesus are you talking about?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually Jesus Christ was the ultimate misfit.

Great post, UntoHim.

Brought me back to the meaning of life, and the real reason for the season.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great post, UntoHim.

Brought me back to the meaning of life, and the real reason for the season.

Yes a rousing jolly good seasonal post it is!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't see how this relates to the discussion we were having, UntoHim. You didn't reply to any of the questions that I asked you in post 345.

What exactly are the tenants of the Christian faith in your opinion UntoHim? Did you ever take a stand on those here on this thread? Twenty were proposed. Do you subscribe to all of them? How many are required to be believed for salvation? I have always thought that all it took was an actual encounter with Christ. What people think about this or that doctrinal factoid is immaterial. I thought others in the Local Church had that experience. Guess I was mistaken. I'd like to read your take on the issue.

I'm assuming you mean the MAJOR tenants of the Christian faith, cause I can't even due them justice right now. You've mentioned the most major tenant - "required to be believed for salvation". Again, a lot to chew on in just one post. The Bible is a big book! The New Testament is the seminal collection of the teachings of the Christian faith...but the major teachings of the NT appear in the order of: Repent (Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand! Matt:3) Believe (Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved Acts:16) Be baptized (Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned Mark:16).

In MY OPINION there are other relatively major tenants, but there is no way I have enough time for that now! But suffice it to say, much of this is an instant matter of confession and an instant matter of the heart. Just look at "the thief on the cross" in Luke 23 - all he said was "we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom", which elicited the well-known "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

It seems like you are preaching to us. So, I am left to wonder why you are doing that. The first thing that comes to mind is that you may have no rational argument for your position. Preaching down to the rest us makes it look like you are one up. Please don't be offended. I admit I'm guessing...looking for some kind of explanation since you haven't provided one.

You speak as if you are a captive audience duck taped to a church pew You are free to totally ignore anything I post just like you are free to ignore anything anybody posts on the forum. I'm the only person around here that is obligated to make at least a cursory review of every post. If you consider what I post here as preaching then I must admit I'm flattered! I'm just posting here like everybody else. Why should I be required to have a "rational argument"? Of course I will be taken more seriously if I do, but it's not like it's one of the forum rules. Don't worry about offending me, my friend, it's pret' nare impossible! Explain what? I'm not the one spouting off about fundamentals and such, heck, I really don't even care much about the term at all. IT'S JUST A TERM, AND NOT A BIBLICAL ONE AT THAT!

After all, you have quarantined this forum from the general public. What is there to be afraid of?

Glad you're the one who brought up that term “quarantined”, cause that's actually a pretty good idea of what I'm trying to accomplish in making this a password protected forum board, but it's not the general public that I'm concerned about – it's the current and recently departed (or those inbetween) Local Church members that I'm concerned about. They are in desperate need of truth – the truth that will “set them free” - set them free from false religion. (Just as Jesus was attempting to set free so many of the Jewish people of his day from the false religion that they had created from something originally initiated from God Himself).

What is there to be afraid of? I'm not so afraid as I am concerned for those who would exit a false religion, where you feel you have the answers to everything, only to enter an even darker place of questioning and doubting everything. Having faith in something false should not be replaced in having faith in nothing. I absolutely understand that you, Dave and Harold have a different understanding of this, and actually this is another reason why I created this forum board to begin with – to give you guys a place to dialog and debate about these matters without concerns about being moderated by myself or anyone else for that matter. I am NOT trying to restrict you from interacting on any of the other forum boards, it's just that I have my own understanding and feeling of what should be out there front-and-center for current LC members.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm assuming you mean the MAJOR tenants of the Christian faith, cause I can't even due them justice right now. You've mentioned the most major tenant - "required to be believed for salvation". Again, a lot to chew on in just one post. The Bible is a big book! The New Testament is the seminal collection of the teachings of the Christian faith...but the major teachings of the NT appear in the order of: Repent (Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand! Matt:3) Believe (Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved Acts:16) Be baptized (Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned Mark:16).

In MY OPINION there are other relatively major tenants, but there is no way I have enough time for that now! But suffice it to say, much of this is an instant matter of confession and an instant matter of the heart. Just look at "the thief on the cross" in Luke 23 - all he said was "we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom", which elicited the well-known "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."



You speak as if you are a captive audience duck taped to a church pew You are free to totally ignore anything I post just like you are free to ignore anything anybody posts on the forum. I'm the only person around here that is obligated to make at least a cursory review of every post. If you consider what I post here as preaching then I must admit I'm flattered! I'm just posting here like everybody else. Why should I be required to have a "rational argument"? Of course I will be taken more seriously if I do, but it's not like it's one of the forum rules. Don't worry about offending me, my friend, it's pret' nare impossible! Explain what? I'm not the one spouting off about fundamentals and such, heck, I really don't even care much about the term at all. IT'S JUST A TERM, AND NOT A BIBLICAL ONE AT THAT!


Glad you're the one who brought up that term “quarantined”, cause that's actually a pretty good idea of what I'm trying to accomplish in making this a password protected forum board, but it's not the general public that I'm concerned about – it's the current and recently departed (or those inbetween) Local Church members that I'm concerned about. They are in desperate need of truth – the truth that will “set them free” - set them free from false religion. (Just as Jesus was attempting to set free so many of the Jewish people of his day from the false religion that they had created from something originally initiated from God Himself).

What is there to be afraid of? I'm not so afraid as I am concerned for those who would exit a false religion, where you feel you have the answers to everything, only to enter an even darker place of questioning and doubting everything. Having faith in something false should not be replaced in having faith in nothing. I absolutely understand that you, Dave and Harold have a different understanding of this, and actually this is another reason why I created this forum board to begin with – to give you guys a place to dialog and debate about these matters without concerns about being moderated by myself or anyone else for that matter. I am NOT trying to restrict you from interacting on any of the other forum boards, it's just that I have my own understanding and feeling of what should be out there front-and-center for current LC members.

I don't know about anyone else, but I thought this response was both sound and fair. Thanks.

And btw, I too keep up with most all the posts on LCD everyday, even the hard and thick ones, and silly ones, as you can prolly see at least a hint of cuz I'm always logged in.

Well I guess we're just looking at it the wrong way. We felt like you created a locked dungeon for us. When now, after your explanation, it seems you are actually being kind and largehearted by giving us a place to question even the hard questions, wild as they may be, or not. Thanks again, my friend.

And I understand why you might shy away from dialogue. I think you realize that you might get painted into a corner of uncertainty. I don't blame you. I miss the secure feeling of certitude, that I once had. And I'm am glad you have it. Moreover, for whatever it's worth, I apologize for my certitude being gone. I guess there's something wrong with me. I wonder why???

But all this aside, maybe I've lost faith in just about everything of man, including books from human hands, but I still live my life in the presence of God, oddly enough, daily, and realize God knows my thoughts and thinking. Cuz that's ended up being all I can put my faith in.

And last, you know I was raised with OSAS. It was instilled in me from diapers, that I'm saved once and for all. I guess that's a kind of certitude.

So as far as I'm concerned all doctrine is fair game, without fear of God's judgment. What bites the behind of this certitude I just spoke of is that, even OSAS is fair game. Fair game is fair game. I guess any certitude I do muster is in a God I just don't understand. This mystery is completely fascinating and spellbinding ... at least for me.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm assuming you mean the MAJOR tenants of the Christian faith, cause I can't even due them justice right now. You've mentioned the most major tenant - "required to be believed for salvation". Again, a lot to chew on in just one post. The Bible is a big book! The New Testament is the seminal collection of the teachings of the Christian faith...but the major teachings of the NT appear in the order of: Repent (Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand! Matt:3) Believe (Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved Acts:16) Be baptized (Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned Mark:16).

Thank you for replying to me, UntoHim. I think the word we want is tenets not tenants. Based on your statement above it isn't clear to me which of the verses you believe or if you think there are more fundamentals like the Virgin Birth one must believe to be saved.

In MY OPINION there are other relatively major tenants, but there is no way I have enough time for that now! But suffice it to say, much of this is an instant matter of confession and an instant matter of the heart. Just look at "the thief on the cross" in Luke 23 - all he said was "we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom", which elicited the well-known "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

You seem to be suggesting that the thief's expression of faith was adequate for salvation and I see that. Jesus didn't ask him if he beleived he was born of a virgin.

You speak as if you are a captive audience duck taped to a church pew You are free to totally ignore anything I post just like you are free to ignore anything anybody posts on the forum. I'm the only person around here that is obligated to make at least a cursory review of every post. If you consider what I post here as preaching then I must admit I'm flattered! I'm just posting here like everybody else. Why should I be required to have a "rational argument"? Of course I will be taken more seriously if I do, but it's not like it's one of the forum rules. Don't worry about offending me, my friend, it's pret' nare impossible! Explain what? I'm not the one spouting off about fundamentals and such, heck, I really don't even care much about the term at all. IT'S JUST A TERM, AND NOT A BIBLICAL ONE AT THAT!

I think I get all that. I'm trying to get at the truth through dialogue. If you're not interested in that then of course, you're free to try to derail the process or whatever else you might wish to do. We weren't allowed to discuss things freely in Witness Lee's Local Church I shouldn't assume that we would be here.

Glad you're the one who brought up that term “quarantined”, cause that's actually a pretty good idea of what I'm trying to accomplish in making this a password protected forum board, but it's not the general public that I'm concerned about – it's the current and recently departed (or those inbetween) Local Church members that I'm concerned about. They are in desperate need of truth – the truth that will “set them free” - set them free from false religion. (Just as Jesus was attempting to set free so many of the Jewish people of his day from the false religion that they had created from something originally initiated from God Himself).

Living Stream Ministries apparently cannot tolerate allowing people intellectual freedom. Your quarantine suggests you have a degree of intolerance , although, to be fair, I can't imagine Witness Lee leaving a space for alternative views. So, kudos to you UntoHim.

What is there to be afraid of? I'm not so afraid as I am concerned for those who would exit a false religion, where you feel you have the answers to everything, only to enter an even darker place of questioning and doubting everything.

According to that statement questioning and doubting is even darker than falsehood. It fails to to recognize that questioning and doubting can clear a space for truth that cannot be doubted. Maybe your concern for doubtable things had kept you from the pursuit of Undoubtable Ones.

Having faith in something false should not be replaced in having faith in nothing. I absolutely understand that you, Dave and Harold have a different understanding of this, and actually this is another reason why I created this forum board to begin with – to give you guys a place to dialog and debate about these matters without concerns about being moderated by myself or anyone else for that matter. I am NOT trying to restrict you from interacting on any of the other forum boards, it's just that I have my own understanding and feeling of what should be out there front-and-center for current LC members.

That's an extreme black and white position which leaves only two alternatives: either someone believes as you do or they have "faith in nothing." That's a very different view of the situation then mine which is that when I bother to discuss closely with people what they believe in, no two are the same. Your view unites Dave, Harold and I as The Problem because we think differently than you even though the three of us may agree on nothing in particular. It shows no comprehension of what our actual positions are except that they are different from yours and therefore need to be quarantined somewhat. Still, I appreciate that you have come to allow positions other than your own here in a closed way for veteran members and on the other forum boards to a limited extent. That represents progress from my point of view. Thank you.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to that statement questioning and doubting is even darker than falsehood. It fails to to recognize that questioning and doubting can clear a space for truth that cannot be doubted. Maybe your concern for doubtable things had kept you from the pursuit of Undoubtable Ones.

I won't try to decide whether your statement quoted above is a valid response to Unto's statement, but the thought behind it is very valid.

If we never have any doubt about anything, then what do we believe? And if we refuse to consider contradictory thoughts, then how do we really know that we have come to know the right thing?

I agree that there are many things that are not necessary to believe to be a Christian (meaning a believer in Christ). In fact, you don't even need to know that some of them are things that people believe or have doubts about. Do we need to understand and believe substitutionary atonement? Or even know it is something to think about? While I believe in that, along with the virgin birth, I find that belief can at least start without even knowing the questions exist. Virgin birth was probably important in some symbolic way, but it was mostly spoken as a reference to a fulfillment of a prophecy. Since we were not reading the OT prophecies and looking for the Jewish Messiah (or at least I was not), then it is not something that has the same relevance to me that it might to a Jew. That does not make it irrelevant other than as a fulfillment of prophecy. But if I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God and I establish that it is truly belief by following Him rather than myself, or someone else (Rush? the band or the pundit) then my understanding is that I am "saved." And in continuing to believe and follow, I am continually saved. (But if I simply pray a prayer one day due to a crisis or a knock on the door, then never follow, what am I?)

And I no longer believe that you have to have a line-in-the-sand decision for Christ in the Evangelical sense, but can simply come to believe in Christ over time through many different avenues, including participating in very old-school, high church places that do not preach the gospel in the Southern Baptist sense of the term. (And despite the problems, I think it includes the RCC.)

And despite some very strong belief by some concerning security of salvation, there are almost always "outs" for those cases that we just can't quite see to accepting as for real.

So I have some doubts surrounding salvation, although it is not doubt about my own (at least not at this time). And I have doubts about the highest purpose of man (not sure but what the Westminster catechism is a little too "spiritual" and not enough practical).

There are more. But they do not undermine my faith and belief. But I would love it if someone could actually explain how the great commission actually applies strongly to everyone and that the evidence of spirituality is attempts to convert the "lost." Or seriously consider my doubts and maybe discover that there is something to what I am thinking these days. Either would be OK as long as it is not dismissive of what I believe is "the clear reading of the text" or of me. So far that is all I get. Or arguments with no support other than that is the way we have been taught.

(And that last one runs up against the whole premise of the apostle's teaching. So maybe the problem is that this was not actually part of the apostle's teaching, but something added on years later. Like the virgin birth of Mary. Or praying to Saints. Or maybe I am wrong and it was always like that. But it sure doesn't look that way from my chair.)

[OBW]

BTW, other than the accounts of the birth of Jesus at the beginning of the snoptic gospels (possibly w/o Mark), is there any reference in the NT to the virgin birth? I'm not saying there aren't any, but I can't think of any. And if there aren't any, is anyone sure that it is an important tenet of the faith?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm assuming you mean the MAJOR tenants of the Christian faith, cause I can't even due them justice right now. You've mentioned the most major tenant - "required to be believed for salvation". Again, a lot to chew on in just one post. The Bible is a big book! The New Testament is the seminal collection of the teachings of the Christian faith...but the major teachings of the NT appear in the order of: Repent (Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand! Matt:3) Believe (Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved Acts:16) Be baptized (Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned Mark:16).

In MY OPINION there are other relatively major tenants, but there is no way I have enough time for that now!

I am sure most people have these books but rather than rattle off this stuff why don't you just give me a reference page on Josh McDowell's The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict 1999, or The Origin of the Bible edited by Philip Wesley Comfort 1992 or Bruce M. Metzger's The New Testament: It's Background, Growth and Content, Third Edition or Leander E. Keck's Paul and His Letters or Donald Juel's Luke Acts The Promise of History or Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church (3 Volume Set) 1910. I have read or used as reference material all of these books and more. Save yourself some space and time. Just reference a page number so I can follow without having you to write all of this down.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

BTW, other than the accounts of the birth of Jesus at the beginning of the snoptic gospels (possibly w/o Mark), is there any reference in the NT to the virgin birth? I'm not saying there aren't any, but I can't think of any. And if there aren't any, is anyone sure that it is an important tenet of the faith?

Surely you jest. But I'll bite, just for the fun of it:

"There are only two accounts of Jesus’ birth in the New Testament, the opening chapters of Matthew and of Luke. Mark and John say nothing about his birth (the virgin birth, his being born in Bethlehem, and other elements of the Christmas story); in Mark and John , he appears on the scene as an adult. Nor are the details of his birth mentioned by Paul or any of the other New Testament writers. What people know— or think they know —about the Christmas story therefore comes exclusively from Matthew and Luke. And the story that is told every December is in fact a conflation of the accounts of these two Gospels, a combination of the details of one with the details of the other, in order to create one large, harmonious account. In fact, the accounts themselves are not at all harmonious. Not only do they tell completely different stories about how Jesus was born, but some of the differences appear to be irreconcilable (some others do not pass the test of historical plausibility either, but that is a different matter). The easiest way to point out the differences between the accounts is by summarizing both . Matthew 1: 18– 2: 23 goes like this: Mary and Joseph ...:
- Ehrman, Bart D. (2009-02-20). Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) (pp. 29-30). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

More, or all, upon request ....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Surely you jest. But I'll bite, just for the fun of it:

"There are only two accounts of Jesus’ birth in the New Testament, the opening chapters of Matthew and of Luke. Mark and John say nothing about his birth (the virgin birth, his being born in Bethlehem, and other elements of the Christmas story); in Mark and John , he appears on the scene as an adult. Nor are the details of his birth mentioned by Paul or any of the other New Testament writers. What people know— or think they know —about the Christmas story therefore comes exclusively from Matthew and Luke. And the story that is told every December is in fact a conflation of the accounts of these two Gospels, a combination of the details of one with the details of the other, in order to create one large, harmonious account. In fact, the accounts themselves are not at all harmonious. Not only do they tell completely different stories about how Jesus was born, but some of the differences appear to be irreconcilable (some others do not pass the test of historical plausibility either, but that is a different matter). The easiest way to point out the differences between the accounts is by summarizing both . Matthew 1: 18– 2: 23 goes like this: Mary and Joseph ...:
- Ehrman, Bart D. (2009-02-20). Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) (pp. 29-30). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

More, or all, upon request ....

Read these Gospels again ... They are completely harmonious ... Regardless of Fart's wild speculations ...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Surely you jest. But I'll bite, just for the fun of it:

"There are only two accounts of Jesus’ birth in the New Testament, the opening chapters of Matthew and of Luke. Mark and John say nothing about his birth (the virgin birth, his being born in Bethlehem, and other elements of the Christmas story); in Mark and John , he appears on the scene as an adult. Nor are the details of his birth mentioned by Paul or any of the other New Testament writers. What people know— or think they know —about the Christmas story therefore comes exclusively from Matthew and Luke. And the story that is told every December is in fact a conflation of the accounts of these two Gospels, a combination of the details of one with the details of the other, in order to create one large, harmonious account. In fact, the accounts themselves are not at all harmonious. Not only do they tell completely different stories about how Jesus was born, but some of the differences appear to be irreconcilable (some others do not pass the test of historical plausibility either, but that is a different matter). The easiest way to point out the differences between the accounts is by summarizing both . Matthew 1: 18– 2: 23 goes like this: Mary and Joseph ...:
- Ehrman, Bart D. (2009-02-20). Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) (pp. 29-30). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

More, or all, upon request ....

My point is not to dispute the virgin birth. It is to point to the fact that even knowing about it was not made part of the original "catechism" of the church. Never mentioned outside of the beginning of two gospels. Not mentioned in the letters by Peter, John, James, Jude, or Paul, nor in the lengthy account of the spread of the church by Luke.

I fully believe that it is as stated. But I also do not think that it is an essential belief for faith.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

My point is not to dispute the virgin birth. It is to point to the fact that even knowing about it was not made part of the original "catechism" of the church. Never mentioned outside of the beginning of two gospels. Not mentioned in the letters by Peter, John, James, Jude, or Paul, nor in the lengthy account of the spread of the church by Luke.

I fully believe that it is as stated. But I also do not think that it is an essential belief for faith.

The virgin birth was a sign prophesied through the prophet Isaiah. For some, perhaps obvious, reasons, God decided to basically keep this wonder hidden from the general public. Hence, there were no reporters at the hospital Jesus was born in. It seems that the sign was mainly for Mary and Joseph to help them survive the fiery trials of Jesus young life.

Living in the Catholic "rust belt," there are numerous Mary statues and groves everywhere, mostly in the private home gardens. You would think that the Bible was just filled with adorations for the so-called "mother of God." That just shows how little my former childhood "colleagues" have read their Bibles.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

My point is not to dispute the virgin birth. It is to point to the fact that even knowing about it was not made part of the original "catechism" of the church. Never mentioned outside of the beginning of two gospels. Not mentioned in the letters by Peter, John, James, Jude, or Paul, nor in the lengthy account of the spread of the church by Luke.

I fully believe that it is as stated. But I also do not think that it is an essential belief for faith.

So to you it doesn't belong in the list of the Five Fundamentals?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The virgin birth was a sign prophesied through the prophet Isaiah. For some, perhaps obvious, reasons, God decided to basically keep this wonder hidden from the general public. Hence, there were no reporters at the hospital Jesus was born in. It seems that the sign was mainly for Mary and Joseph to help them survive the fiery trials of Jesus young life.

Living in the Catholic "rust belt," there are numerous Mary statues and groves everywhere, mostly in the private home gardens. You would think that the Bible was just filled with adorations for the so-called "mother of God." That just shows how little my former childhood "colleagues" have read their Bibles.

Yeah. I know. And that's nothing compared to that Immaculate Conception thing someone came up with. No one knows where it started, but it was not official doctrine of the RCC until 1854. Seems that the downward spiral of certain aspects of that particular group is never ending.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

So to you it doesn't belong in the list of the Five Fundamentals?

I would say not.

And when you mention it as the list of Five Fundamentals, it sort of reminds me of the Gang of Five (or Four or however many) back in the more hard-line days of Chinese communism.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The virgin birth was a sign prophesied through the prophet Isaiah.

Wasn't the virgin in Isaiah a mistranslation in the Septuagint?

Matthew 1:23 quotes the 2nd century BC(E) Greek Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14:

The virgin shall be with child
and shall bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanu-El.

The Greek word for "virgin" in both the Greek Septuagint and Matthew is parthenos, which means a virgin female.
The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is almah. This rare noun (used 7x in Hebrew Bible) signifies a young woman, a girl, or an unmarried maiden (Gen 24:43; Exod 2:8; Isa 7:14; Ps 68:26; Prov 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8). The focus of almah is on youth, not virginity.

But the spiritual and moral ethos in Hebrew culture assumed that young unmarried girls had no sexual experience. So it was assumed that an almah was a virgin.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Wasn't the virgin in Isaiah a mistranslation in the Septuagint?

Matthew 1:23 quotes the 2nd century BC(E) Greek Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14:

The virgin shall be with child
and shall bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanu-El.

The Greek word for "virgin" in both the Greek Septuagint and Matthew is parthenos, which means a virgin female.
The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is almah. This rare noun (used 7x in Hebrew Bible) signifies a young woman, a girl, or an unmarried maiden (Gen 24:43; Exod 2:8; Isa 7:14; Ps 68:26; Prov 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8). The focus of almah is on youth, not virginity.

But the spiritual and moral ethos in Hebrew culture assumed that young unmarried girls had no sexual experience. So it was assumed that an almah was a virgin.

The big problem with discounting the virgin birth is UntoHim's observation on another issue I raised sometime ago. Sticking the camel's nose in the tent ends up unraveling everything. All the rest will fall down so you can't do that...what's next...the miracles didn't really happen (e.g. Lazarus wasn't really raised from the dead) or worst yet Jesus really didn't walk on water or maybe he really didn't feed 5000 people with 7 loaves of bread...what's next..he really didn't.turn water into wine...it all comes unraveled... I tell you...unraveled!!! Can't discuss this kind of stuff because of the unraveling....on and on...unraveling...no end in sight...in the end all of the fundamentals will become unraveled...and you will find the entire camel in the tent to boot...just unbelievable how this happens...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

The big problem with discounting the virgin birth is UntoHim's observation on another issue I raised sometime ago. Sticking the camel's nose in the tent ends up unraveling everything. All the rest will fall down so you can't do that...what's next...the miracles didn't really happen (e.g. Lazarus wasn't really raised from the dead) or worst yet Jesus really didn't walk on water or maybe he really didn't feed 5000 people with 7 loaves of bread...what's next..he really didn't.turn water into wine...it all comes unraveled... I tell you...unraveled!!! Can't discuss this kind of stuff because of the unraveling....on and on...unraveling...no end in sight...in the end all of the fundamentals will become unraveled...and you will find the entire camel in the tent to boot...just unbelievable how this happens...

Well then maybe America can be recovered back to it's founding Christianity, be like Thomas Jefferson, and cut all those miracles out of the Bible. Is believing them really required to be a Christian?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Wasn't the virgin in Isaiah a mistranslation in the Septuagint?

Matthew 1:23 quotes the 2nd century BC(E) Greek Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14:

The virgin shall be with child
and shall bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanu-El.

The Greek word for "virgin" in both the Greek Septuagint and Matthew is parthenos, which means a virgin female.
The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is almah. This rare noun (used 7x in Hebrew Bible) signifies a young woman, a girl, or an unmarried maiden (Gen 24:43; Exod 2:8; Isa 7:14; Ps 68:26; Prov 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8). The focus of almah is on youth, not virginity.

But the spiritual and moral ethos in Hebrew culture assumed that young unmarried girls had no sexual experience. So it was assumed that an almah was a virgin.

How do you know what Isaiah's hearers ASSUMED 2700 years ago?

So here is your new version of 7.14 according to awareness:

Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign,
Behold a young girl shall conceive and shall bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanu-El.

Doesn't sound like much of a "sign" at all. Why would the Lord Himself be needed to give us such a normal thing? Why I'm sure young girls conceived in Israel prolly every day. Half of them prolly had boys too.

Lots of folks name their kids "Emmanuel" these days. One poster here thinks God is a "SHE," so we should start naming our girls "Emmanuel" too. We can call everybody, "god with us," and now we all will be new-agers. How good is that!

So ... not only were Matthew and all the other apostles fooled, because none of them happened to refute his gospel, but for 2,000 plus years every Christian has been fooled too. All this time we thought Jesus was born of a virgin. What a deception! Even Joseph was so fooled my his fiance Mary, that an angel of Jehovah had to appear to him in a dream. And I'm sure that 1st century Sleep and Dream Doctors would "prove" that Joseph's dream story was "highly questionable." (Matthew 1.18-25)

Yep!

P.S. Did I tell you I got my official papers and ownership deed. I now own the Brooklyn Bridge!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How do you know what Isaiah's hearers ASSUMED 2700 years ago?

So here is your new version of 7.14 according to awareness:

Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign,
Behold a young girl shall conceive and shall bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanu-El.

Doesn't sound like much of a "sign" at all. Why would the Lord Himself be needed to give us such a normal thing? Why I'm sure young girls conceived in Israel prolly every day. Half of them prolly had boys too.

Lots of folks name their kids "Emmanuel" these days. One poster here thinks God is a "SHE," so we should start naming our girls "Emmanuel" too. We can call everybody, "god with us," and now we all will be new-agers. How good is that!

So ... not only were Matthew and all the other apostles fooled, because none of them happened to refute his gospel, but for 2,000 plus years every Christian has been fooled too. All this time we thought Jesus was born of a virgin. What a deception! Even Joseph was so fooled my his fiance Mary, that an angel of Jehovah had to appear to him in a dream. And I'm sure that 1st century Sleep and Dream Doctors would "prove" that Joseph's dream story was "highly questionable." (Matthew 1.18-25)

Yep!

P.S. Did I tell you I got my official papers and ownership deed. I now own the Brooklyn Bridge!

Golly I sure misrepresented. I changed the color of the quote but didn't put quote marks around it, or cite a reference. I considered it a well know boilerplate of the question of the word "Virgin" in Isaiah. Now I don't know where I got it. But it was quoted material. Not my words. Sorry I'm such an idiot. And you know I took your response as seasoned with humor. Still, point well made.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One poster here thinks God is a "SHE," so we should start naming our girls "Emmanuel" too.

Although I said that kidding zeek you have made me think, "What characteristics of God makes God a "he" rather than a "she"? God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent so he/she is not relevant in that aspect of God, or is God relevant as a he/she and if so in what way? In Luke 13:34 Jesus said, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." Jesus describes himself showing his feminine side as a "...hen gathers her chicks."

Exodus 21:7-11 explains how a man should sell his daughter as a concubine because there is a male superiority theme throughout the OT so God is called a he but I would like to know how you see God as a "he". In any case, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

Although I said that kidding zeek you have made me think, "What characteristics of God makes God a "he" rather than a "she"? God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipresent so he/she is not relevant in that aspect of God, or is God. In Luke 13:34 Jesus said, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." Jesus describes himself showing his feminine side as a "...hen gathers her chicks."

Exodus 21:7-11 explains how a man should sell his daughter as a concubine because there is a male superiority theme throughout the OT so God is called a he but I would like to know how you see God as a "he". In any case, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Jesus was a man and Jehovah always is referred to as "HE."

That's like calling the Apostle Paul a woman because he referred to himself as a nursing mother.

Anyways ... Anyone whose backyard has been infested and destroyed for years by star-nosed MOLES, would never use that analogy.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus was a man and Jehovah always is referred to as "HE."

I was not stating that Jesus was other than a man while on this earth but he was what was humanity and represented all humans both male and female.

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's like calling the Apostle Paul a woman because he referred to himself as a nursing mother.

Anyways ... Anyone whose backyard has been infested and destroyed for years by star-nosed MOLES, would never use that analogy.

Paul was not ever described as God.

1 Corinthians 15:38-41 ^"38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. ³⁹ For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. ⁴⁰ There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another."

We keep trying to put God in a box and think in our terms of male/female etc but God is a heavenly body and cannot be placed in a box no matter how hard we try. We think in earthly terms of male/female but because he is a heavenly body those terms don't work. The problem with the OT is that the writers had to provide a pronoun otherwise they would have said "it" but to provide something that us mere mortals would understand they said "he" but that was also as i have noted because of the male dominance noted throughout the OT.

Those star nose moles are ugly critters!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I won't try to decide whether your statement quoted above is a valid response to Unto's statement, but the thought behind it is very valid.

Me either. It's what I took him to mean, but I would like to see him respond as to whether I am reading him right or not.

If we never have any doubt about anything, then what do we believe? And if we refuse to consider contradictory thoughts, then how do we really know that we have come to know the right thing?

Good question and one I have spent some time on.

I agree that there are many things that are not necessary to believe to be a Christian (meaning a believer in Christ). In fact, you don't even need to know that some of them are things that people believe or have doubts about. Do we need to understand and believe substitutionary atonement? Or even know it is something to think about?

When I think about substitutionary atonement, I realize that I have no idea how it works. It raises metaphysical and ethical questions about the relation between God and Christ and the human race that I cannot possibly understand. If I accept it, I must accept it as a symbol for something beyond comprehension..

While I believe in that, along with the virgin birth, I find that belief can at least start without even knowing the questions exist. Virgin birth was probably important in some symbolic way, but it was mostly spoken as a reference to a fulfillment of a prophecy. Since we were not reading the OT prophecies and looking for the Jewish Messiah (or at least I was not), then it is not something that has the same relevance to me that it might to a Jew.

I think we make a mistake if we of read the Bible only as a record of historical events in the modern sense. The ideal of pure unbiased historical research is a late stage in the development of the writing of history. The Bible doesn't seem to be a history in the same sense as the American History text books we read in school. I have noticed a tendency here in "Alternative Views" by people on both sides of the issue to assume that the Gospels were intended by their authors to be taken literally. Have you noticed that? Fundamentalism taught us to look at it that way. But, the text itself doesn't. So it seems to be an unjustified presupposition we bring to the text.

That does not make it irrelevant other than as a fulfillment of prophecy. But if I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God and I establish that it is truly belief by following Him rather than myself, or someone else (Rush? the band or the pundit) then my understanding is that I am "saved." And in continuing to believe and follow, I am continually saved. (But if I simply pray a prayer one day due to a crisis or a knock on the door, then never follow, what am I?)

If we take on what it is to be a Christian as an existential question, we answer with our lives.

And I no longer believe that you have to have a line-in-the-sand decision for Christ in the Evangelical sense, but can simply come to believe in Christ over time through many different avenues, including participating in very old-school, high church places that do not preach the gospel in the Southern Baptist sense of the term. (And despite the problems, I think it includes the RCC.)

I see it that way too.

And despite some very strong belief by some concerning security of salvation, there are almost always "outs" for those cases that we just can't quite see to accepting as for real.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. It seems to me that, for better or worse, "Security" is as secure as my basic trust in God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

Those star nose moles are ugly critters!

That's one thing we can agree on!

My dog caught one in the mulch bed couple years ago. My yard is full of moles, voles, holes, tunnels, and, of course, those monster molehills.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's one thing we can agree on!

My dog caught one in the mulch bed couple years ago. My yard is full of moles, voles, holes, tunnels, and, of course, those monster molehills.

We have armidillos occasionally show up in our yard and they will dig rather deep holes. They are really stupid critters and are mostly seen as road kill. Moles (not star moles--never seen one other than pics on internet) are occasionally seen but we have a cat and the cat will try to dig them up if found.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thank you for replying to me, UntoHim. I think the word we want is tenets not tenants. Based on your statement above it isn't clear to me which of the verses you believe or if you think there are more fundamentals like the Virgin Birth one must believe to be saved

Thanks for the correction...wish they would make a spell check for people like me who make these kind of mistakes when I get in a hurry
I was only addressing your inquiry

"How many are required to be believed for salvation?"

I gave you what I believe are the bare bones, biblical requirements for salvation - Repent, believe and be baptized. You can be assured that I believe any verse that I quote here.

If you are speaking of the fundamentals of the Christian faith, then yes, of course there a number of them that most orthodox Christians have believed and taught for about 2,000 years. I'm sorry but my limited time here only allows me to address them one at a time. You guys are certainly free to make up a list with any number of items, and I will try to address them as best I can, but my responses will have to be done on a piecemeal basis.

In regards to "the Virgin Birth", I would consider this as a secondary item, however, it seems to me that the denial of certain secondary items could possibly call into question ones overall sincerity about being an orthodox Christian. I'll try to explain what I mean quickly. If the Virgin Birth is called into question, then it makes me wonder "WHY?" Is it because you don't believe God could perform such a miracle? (maybe you might phrase it as "I don't believe that it happened the way the Bible says it did, but same result) We know that at least some of the Jewish leaders of the day did not believe in the Virgin Birth because they told Jesus "we were not born of sexual immorality", hinting that they had heard the story of the virgin birth and did not believe it.

You seem to be suggesting that the thief's expression of faith was adequate for salvation and I see that. Jesus didn't ask him if he beleived he was born of a virgin.

I was only relating what the Bible explicitly tells us. I can only assume the possibility (probability) that there was previous contact between Jesus and the criminals (or at the least they knew about him and his claims). In response to one criminal's statement: "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!" - - "the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong".(Luke 23:39-41) It appears that they both heard (at least indirectly) about Jesus and his claims, but only one of them believed.

I'm trying to get at the truth through dialogue. If you're not interested in that then of course, you're free to try to derail the process or whatever else you might wish to do. We weren't allowed to discuss things freely in Witness Lee's Local Church I shouldn't assume that we would be here.
Living Stream Ministries apparently cannot tolerate allowing people intellectual freedom. Your quarantine suggests you have a degree of intolerance , although, to be fair, I can't imagine Witness Lee leaving a space for alternative views. So, kudos to you UntoHim.

Well, I believe that all fundamental truth regarding God, man and the rest of creation comes from the Bible, and in this sense you can call me a "fundamentalist". I appreciate your desire to "get at the truth through dialogue", but I'm afraid that what you mean by dialogue is me telling you that all fundamental truth comes from the Bible, and you telling me that I'm just preaching down at you, call me "an inerrant", etc etc. This is not a whole lot of fun for anybody, now is it?

Now, if you just want "Alternative Views" to be an echo chamber for certain "liberal" views regarding the orthodox Christian faith and the Bible, then I actually have no problem with that, in fact that is most of the reason this forum board was created. However, you can expect some members to be challenging your alternative views, and I would hope we could do this without claims of "not allowing you to discuss things freely".

As far as this being a password protected forum board, will I think I explained the reasons for this quite clearly. Sorry if you disagree, but, as the saying goes "it is what it is".

According to that statement questioning and doubting is even darker than falsehood. It fails to to recognize that questioning and doubting can clear a space for truth that cannot be doubted. Maybe your concern for doubtable things had kept you from the pursuit of Undoubtable Ones.

Wow, this is totally dismissive and unresponsive to what I said. I clearly stated my concern was for people going from false religion to questioning and doubting God himself, what he has provided for us in the Person and Work of Christ, and that he has brought us truth in the Word. You can question and doubt all this to your little heart's desire, but you're going to have to do it on this forum board. All the regulars have been giving the password and many have participated.

That's an extreme black and white position which leaves only two alternatives: either someone believes as you do or they have "faith in nothing."

By faith in nothing I guess I mean nothing that is worth having faith in Seriously though, I really don't think questioning = faith and I really don't think doubting = faith. After all it's called the Christian Faith for the simple reason it's all about FAITH. And furthermore, "I don't know and neither do you" is not a legitimate starting point for discussions regarding matters of faith, even on Alternative Views.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

In regards to "the Virgin Birth", I would consider this as a secondary item, however, it seems to me that the denial of certain secondary items could possibly call into question ones overall sincerity about being an orthodox Christian.

I have always linked the virgin birth with the deity of Christ. If one denies the virgin birth, most likely he will deny that Jesus is God.

I suppose that "officially" might be a secondary teaching because one needs only to believe that Christ died for our sins, and was raised from the dead. It's hard to say that those saved in the early part of Acts actually believed that Jesus was God, especially if we read Peter's early messages.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's hard to say that those saved in the early part of Acts actually believed that Jesus was God, especially if we read Peter's early messages.

I think you meant to say "that Jesus wasn't God"?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have always linked the virgin birth with the deity of Christ. If one denies the virgin birth, most likely he will deny that Jesus is God.

I suppose that "officially" might be a secondary teaching because one needs only to believe that Christ died for our sins, and was raised from the dead. It's hard to say that those saved in the early part of Acts actually believed that Jesus was God, especially if we read Peter's early messages.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think you meant to say "that Jesus wasn't God"?

No, that's what I meant.

Peter emphasized "Jesus the Nazarene, a man demonstrated by God ... which God did thru Him ... this man delivered up ... nailed to the cross and killed ... whom God raised up," (Acts 2.22-24) Later Peter called Him "a Prophet like Moses ... and His Servant." (Acts 3.22-26)

So I'm not saying that Peter did not preach that Jesus was God, (I know double negative) but that his initial emphasis was the man Jesus, approved by God via works of power and signs and wonders, was crucified by the Jews, and then raised from the dead by God. From these first messages, thousands were saved in Jerusalem.

It was later messages, and the writings of Paul and especially John, that emphasized the deity of Jesus Christ.

[UntoHim]

okay I understand got it!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Thanks for the correction...wish they would make a spell check for people like me who make these kind of mistakes when I get in a hurry I was only addressing your inquiry I gave you what I believe are the bare bones, biblical requirements for salvation - Repent, believe and be baptized. You can be assured that I believe any verse that I quote here.

Got it.

If you are speaking of the fundamentals of the Christian faith, then yes, of course there a number of them that most orthodox Christians have believed and taught for about 2,000 years. I'm sorry but my limited time here only allows me to address them one at a time. You guys are certainly free to make up a list with any number of items, and I will try to address them as best I can, but my responses will have to be done on a piecemeal basis.

Well we can all read the church's creeds and compare them with the five fundamentals. They overlap, but they're different. You seem reluctant to commit to what the fundamentals are for you. You might notice I didn't join in the list making process. Unlike Witness Lee, Christianity is a term that has positive meaning for me. It began [at least symbolically], not when Jesus of Nazareth was born, but when Peter told him "Thou art the Christ." If someone doesn't believe that is in some sense true, I don't know why they would call themselves Christians.

But, I also recognize that belief is basically a private subjective process. So, what people actually believed over the last 2000 years I have no access to. I only have access to the extant records of what was taught and done and the professed thoughts of those few people whose writings were preserved.

In regards to "the Virgin Birth", I would consider this as a secondary item, however, it seems to me that the denial of certain secondary items could possibly call into question ones overall sincerity about being an orthodox Christian. I'll try to explain what I mean quickly. If the Virgin Birth is called into question, then it makes me wonder "WHY?" Is it because you don't believe God could perform such a miracle? (maybe you might phrase it as "I don't believe that it happened the way the Bible says it did, but same result) We know that at least some of the Jewish leaders of the day did not believe in the Virgin Birth because they told Jesus "we were not born of sexual immorality", hinting that they had heard the story of the virgin birth and did not believe it.

If you read what I wrote to OBW in my last post you will see that I don't think the Gospels are intended to represent factual accounts in the same way that your daily newspaper is. Neither Mark nor John nor Paul nor Jesus himself are recorded teaching the virgin birth according to the New Testament record. If you assume they did, that's an assumption you read into the New Testament not something you read in it. Divine birth was a common way to exalt the status of ancient heroes and that seems to be what is being done for Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Or at least that is a more plausible explanation than a literal read of the stories. Symbolically, a divine birth heralds Jesus as a new kind of man, the originator of a new era, and of course it is a concrete representation of his identity as son of God.

Well, I believe that all fundamental truth regarding God, man and the rest of creation comes from the Bible, and in this sense you can call me a "fundamentalist". I appreciate your desire to "get at the truth through dialogue", but I'm afraid that what you mean by dialogue is me telling you that all fundamental truth comes from the Bible, and you telling me that I'm just preaching down at you, call me "an inerrant", etc etc. This is not a whole lot of fun for anybody, now is it?

The Bible itself refutes your proposition that all truth regarding God comes from it when it proclaims that : "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." [Psalm 19:1] It also refers to a "still small voice" which suggests that God can speak directly to us from within.

My problem with your preaching was that it seemed to be a way of avoiding the issues be raised by pontificating. That's all. It's not a problem for me when you engage in discussion the way you have in the post I am presently answering. Thank you for that.

Now, if you just want "Alternative Views" to be an echo chamber for certain "liberal" views regarding the orthodox Christian faith and the Bible, then I actually have no problem with that, in fact that is most of the reason this forum board was created. However, you can expect some members to be challenging your alternative views, and I would hope we could do this without claims of "not allowing you to discuss things freely".

I hope so too. Sounds like fun.

As far as this being a password protected forum board, will I think I explained the reasons for this quite clearly. Sorry if you disagree, but, as the saying goes "it is what it is".

Got it.

Wow, this is totally dismissive and unresponsive to what I said. I clearly stated my concern was for people going from false religion to questioning and doubting God himself, what he has provided for us in the Person and Work of Christ, and that he has brought us truth in the Word. You can question and doubt all this to your little heart's desire, but you're going to have to do it on this forum board. All the regulars have been giving the password and many have participated.

It would be "dismissive" if I simply rejected your propositions without giving my reasons why. That isn't what I did. I gave my reasons for disagreeing. Your concern would be well placed if the people participating on this board were children. But, if they are adults, then your paternalistic attitude insults their intelligence and ability to think for themselves. Personally I had enough of that in Witness Lee's church.

By faith in nothing I guess I mean nothing that is worth having faith in Seriously though, I really don't think questioning = faith and I really don't think doubting = faith. After all it's called the Christian Faith for the simple reason it's all about FAITH. And furthermore, "I don't know and neither do you" is not a legitimate starting point for discussions regarding matters of faith, even on Alternative Views.

Questioning doesn't equal faith. But, then knowledge doesn't equal faith either. So, the statement "I don't know and neither do you" doesn't rule out the possibility that both you and I have faith. And that's a possibility you apparently haven't considered.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

If you are speaking of the fundamentals of the Christian faith, then yes, of course there a number of them that most orthodox Christians have believed and taught for about 2,000 years. I'm sorry but my limited time here only allows me to address them one at a time. You guys are certainly free to make up a list with any number of items, and I will try to address them as best I can, but my responses will have to be done on a piecemeal basis.

UntoHim…let’s clear up some things. You keep harping on this fundamental thing but I don’t know anything about you…really, what you believe? But more importantly, who are you? Not that this is your stick but you do know that most of the Klu Klux Klan attend fundamentalist churches? Hate groups hold "fundamentalist" beliefs, praise God in their services, believe the Bible tells them to hate people but also believe in the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ etc...so where do you draw the line or make the difference? Is it really about inerrancy, fundamentalist beliefs, ....really?

Jesus, Paul nor any of the disciples were “political” but I view “fundamentalists”, “Evangelicals” etc as very politically orientated. I have shared my “belief” life on this forum in some detail even mentioning my wife and her activities with the poor and medically needy. I have shared fruits of my beliefs but what about you? I don’t know what you are other than espousing some fundamentalists thinking which to me means absolutely nothing if there is nothing behind it such as caring about people and this world we live in. If you really want to get people "saved" get out there in the community and show the love of Jesus in your love in the community. Show some love for God's creation and do something rather sit around and quote Bible verses with like minded people. You have to change...there are no options.

To me, God is what Pete Seeger sang, “God’s Counting on Me, God’s Counting on You”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvnsB_kVNYI This is the world I want to live in. What are you afraid of? Spill it out.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

UntoHim…let’s clear up some things. You keep harping on this fundamental thing but I don’t know anything about you…really, what you believe? But more importantly, who are you? Not that this is your stick but you do know that most of the Klu Klux Klan attend fundamentalist churches? Hate groups hold "fundamentalist" beliefs, praise God in their services, believe the Bible tells them to hate people but also believe in the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ etc...so where do you draw the line or make the difference? Is it really about inerrancy, fundamentalist beliefs, ....really?

Wow, I haven't harped upon anything in this thread. But the title of this thread is “fundamentalism”, so even it I did, what's your problem? Dave, you seem like a reasonable fellow to me, so I don't quite know what I said that set you off on this unreasonable rant. Klu Klux Klan? Really Dave? How did you go from believing in the virgin birth and the divinity of Christ to the Klu Klux Klan? Sounds like you have a problem with the basic doctrines of the Christian faith. NO PROBLEM! This is what this particular forum board is for!

Now, while we are clearing up some things, let me clear something up with you. PERSONAL, AD HOMINEMS ARE NOT AN ACCEPTABLE FORM OF DISCUSSION ON LOCALCHURCHDISCUSSIONS. You and anyone else is more than welcome to challenge me about “what you believe”...NO PROBLEM! The “who are you” is not going to fly around here...IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU? And please don't give me your redefinition of what you what meant by “who are you”. I could not care less about your new definition of what you meant by this - I have been speaking, writing and dialoging in the English language for enough time that I know perfectly well what you meant. Thanks, but no thanks to your challenge.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The “who are you” is not going to fly around here...IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?

Anything in bold capital letters is considered threatening, inflammatory and yelling on the internet---please don’t ever do that again in a post to me, under any circumstances. I hope we understand each other and we can be reasonable in the future. I have NEVER done that to you. Also, I never attacked you so your post is confusing. I have been open and honest about who I am. The point about the KKK was simply that many of them are fundamentalists, so, what is new about that?

Quite frankly, I could care less about “who you are”. I thought maybe you might be more open about your involvement in Christianity and I am somewhat taken aback at your secrecy and reluctance at sharing your involvement, if any, with helping people. Apparently you are not catching my drift. If you said I am a “Baptist Minister” with a nice congregation, or “I hold Christian meetings in my home on a weekly basis” or whatever, it would be interesting so it tells me more about you then anything you said. Why don’t you just say I would rather not say anything about who I am, my background or anything else because.....

I am on this site because of my friends who I connected with over 30 years ago. It is not our only connection but it has been interesting. If you want to dump me off this site so be it. Your threats are not going to be an issue with me because I know I never asked you to tell me anything more than just the basics. Actually, I still am clueless as to who you are or what you stand for other than “fundamentalism”. Maybe think about how you come across before you post. Take care.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

UntoHim…let’s clear up some things. You keep harping on this fundamental thing but I don’t know anything about you…really, what you believe? But more importantly, who are you? Not that this is your stick but you do know that most of the Klu Klux Klan attend fundamentalist churches? Hate groups hold "fundamentalist" beliefs, praise God in their services, believe the Bible tells them to hate people but also believe in the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ etc...so where do you draw the line or make the difference? Is it really about inerrancy, fundamentalist beliefs, ....really?

Jesus, Paul nor any of the disciples were “political” but I view “fundamentalists”, “Evangelicals” etc as very politically orientated. I have shared my “belief” life on this forum in some detail even mentioning my wife and her activities with the poor and medically needy. I have shared fruits of my beliefs but what about you? I don’t know what you are other than espousing some fundamentalists thinking which to me means absolutely nothing if there is nothing behind it such as caring about people and this world we live in. If you really want to get people "saved" get out there in the community and show the love of Jesus in your love in the community. Show some love for God's creation and do something rather sit around and quote Bible verses with like minded people. You have to change...there are no options.

I found Dave's post here to be incredibly obnoxious, arrogant, presumptuous, and almost incendiary. To connect someone who espouses the Virgin Birth of our Saviour to the Ku Klux Klan, is in my book way off the charts. But you were just getting started! You went after the moderator! You then went after all serious Christians. Judgmental Witness Lee was just a stroll in the park compared with you!

It reminds me of that bright, but insolent, teenage jock in the classroom who, when questioned about today's subject material, launches into some teasing tirade about how "stupid" the book is, and for that matter, how "stupid" the teacher and the whole school are too!

[awareness]

It's cold here in Kentucky. Thank God this fundamentalism thread is flaming hot. I can use any heat I can find right now. But I'm worried my monitor is gonna melt. Maybe y'all should cool down a little.

Maybe this will help: The virgin birth wasn't important to Mark, John, or Paul; not enough to remark about it.

[zeek]

Let's try not to go personal so that we can keep the discussion of ideas going.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

The virgin birth wasn't important to Mark, John, or Paul; not enough to remark about it.

Good point. Is the virgin birth mentioned anywhere outside of Matthew and Luke? What if it was only mentioned one time in one of the Gospels? Would that make it any less true? "And the Word was God" is only mentioned one time, in the Gospel of John (1:1), yet the divinity of Jesus Christ has not been challenged by any orthodox, evangelical Christians throughout church history.

Again, I don't think the virgin birth should be considered an essential item or tenet of the Christian faith. I think in Roman Catholic theology it might be considered an essential or major tenet (someone can correct me on this). The virgin birth is mentioned in the earliest creeds, so there is little doubt that the earliest Christians and church fathers believed that it was at least worth mentioning.

As I previously noted, the story of the virgin birth was apparently known by even the Jewish leaders of the day (they of course refused to believe this, and in fact mocked Jesus face to face, implying he was "born of sexual immorality" (John 8). So if the virgin birth was known among the Jewish leaders, surely it was well known and believed by the early disciples and apostles, who in turn passed it along to the next generation of believers who wrote it into the record of the early creeds.

My "issue" with those who would question, much less outright deny, the virgin birth is that it makes me wonder why there is a serious question or denial of such a miracle performed by God. If God was/is unable to perform such a miracle, what else is he unable to do? If God is impotent to have a virgin girl conceive, then surely he is impotent to save us from our sins. Big problem!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

Let's try not to go personal so that we can keep the discussion of ideas going.

Thank you zeek!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Good point. Is the virgin birth mentioned anywhere outside of Matthew and Luke? What if it was only mentioned one time in one of the Gospels? Would that make it any less true? "And the Word was God" is only mentioned one time, in the Gospel of John (1:1), yet the divinity of Jesus Christ has not been challenged by any orthodox, evangelical Christians throughout church history.

That's a truism or in other words circular logic. If a Christian challenges the divinity of Christ, you immediately consider her unorthodox or evangelical. Such tautologies assume what they seek to prove. In logic it is called begging the question which is a logical fallacy.

Again, I don't think the virgin birth should be considered an essential item or tenet of the Christian faith. I think in Roman Catholic theology it might be considered an essential or major tenet (someone can correct me on this). The virgin birth is mentioned in the earliest creeds, so there is little doubt that the earliest Christians and church fathers believed that it was at least worth mentioning.

That a group of people of a particular religious persuasion believe something is the case doesn't make it so. We must look elsewhere for the certainty of truth if there is any.

As I previously noted, the story of the virgin birth was apparently known by even the Jewish leaders of the day (they of course refused to believe this, and in fact mocked Jesus face to face, implying he was "born of sexual immorality" (John 8). So if the virgin birth was known among the Jewish leaders, surely it was well known and believed by the early disciples and apostles, who in turn passed it along to the next generation of believers who wrote it into the record of the early creeds.

If you look at the context you will see that they questioned him about his father in response to his claims concerning God as his father. It seems as if you are reading virgin birth into the text rather than in it.

My "issue" with those who would question, much less outright deny, the virgin birth is that it makes me wonder why there is a serious question or denial of such a miracle performed by God. If God was/is unable to perform such a miracle, what else is he unable to do? If God is impotent to have a virgin girl conceive, then surely he is impotent to save us from our sins. Big problem!

It would be a big problem if I were claiming to be a fundamentalist. Since I'm not, it's no problem at all. Unless, it's a problem for you personally. In which case, it's still no problem because we have agreed not to make things personally here.

If God is omnipotent, he can perform any miracle he wishes. But, it doesn't follow from that that God actually performed any miracle in particular outside of creation itself which remains the miracle of miracles. Why believe in a miracle without evidence?

The whole idea of God intervening in the universe by suspending the laws of nature is a post-Biblical notion. Newton wasn't born yet. There were no laws of nature as far as they were concerned. They didn't think of the supernatural the way we do because they didn't think of nature the way we do.

Your fundamentalist categories are an anachronistic way of reading the Bible. And so is the way of modernists who think they are debunking the Bible when they show that it isn't literally, historically or scientifically true. They assume that the authors intended it to be which is not a claim the author's make. That's an instance of the straw-man fallacy.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Let's try not to go personal so that we can keep the discussion of ideas going.

One thing is obvious. Belief in the virgin birth does not change behavior. What belief actually transforms us? This is more than "now I go to Church and share a few words with the adult Sunday school class". What belief makes us a better person, more loving towards others or can belief transform people? Paul was transformed when he was visited by Jesus but his transformation led him to running around trying to get people to believe in Jesus. He was changed for sure since he stopped persecuting Christians but he started persecuting anyone who didn't believe the way he did, saying stuff like "turn them over to Satan". Strong language. He didn't seem to carry the same message as the gospels. Can someone connect the dots? Obviously belief in the LC didn't change the way they operated. Their personalities still remained pretty much the same except that their language about believe or else was the same. I just wonder if certain people are drawn to this type of belief system.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

One thing is obvious. Belief in the virgin birth does not change behavior. What belief actually transforms us?

Speak for yourself. Your views are yours alone. There is nothing "obvious" in your post.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Good point. Is the virgin birth mentioned anywhere outside of Matthew and Luke? What if it was only mentioned one time in one of the Gospels? Would that make it any less true?

I'm not saying that the fact Mark, John, and Paul don't mention the virgin birth it makes it false (we might offer other reasons for that, perchance, if we can avoid emotion outbursts, so maybe not). I'm saying that maybe it wasn't as important back then as we've made it today. Today it's foundational, but apparently not back then. If it were foundational, since Paul was speaking as the visionary Jesus moved him, surely the visionary Jesus, thru Paul, would have taught it. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, not only did Mark, John and Paul, not mention it, neither did Jesus. There's no red letters describing or insisting on the virgin birth. So Jesus, both before His resurrection, and after His resurrection, even after His ascension, never mentions the virgin birth. Seems the only one that mentions it is a scary Holy Spirit to Mary, and the same to Joseph, while sleeping or day dreaming.

Originally Posted by Un2Him

"And the Word was God" is only mentioned one time, in the Gospel of John (1:1), yet the divinity of Jesus Christ has not been challenged by any orthodox, evangelical Christians throughout church history.

Maybe you meant to say "orthodox AND evangelical?" Unless you mean them to be the same. Which I very much doubt. Evangelicalism only goes back a few hundred yrs. In all of church history, it's a rather recent phenomenon.

And there were too early Christians that didn't believe Jesus was God. But the winners, the orthodox, called them heretics. Since seeing the fruit of what that orthodoxy became, I don't put a lot of stock in them. Please forgive me for not trusting in men.

Originally Posted by Un2Him

As I previously noted, the story of the virgin birth was apparently known by even the Jewish leaders of the day (they of course refused to believe this, and in fact mocked Jesus face to face, implying he was "born of sexual immorality" (John 8). So if the virgin birth was known among the Jewish leaders, surely it was well known and believed by the early disciples and apostles,

Thinking virgin births happened was common thinking back then. Even Alexander the Great was thought, by at least enough to make it known, to be born of a virgin. And there were legends of lots of virgin births in those days, prior to Jesus. All the educated would have learned about them in their Greek education ... which all the gospel writers had to have gone thru.

Originally Posted by Un2Him

My "issue" with those who would question, much less outright deny, the virgin birth is that it makes me wonder why there is a serious question or denial of such a miracle performed by God. If God was/is unable to perform such a miracle, what else is he unable to do?

Luk 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Speak for yourself. Your views are yours alone. There is nothing "obvious" in your post.

But there is something obvious in your posts. At this point I would like to move on and stop this nonsense. Try to take my posts in context and I'll do the same for you. Let's get back to the virgin birth controversy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm not saying that the fact Mark, John, and Paul don't mention the virgin birth it makes it false. I'm saying that maybe it wasn't as important back then as we've made it today. Today it's foundational, but apparently not back then. If it were foundational, since Paul was speaking as the visionary Jesus moved him, surely the visionary Jesus, thru Paul, would have taught it. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, not only did Mark, John and Paul, not mention it, neither did Jesus. There's no red letters describing or insisting on the virgin birth. So Jesus, both before His resurrection, and after His resurrection, even after His ascension, never mentions the virgin birth. Seems the only one that mentions it is a scary Holy Spirit to Mary, and the same to Joseph, while sleeping or day dreaming.

In John chapter 8 and others, Jesus makes it more than clear that Joseph was not His father, and that His real Father was God.

v.14 Only He knew where He came from

v.16 The Father had sent Him

v.19 No Jewisn leader knew His Father

v.28 He was taught by His Father

v.29 The Father was with Him, and He always pleased the Father

v.41 Jews accused Him of being born in fornication

v.42 He came forth out of God and am from Him

v.49 He honors His Father

v.56 Abraham rejoiced to see Him

v.58 He is the I am, preexisting Abraham, their "father"

Some of the Jewish leaders apparently had learned that Jesus was not the son of Joseph. In other places, (e.g. Luke 4.22) in His early ministry, Jesus was referred to as the son of Joseph. This proves that discussions of His birth were rumored in Israel. (That is why Jesus asked His disciples "whom do men say I am?") Their accusations directly attacked the character of Mary, His human mother by birth, who was often traveling with Him in His entourage of disciples. By plainly discussing His true Father in heaven, Jesus both defended His mother's dignity and also revealed plainly who was His real Father. Jesus made it abundantly clear to the Jews that He had no human father, thus being born of a virgin, just as Isaiah had prophesied.

Why would Apostle Paul mention His virgin birth? He made it clear that one of the frustrations of the gospel came from those who only knew Jesus acc. to the flesh. Some of these ones were the same Judaizers that became the chief impediment to the spread of the gospel. (2 Cor 5.16)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

But there is something obvious in your posts. At this point I would like to move on and stop this nonsense. Try to take my posts in context and I'll do the same for you. Let's get back to the virgin birth controversy.

I don't think that even context can help some of your comments.

Have you begun to own up to "nonsense" by now?

I didn't know that the virgin birth of Jesus was a controversy.

Care to comment on my last post?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't think that even context can help some of your comments.
Have you begun to own up to "nonsense" by now?
I didn't know that the virgin birth of Jesus was a controversy.
Care to comment on my last post?

You don't know when to quit. My response is that John never promoted the virgin birth. It's not in his gospel. His was the last gospel. If it was so important why didn't he include it?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Today it's foundational

The virgin birth, foundational? Harold, have you actually been reading this thread? WHO HAS SAID THIS? I mentioned that is might be an important item/tenet in Roman Catholic theology, but not in any orthodox/evangelic theology. And nobody has said that it was foundational back in the days of the first disciples/apostles, only that it is apparent that they acknowledged the fact that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Seems the only one that mentions it is a scary Holy Spirit to Mary, and the same to Joseph, while sleeping or day dreaming.

Scary Holy Spirit? Harold, my man, you never cease to amaze me! Would it trouble you too much to actually crack open a Bible and read it before you post here? I know you think what Bart Ehrman is actually scripture, but there was something spoken and written about 2000 years before Ehrman ever existed that is actually the Gospel truth - It's called the New Testament.

Maybe you meant to say "orthodox AND evangelical?" Unless you mean them to be the same. Which I very much doubt. Evangelicalism only goes back a few hundred yrs. In all of church history, it's a rather recent phenomenon.

Wow, Harold, you are really on a roll!. Are you that blinded by your bias towards the Christians of today that you can't acknowledge, much less appreciate, that "evangelical" refers to THE GOSPEL. If somebody, or some group believes, preaches and teaches the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ they are evangelical. Even if they don't get it totally right or accurate, they are still evangelical.

And there were too early Christians that didn't believe Jesus was God. But the winners, the orthodox, called them heretics. Since seeing the fruit of what that orthodoxy became, I don't put a lot of stock in them. Please forgive me for not trusting in men.

But you put a lot of stock and trust the ones who didn't believe Jesus was God? What's the fruit of those people? Are they men? You put your trust in them, don't ya Harold. I would err on the side of caution when it come to trusting in men.

Thinking virgin births happened was common thinking back then. Even Alexander the Great was thought, by at least enough to make it known, to be born of a virgin. And there were legends of lots of virgin births in those days, prior to Jesus. All the educated would have learned about them in their Greek education ... which all the gospel writers had to have gone thru.

No Harold, once again your wrong. "Thinking virgin births happened" was absolutely not common thinking among the Jewish people of the day. (What the pagans thought, taught or believed was of little to no consequence to the Jews of the 1st century, including the writers of the Gospels) But even IF the Gospel writers had made their way into some elite, private school, and had learned about Alex the Great being born of a virgin, what does that have to do with what was related to us in the Gospels?

Luk 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

There ya go! I knew you had it in you!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In John chapter 8 and others, Jesus makes it more than clear that Joseph was not His father, and that His real Father was God.

v.14 Only He knew where He came from

v.16 The Father had sent Him

v.19 No Jewisn leader knew His Father

v.28 He was taught by His Father

v.29 The Father was with Him, and He always pleased the Father

v.41 Jews accused Him of being born in fornication

v.42 He came forth out of God and am from Him

v.49 He honors His Father

v.56 Abraham rejoiced to see Him

v.58 He is the I am, preexisting Abraham, their "father"

Some of the Jewish leaders apparently had learned that Jesus was not the son of Joseph. In other places, (e.g. Luke 4.22) in His early ministry, Jesus was referred to as the son of Joseph. This proves that discussions of His birth were rumored in Israel. (That is why Jesus asked His disciples "whom do men say I am?") Their accusations directly attacked the character of Mary, His human mother by birth, who was often traveling with Him in His entourage of disciples. By plainly discussing His true Father in heaven, Jesus both defended His mother's dignity and also revealed plainly who was His real Father. Jesus made it abundantly clear to the Jews that He had no human father, thus being born of a virgin, just as Isaiah had prophesied.

Why would Apostle Paul mention His virgin birth? He made it clear that one of the frustrations of the gospel came from those who only knew Jesus acc. to the flesh. Some of these ones were the same Judaizers that became the chief impediment to the spread of the gospel. (2 Cor 5.16)

Great verses bro Ohio, and you drove your point home well.

But I have a question, a quandary, if you will.

Why do some translations translate the following verses in Luke:

Luk 2:33 And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.

Luk 2:43 And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it,
- Both ESV

And some translate the verses as:

Luk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

Luk 2:43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
- Both KJV

[awareness]

Thanks for the great response bro UntoHim.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The virgin birth, foundational? Harold, have you actually been reading this thread? WHO HAS SAID THIS?

Please see post #2 on this thread.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Scary Holy Spirit? Harold, my man, you never cease to amaze me!

I know. I amaze me too ... at how stupid I am compared to all there is to know.

Would it trouble you too much to actually crack open a Bible and read it before you post here?

I'm giving it my best effort:
Luk 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Luk 1:29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
Luk 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary:
Thanks for questioning me. I did make a mistake. It wasn't the Holy Spirit. It was an angel.

I know you think what Bart Ehrman is actually scripture, but there was something spoken and written about 2000 years before Ehrman ever existed that is actually the Gospel truth - It's called the New Testament.

How come I never thought of that?

Wow, Harold, you are really on a roll!. Are you that blinded by your bias towards the Christians of today that you can't acknowledge, much less appreciate, that "evangelical" refers to THE GOSPEL. If somebody, or some group believes, preaches and teaches the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ they are evangelical. Even if they don't get it totally right or accurate, they are still evangelical.

I agree evangelical can mean a large tent. However:

"Evangelicalism did not take recognizable form until the 18th century, first in Britain and its North American colonies. Nevertheless, there were earlier developments within the larger Protestant world that preceded and influenced the later evangelical revivals. According to religion scholar, social activist, and politician Randall Balmer, Evangelicalism resulted "from the confluence of Pietism, Presbyterianism, and the vestiges of Puritanism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#History

But you put a lot of stock and trust the ones who didn't believe Jesus was God? What's the fruit of those people? Are they men? You put your trust in them, don't ya Harold. I would err on the side of caution when it come to trusting in men.

Thanks for the words of caution bro. Wise words.

No Harold, once again your wrong. "Thinking virgin births happened" was absolutely not common thinking among the Jewish people of the day. (What the pagans thought, taught or believed was of little to no consequence to the Jews of the 1st century, including the writers of the Gospels) But even IF the Gospel writers had made their way into some elite, private school, and had learned about Alex the Great being born of a virgin, what does that have to do with what was related to us in the Gospels?

Now yer makin' my . The gospels were written in Greek. The writers were clearly Hellenized. Their learning was Hellenized. And you and I know of all the legends in the Greek classics of virgin births. A more recent one to them was Alex the Great. What does it have to do with the gospels? Well could be that Jesus therefore had to be born of a virgin, to be at least as great as Alex ... and all the rest.
"Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in the ancient world that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism

Originally Posted by Me

Luk 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

There ya go! I knew you had it in you!

Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

You don't know when to quit. My response is that John never promoted the virgin birth. It's not in his gospel. His was the last gospel. If it was so important why didn't he include it?

Foolish question. There are hundreds of things not included by John. Are they all unimportant?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Great verses bro Ohio, and you drove your point home well.

But I have a question, a quandary, if you will.

Why do some translations translate the following verses in Luke:

Luk 2:33 And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.

Luk 2:43 And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it,
- Both ESV

And some translate the verses as:

Luk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

Luk 2:43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
- Both KJV

Is there a question here?

Thanks for quoting those great verses. Regardless of what UntoHim says, i know you read the Bible!

Jesus grew up as the first born of Joseph and Mary in the town of Nazareth. To protect the safety of the child Jesus, His identity was not revealed to most of the towns folk. Im sure the young Jesus called Joseph "Daddy."

Im sure your next question will be, "if the baby was God, how could he be killed?"

Or perhaps, "could Jesus make a rock too big for him to pick up?"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is there a question here?

I think ... I think ... therefore I am. A rock don't think so, it isn't.

The question is: Why does one translation render it "his father and mother" and "his parents," and another translation renders it "Joseph and his mother?"

One says Joseph is Jesus' father & parent.

You were raised a Roman Catholic, and so should know the answer. You might have to dig a little ...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think ... I think ... therefore I am. A rock don't think so, it isn't.

The question is: Why does one translation render it "his father and mother" and "his parents," and another translation renders it "Joseph and his mother?"

One says Joseph is Jesus' father & parent.

You were raised a Roman Catholic, and so should know the answer. You might have to dig a little ...

Did you read what i have written? I thought i talked about that.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Foolish question. There are hundreds of things not included by John. Are they all unimportant?

Foolish? Of course there are hundreds of issues not included by John. However, you are the person quoting several verses in John to prove the virgin birth. Do you recall your own posts (see below)? You made the analysis trying to prove the virgin birth using the book of John when John doesn't even mention it. I am not going to say that your post was foolish because I am tired of your continuous insults. If you can't respond like a normal person then please don't (I guess you are trying to show how a Christian would respond but I am not impressed).

Originally Posted by Ohio

"In John chapter 8 and others, Jesus makes it more than clear that Joseph was not His father, and that His real Father was God.
v.14 Only He knew where He came from

v.16 The Father had sent Him

v.19 No Jewisn leader knew His Father

v.28 He was taught by His Father

v.29 The Father was with Him, and He always pleased the Father

v.41 Jews accused Him of being born in fornication

v.42 He came forth out of God and am from Him

v.49 He honors His Father

v.56 Abraham rejoiced to see Him

v.58 He is the I am, preexisting Abraham, their "father"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

Foolish? Of course there are hundreds of issues not included by John. However, you are the person quoting several verses in John to prove the virgin birth. Do you recall your own posts (see below)? You made the analysis trying to prove the virgin birth using the book of John when John doesn't even mention it. I am not going to say that your post was foolish because I am tired of your continuous insults. If you can't respond like a normal person then please don't (I guess you are trying to show how a Christian would respond but I am not impressed).

You insult the moderator, call God a "she," belittle the way of faith, and then tell me I don't behave as a normal person or even a Christian for insisting on the virgin birth.

OK friend.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now yer makin' my . The gospels were written in Greek. The writers were clearly Hellenized. Their learning was Hellenized. And you and I know of all the legends in the Greek classics of virgin births. A more recent one to them was Alex the Great. What does it have to do with the gospels? Well could be that Jesus therefore had to be born of a virgin, to be at least as great as Alex ... and all the rest.
"Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in the ancient world that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism

No the writers of the Gospels were not clearly Hellenized. Greek was the lingua franca of the day, and since the Good News was the most important news, they wanted to get it out to as many people as possible. To say that the Gospel writers were even marginally (much less greatly) influenced by Greek culture is pure speculation, and in fact, the objective evidence (the actual words of the Gospels themselves) indicates just the opposite.

Yes, "Hellenistic Judaism was A FORM of Judaism in New Testament times, but this is one of the forms of Judaism that Jesus Christ vehemently denounced, especially the leadership and scribes of the day.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No the writers of the Gospels were not clearly Hellenized. Greek was the lingua franca of the day, and since the Good News was the most important news, they wanted to get it out to as many people as possible.

Yes, and that's why the author of John used the completely Hellenized word Logos.

And why they all used the Hellenized OT Hebrew translation called the Septuagint.

The lingua franca proves how Hellenized they were back then.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You insult the moderator, call God a "she," belittle the way of faith, and then tell me I don't behave as a normal person or even a Christian for insisting on the virgin birth. OK friend.

I am not belittling faith. I have faith but I don’t have faith in the inerrancy of the Bible or its infallibility and both of those require faith. The Bible is an important book but I value what it teaches about ethics and values. The virgin birth requires faith as does believing that Jesus literally walked on water or that miracles of turning water to wine or feeding 5000 were miraculously performed. Why, because they can’t be duplicated.

In early Christianity there was no doctor to verify that a blind person was healed or that a leper was cured or that a man was brought back from the dead as a result of miracles performed by Jesus or Paul. In addition, in the Bible there are no eye witness accounts from anyone except Paul who also said Jesus was a revelation. It’s mostly hearsay. Even though the gospels have been attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John no author of the gospels indicates that they wrote those books. They don’t identify themselves. Nor do any of the gospel authors say, “I witnessed this or that”. They are just reporting what they heard. Paul recalls that he saw Jesus in a vision but he never met him in person. In Acts the author reports miracles but he doesn’t indicate that he saw any himself. Acts 15:12 “All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.” Acts 19:11 “God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul,..” It’s all hearsay and requires faith. Is Paul in his epistles the only eye witness account of miracles?

Back in the days of Jesus there were other reports of miracle workers such as Apollonius of Tyana who was a contemporary of Jesus. Of course, this is all hearsay like the writings of the gospels. However, there are those who say that the stories of Jesus and Paul for that matter were taken from Appollonius (this is an incomplete list nor is it in chronoligical order):

Appollonius Born 4 BCE	Jesus Born 4 BCE	Paul Born c. 2 CE?
Birth miraculously announced by a supernatural being	Birth miraculously announced by a supernatural being
Was the son of a god and a mortal woman	Was the son of a god and a mortal woman.
Raised in Tarsus		Raised in Tarsus
Religiously precocious as a child	Religiously precocious as a child	Religiously precocious as a child
Asserted to be a native speaker of Aramaic	Asserted to be a native speaker of Aramaic	Claimed to be a speaker of Hebrew
Associated with wise men or magi	Associated with wise men or magi
Had a disciple named Damis from Asia Minor	Had a disciple named Thomas; blessed a robber on the cross named Demas	Had a disciple named Demas from Asia Minor
Had an associate named Titus		Had an associate named Titus
Associated with a Demetrius		Associated with a Demetrius
Associated with a Stephanus		Associated with a Stephanus
Influenced by Plato	Reflected Platonism	Influenced by Philo/Plato
Renounced wealth	Denounced wealth	Embraced poverty
Followed abstinence and asceticism	Followed abstinence and asceticism	Followed abstinence and asceticism
Wore long hair and robes	Wore long hair and robes	Wore long hair and robes
Discussed eunuchs for the kingdom of Babylon	Discussed eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven
Was unmarried and childless	Was unmarried and childless	Was unmarried and childless
Was anointed with oil	Was anointed with oil
Went to Jerusalem	Went to Jerusalem	Went to Jerusalem
Spent much time at Antioch		Spent much time at Antioch
Made missionary journeys around Mediterranean		Made missionary journeys around Mediterranean
Traveled to the East for three years, where he was taught by sages		Traveled to the East for three years, where he was taught by Jesus
Wrote epistles instructing followers in spirituality		Wrote epistles instructing followers in spirituality
Spoke in metaphors	Spoke in parables
Fought wild beasts at Ephesus		Fought "wild beasts" at Ephesus
Saw and predicted the future	Saw and predicted the future
Performed miracles	Performed miracles	Performed miracles
Healed the sick	Healed the sick	Healed the sick
Cast out evil spirits	Drove out demons	Cast out demons
Raised the daughter of a Roman official from the dead	Raised the daughter of a Jewish official from the dead
Famed far and wide	Famed far and wide	Well known in Christian communities around the Mediterranean
Religious reformer	Religious reformer	Religious reformer
Spoke authoritatively to temple priests	Spoke authoritatively to temple priests	Spoke authoritatively to temple priests
Spoke as a "law-giver"	Spoke as a "law-giver"
Founded a religious community at Corinth		Founded a religious community at Corinth
Was on a mission to bring Greek culture to the "barbarians"	Was on a mission to bring Jewish culture to the "nations"
Converted "unrefined" people to himself	Converted "unsaved" people to himself
Believed to be a "savior" from heaven	Believed to be a "savior" from heaven
Worshipped as a god	Worshipped as a god	Mistaken for a god
Accused of being a magician	Accused of being a magician
Had his life threatened	Had his life threatened	Had his life threatened
Brought before a king, whose righteousness he challenged	Brought before a king, whose righteousness he challenged
Was accused of killing a boy	Was accused of killing a boy (Infancy Gospel of Thomas)
Condemned by Roman emperor	Condemned by Roman authorities	Condemned by Roman emperor
Imprisoned at Rome	Imprisoned at Jerusalem	Imprisoned at Jerusalem and Rome
Miraculously escaped prison		Miraculously escaped prison
Was shipwrecked		Was shipwrecked
Descended into the underworld	Descended into the underworld
Was assumed into heaven	Ascended into heaven
Appeared posthumously to a detractor as a brilliant light	Appeared posthumously to a detractor as a brilliant light
Said to be in two places at once	Said to be in many places at once
Had his image revered in temples	Had his image revered in churches

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

One thing is obvious. Belief in the virgin birth does not change behavior. What belief actually transforms us? This is more than "now I go to Church and share a few words with the adult Sunday school class". What belief makes us a better person, more loving towards others or can belief transform people? Paul was transformed when he was visited by Jesus but his transformation led him to running around trying to get people to believe in Jesus. He was changed for sure since he stopped persecuting Christians but he started persecuting anyone who didn't believe the way he did, saying stuff like "turn them over to Satan". Strong language. He didn't seem to carry the same message as the gospels. Can someone connect the dots? Obviously belief in the LC didn't change the way they operated. Their personalities still remained pretty much the same except that their language about believe or else was the same. I just wonder if certain people are drawn to this type of belief system.

If belief in the virgin birth doesn't change behavior than why do some Christians fight for it so hard? They believe that their dearest belief hangs on it and on that their whole ethos hangs. Ethos affects behavior.

Paul's gospel transformed the western world. Whether his message was essentially the same as Jesus' message or not is a matter of controversy but not within RC, mainstream protestant, EO, the evangelical or fundamentalist churches. At any rate, the church's understanding of Jesus' message was profoundly affected by Paul and that's the message that was transmitted historically to the present. The Bible is read through the lens of church tradition [traditions really]. Sure there were the so-called heresies. But, only with advent of historical criticism beginning in the Enlightenment era was it seriously challenged.

By the way, you should add "view from the cold" to your signature line.

[awareness]

It's a vague memory but I think I read that there were once early Christians that said something like Apollonius was the real thing, and Jesus was a phony.

You come across anything like that Dave?

This ol' memory just ain't what it use to be. Hell, it wasn't what it use to be when it was use to be.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's a vague memory but I think I read that there were once early Christians that said something like Apollonius was the real thing, and Jesus was a phony.
You come across anything like that Dave?
This ol' memory just ain't what it use to be. Hell, it wasn't what it use to be when it was use to be.

Check out 1 Corinthians 1:12 '...or "I belong to Apollos,"...' Not only are the journeys of Paul and Apollonius very similar, their names are as well. While Paul is "Paulos" in Greek, Thayer's Lexicon states that "Apollos" is, according to some ancient authorities, contracted from "Apollonios." Interestingly, "Apollos" is mentioned in five places in Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, in such a way - juxtapositioned with the names of Paul, "Cephas" and Christ; Paul and Christ; or Paul alone - as to attribute great significance to him. It has further been asserted that this contraction of the name Apollonius, Apollos, was found uncontracted in the Codex Bezae of the New Testament. Interesting stuff. Maybe someone else has a better interpretation of Apollos.

I find it interesting that in Luke 4:14 regarding Jesus it states, "...a report about him spread through all the surrounding country." and yet except for a couple of notations in some historical records (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and Josephus) there is no mention of Jesus of that day and in most if not all of these cases they had only heard of the Christian group, not Jesus. There are also many other verses of that context in the gospels. I believe Jesus existed but one has to wonder why weren't there any records. Apparently at Jesus' death the sun darkened, there were earthquakes, saints rose from the dead (Matt 27:50-54) "...The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs were also opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many." And yet this is all hearsay and there is no one outside of these Christian writers who mentioned this. This is like a zombies movie and you would think that people in Jerusalem who were not Christians would have noticed these people who had been raised from the dead entering their city. Yet, none of this came into the contemporary record of the day. BTW...anyone have any idea where these people raised from the dead ended up.

I may have mentioned this before but there is no evidence that Paul existed outside of his and Luke''s letters and record. He is fighting wild beasts etc and yet he is not mentioned by anyone outside of his letters and Luke's writings. In fact, a Christian in what is believed to be the third or fourth century created a series of correspondences between Paul and Seneca (the most important philosopher of the day when Paul was alive) to make it look like Seneca whose correspondence was made to look like he knew Paul and thought highly of him. This Christian(s) did that because of the apparent dearth of information outside of the writings of Christians. If there was all this fame and so on why didn't anyone else write about it.

zeek, I realize this discussion probably belongs in the "Historical Jesus" thread but it evolved out of discussion of the belief in the virgin birth and whether there was a virgin birth considering its believability and to a wider issue of belief etc. In addition, in response to your higher criticism note we may be going through another "age of Enlightenment" regarding Christian thought with the advent of the internet but on this thread we are dealing with fundamentalist belief which is founded in mainline Evangelical Christianity. However, Christianity has changed throughout the ages in regards to fundamentalist belief. Fundamentalist belief did not exist as we see it today during the early years no matter what Christians think but it has evolved into what it is today---It does not appear as though it will stay the same and there will be more that will change in the days and years ahead.

Also, "view from the cold"...it has only been in the 40s so far.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

zeek, I realize this discussion probably belongs in the "Historical Jesus" thread but it evolved out of discussion of the belief in the virgin birth and whether there was a virgin birth considering its believability and to a wider issue of belief etc.

Right. You're fighting literalism with literalism. Got it.

In addition, in response to your higher criticism note we may be going through another "age of Enlightenment" regarding Christian thought with the advent of the internet but on this thread we are dealing with fundamentalist belief which is founded in mainline Evangelical Christianity.

That doesn't really get to my point which I thought suggested an alternative to Paul bashing in terms of his importance to the historical church and hence western civilization. Of course, western civilization itself isn't above criticism. Supposedly when a journalist supposedly asked Gandhi what he thought of Western civilization, he replied "I think it would be a good idea."

However, Christianity has changed throughout the ages in regards to fundamentalist belief. Fundamentalist belief did not exist as we see it today during the early years no matter what Christians think but it has evolved into what it is today

I thought I made that point below. I suppose it bears repeating.

---It does not appear as though it will stay the same and there will be more that will change in the days and years ahead.

The only thing that stays the same in this world is the knowledge that nothing does.

Also, "view from the cold"...it has only been in the 40s so far.

Isn't that kind of lukewarm?

This quote from Wikipedia squares pretty well with my experience of the relationship between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists :

Toward the end of the 20th century, some have tended to confuse Evangelicalism and fundamentalism, but as noted above they are not the same. The labels represent very distinct differences of approach that both groups are diligent to maintain, although because of fundamentalism's dramatically smaller size it often gets classified simply as an ultra-conservative branch of Evangelicalism.
Both groups seek to maintain an identity as theological conservatives; Evangelicals, however, seek to distance themselves from stereotypical perceptions of the "fundamentalist" posture of antagonism toward the larger society and advocate involvement in the surrounding community rather than separation from it. However, despite the differences, some people, particularly those with a non-denominational background, may consider themselves both Evangelical and fundamentalist because they believe in the engaging practices of Evangelicalism and take a fundamental view of the Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangel...Evangelicalism

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, and that's why the author of John used the completely Hellenized word Logos.
And why they all used the Hellenized OT Hebrew translation called the Septuagint.
The lingua franca proves how Hellenized they were back then.

Harold, Harold, Harold, you're begging again...I mean the question of course.
How many informal logical fallacies can you squeeze into one post? You are so good at this that you have come around full circle on your circular reasoning...but that's why I love ya so much! {and Jesus loves you too}

Of course the writer of the Gospel of John used the Greek word Logos λόγος...after all, he was writing in Greek! Would you expect him to write the word for "word" in Latin?

I've already explained why the Gospels were originally written in Greek (it was the lingua franca of the day) and you have no answer or reasonable challenge to this, you only have wild speculation and circular reasoning (cf: "the lingua franca proves how hellenized they were back then".)

Yes, language CAN indeed carry with it some elements of culture, but in the case of the Gospel writers there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that they were influenced in the way you are implying here on this thread.

Nice try though!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Harold, Harold, Harold, you're begging again...I mean the question of course.
How many informal logical fallacies can you squeeze into one post? You are so good at this that you have come around full circle on your circular reasoning...but that's why I love ya so much! {and Jesus loves you too}

Of course the writer of the Gospel of John used the Greek word Logos λόγος...after all, he was writing in Greek! Would you expect him to write the word for "word" in Latin?

I've already explained why the Gospels were originally written in Greek (it was the lingua franca of the day) and you have no answer or reasonable challenge to this, you only have wild speculation and circular reasoning (cf: "the lingua franca proves how hellenized they were back then".)

Yes, language CAN indeed carry with it some elements of culture, but in the case of the Gospel writers there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that they were influenced in the way you are implying here on this thread.

Nice try though!

This is what you get when one follows Bart Ehrman, and takes the same course he did. Like Bart, the posters here all had genuine salvation experiences in their youth, then after passing thru the fiery trials of the faith, getting burnt in the LC, and then spending all their days studying various Wikipedia-like sources, their faith is nearly ship-wrecked.

Today Bart is an affirmed "agnostic," skeptical of whether God even exists or not. The irony is that agnostic means "without knowledge," and yet it is the constant study of the wrong kinds of knowledge which brought them all to where they now are.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Today Bart is an affirmed "agnostic," skeptical of whether God even exists or not. The irony is that agnostic means "without knowledge," and yet it is the constant study of the wrong kinds of knowledge which brought them all to where they now are.

Actually I recently viewed a YouTube video (not sure how long ago it was recorded) where Ehrman says he no longer believes that God even exists. Very sad. (In the same video he does say that his wife and best friend "believe that Jesus Christ is God", so maybe they can still pull him back from the abyss)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually I recently viewed a YouTube video (not sure how long ago it was recorded) where Ehrman says he no longer believes that God even exists. Very sad. (In the same video he does say that his wife and best friend "believe that Jesus Christ is God", so maybe they can still pull him back from the abyss)

It all comes down to whom do we listen to. Do we listen to the skeptics sowing their seeds of doubt, or do we listen to those who sow the good news of the Word in faith. Faith does come by hearing, yet it is we who choose what we want to hear. What we reap in our heart will definitely correspond what we type of seed we allow to be planted within us.

A while ago I talked to a friend who seemed to survive the LC experience quite well. He told me a story of what happened while he was a young Christian in the military. Before he was sent to Nam, his commander was head of an officers' Bible fellowship. Once they shipped out, everything changed, and their sweet fellowship ended. Later on he learned that the commander, though married, had a live-in friend to keep him "company" at night. My friend was initially stumbled, but later learned never to trust man, only God. That painful lesson in his early days served him well in the Recovery.

It's too bad many of us could not have learned the same lesson when very young. I trusted the older brothers in the church more than my own friends and family.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is what you get when one follows Bart Ehrman, and takes the same course he did. Like Bart, the posters here all had genuine salvation experiences in their youth, then after passing thru the fiery trials of the faith, getting burnt in the LC, and then spending all their days studying various Wikipedia-like sources, their faith is nearly ship-wrecked.

Today Bart is an affirmed "agnostic," skeptical of whether God even exists or not. The irony is that agnostic means "without knowledge," and yet it is the constant study of the wrong kinds of knowledge which brought them all to where they now are.

By claiming that we studied the wrong kind of knowledge, you imply that you have the right kind, Ohio. So, please tell us, what is the right kind of knowledge?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Of course the writer of the Gospel of John used the Greek word Logos λόγος...after all, he was writing in Greek! Would you expect him to write the word for "word" in Latin?

Right but that does not explain how John uses the term λόγος in the first chapter. Logos is used in a symbolic non-literal sense in the first chapter of John. The idea of the Logos as God's creative principle had already appeared in Greek philosophy and the theology of Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jew. John takes that concept and appropriates it to claim that in Jesus of Nazareth the God's creative principle is embodied as a human being. The Book of Acts, chapter 6 shows the Hellenistic Jews were received in the church from the earliest time. Why would you reject the possibility that John uses a Greek word in a way precedented by Greek or Hellenistic Jewish theology? The gospel of Jesus as the Christ had to appropriate and yet stretch the existing theological symbols of the times in order to say something new.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

By claiming that we studied the wrong kind of knowledge, you imply that you have the right kind, Ohio. So, please tell us, what is the right kind of knowledge?

Obviously studying Bart Erhman is not the right kind of knowledge because look what his study did to his faith. Ehrman no longer believes that God even exists.

The right kind of study of the word of God includes a believing heart. Listen to what the word says to those who have not faith, "you have had the good news announced to you, but it did not profit you, not being mixed together with faith." Hebrews 4.2

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right but that does not explain how John uses the term λόγος in the first chapter. Logos is used in a symbolic non-literal sense in the first chapter of John. The idea of the Logos as God's creative principle had already appeared in Greek philosophy and the theology of Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jew. John takes that concept and appropriates it to claim that in Jesus of Nazareth the God's creative principle is embodied as a human being. The Book of Acts, chapter 6 shows the Hellenistic Jews were received in the church from the earliest time. Why would you reject the possibility that John uses a Greek word in a way precedented by Greek or Hellenistic Jewish theology? The gospel of Jesus as the Christ had to appropriate and yet stretch the existing theological symbols of the times in order to say something new.

The Logos is the message of God. Paul said He was the image of the invisible God. Does that mean that Paul too was "hell-inized?"

The Logos defines God and is God. If you have seen the Logos, you have seen God. You want to know God, you must firstly know the Logos.

Regardless of its historical Greek usage, it was the best word John could find, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in Koine Greek.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Harold, Harold, Harold, you're begging again...I mean the question of course.
How many informal logical fallacies can you squeeze into one post? You are so good at this that you have come around full circle on your circular reasoning...but that's why I love ya so much! {and Jesus loves you too}

My actual immediate response to this was to bust out laughing. I love your sense of humor bro Un2..

This is a funny disagreement. Of ... if the gospel writers were Hellenized or not. That's because we don't know who wrote the gospels (or are we taking that by faith too?) so how can either of us prove our case, beyond any shadow of doubt?

All we have is the text itself to go by.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Of course the writer of the Gospel of John used the Greek word Logos λόγος...after all, he was writing in Greek! Would you expect him to write the word for "word" in Latin?

I'd call this another knee slapper, 'cept it seems yer being serious. Are you saying that the author of the gospel of John (let's call him John) was just using Logos to just mean the word word? I'll allow you to rethink that before I'll answer that.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I've already explained why the Gospels were originally written in Greek (it was the lingua franca of the day) and you have no answer or reasonable challenge to this, you only have wild speculation and circular reasoning (cf: "the lingua franca proves how hellenized they were back then".)

Hey, it does at first glace look circular. I'll give ya that. You've got good eyesight UntoHim. I guess you're saying that the fact that the gospel writers wrote the gospels in Greek does not mean they weren't traditional observant Jews, untainted by Hellenism ; that the gospel writers only wrote in Greek to reach the widespread Greek (Hellenized) audience.

We might be provided a little insight into possible Hellenization of the writers by looking into where they were pulling from when quoting the Old Testament. Were they pulling mostly from the LXX (Septuagint) or from the Masoretic Text? If they were Hebrews untainted by Hellenism wouldn't they be pulling mostly from the Masoretic text.

However:

"Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32)"

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Nice try though!

I'm still trying ... your move ... check.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Of course the writer of the Gospel of John used the Greek word Logos λόγος...after all, he was writing in Greek! Would you expect him to write the word for "word" in Latin?

The Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together…” Philo of Alexandria (25 BCE – c. 50 CE)
Sound familiar
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously studying Bart Erhman is not the right kind of knowledge because look what his study did to his faith. Ehrman no longer believes that God even exists.

Maybe. But, you're claiming to know based on hearsay. From what you have said before, your idea of knowledge is to believe the right people. Of course, that's circular logic because it's you who determines who the right people are. And you spent a long time in Witness Lee's church being wrong about that. So for you knowledge seems to be primarily hearsay. Ehrman has done a lot of his own research so it seems like he has a leg up on you who just listens to other people. But, those are just my impressions based on what you post here.

The right kind of study of the word of God includes a believing heart. Listen to what the word says to those who have not faith, "you have had the good news announced to you, but it did not profit you, not being mixed together with faith." Hebrews 4.2

That's true. But, faith is a particular kind of knowledge, and you don't seem to recognize that. You also seem to confuse your opinions about issues with knowledge and faith as well. You seem to need to condemn what you don't understand before you have even investigated it thoroughly. Again, I admit I could be wrong. I'm just going by what I see you doing here.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Logos is the message of God. Paul said He was the image of the invisible God. Does that mean that Paul too was "hell-inized?"

The Logos defines God and is God. If you have seen the Logos, you have seen God. You want to know God, you must firstly know the Logos.

Regardless of its historical Greek usage, it was the best word John could find, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in Koine Greek.

I agree. I don't see where that differs significantly with what I have said regarding the Logos.

Paul's comfortable cosmopolitanism in the Hellenized Roman society, his anti-law stance, his variance with the so-called "Judaizers" and his mission to the pagans are evidence that he was a Hellenized Jew. What's wrong with that?

[awareness]

Look, since the local church I don't hook my wagon to anyone. I don't take anybody's personality as my own.

But I still feel to come to Dr. Bart Ehrman's defense. Ehrman is a Bible thumpers Bible thumper. He knows his Bible better than prolly 99.9% of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. He obsessed with getting to the actual words of God, by getting as close to the autographs as possible. He's considered the top scholar on the New Testament, the Greek manuscripts, and early Christianity. He writes text books for top seminaries like Yale. He's highly respected by other New Testament scholars, and hangs with them. He's smart, an expert in his field, and someone we should prolly listen to.

And it wasn't because of his studies of the New Testament and early Christianity that made him an agnostic.

He became an agnostic because of the problem of suffering and evil. He's unable to add up why an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, God can allow suffering of innocent people. That is, if God is all knowing and all loving He must not be powerful enough to do something about it. Or if He is omnipotent and omniscient He must not be all loving. Or maybe He's not omniscient, and knows nothing about it. It just doesn't add up. God can too make a rock too heavy for Him to pick up (inside joke to bro Ohio).

Therefore Bart is honest. He can't honestly say if God exists or doesn't exist. He didn't have to be honest. He could have just remained a historical/textual scholar, and a Baptist preacher, and never admitted it.

That's what most preachers do, or preachers that go to any of the seminaries in Europe and America. They all learn what Bart is teaching about the Bible, the manuscripts, and early Christianity. Yet they don't teach it in their churches. They want and seek to leave us as dumb as a box of rocks.

And the reason Bart is catching so much flack is not because he knows the Bible inside out, and the Greek manuscripts inside out, and all the early sources and writings of early Christianity inside and out, which he does, it's because he's so gifted at bringing it to the masses, at bringing it to the laity.

And just by his gift of the reaching of us ordinary people, with teachings all about all the variants in the Greek manuscripts, he's stirring up a real fecal storm, with those that hold to the Bible being inerrant ; who find it real convenient to use the fact that he (Bart) admits to being agnostic. It makes it easy to shoot the messenger.

But facts are stubborn things. And cuz of the internet they have become as persistent as a pitchman. They are as inevitable and unavoidable as suffering and evil. And yes, all us ex-LCers know that, it hurts deeply when we discover we've been wrong. And Bart is a big owie.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Look, since the local church I don't hook my wagon to anyone. I don't take anybody's personality as my own.

But I still feel to come to Dr. Bart Ehrman's defense. Ehrman is a Bible thumpers Bible thumper. He knows his Bible better than prolly 99.9% of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. He obsessed with getting to the actual words of God, by getting as close to the autographs as possible. He's considered the top scholar on the New Testament, the Greek manuscripts, and early Christianity. He writes text books for top seminaries like Yale. He's highly respected by other New Testament scholars, and hangs with them. He's smart, an expert in his field, and someone we should prolly listen to.

And it wasn't because of his studies of the New Testament and early Christianity that made him an agnostic.

He became an agnostic because of the problem of suffering and evil. He's unable to add up why an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, God can allow suffering of innocent people. That is, if God is all knowing and all loving He must not be powerful enough to do something about it. Or if He is omnipotent and omniscient He must not be all loving. Or maybe He's not omniscient, and knows nothing about it. It just doesn't add up. God can too make a rock too heavy for Him to pick up (inside joke to bro Ohio).

Therefore Bart is honest. He can't honestly say if God exists or doesn't exist. He didn't have to be honest. He could have just remained a historical/textual scholar, and a Baptist preacher, and never admitted it.

That's what most preachers do, or preachers that go to any of the seminaries in Europe and America. They all learn what Bart is teaching about the Bible, the manuscripts, and early Christianity. Yet they don't teach it in their churches. They want and seek to leave us as dumb as a box of rocks.

And the reason Bart is catching so much flack is not because he knows the Bible inside out, and the Greek manuscripts inside out, and all the early sources and writings of early Christianity inside and out, which he does, it's because he's so gifted at bringing it to the masses, at bringing it to the laity.

And just by his gift of the reaching of us ordinary people, with teachings all about all the variants in the Greek manuscripts, he's stirring up a real fecal storm, with those that hold to the Bible being inerrant ; who find it real convenient to use the fact that he (Bart) admits to being agnostic. It makes it easy to shoot the messenger.

But facts are stubborn things. And cuz of the internet they have become as persistent as a pitchman. They are as inevitable and unavoidable as suffering and evil. And yes, all us ex-LCers know that, it hurts deeply when we discover we've been wrong. And Bart is a big owie.

Well written Brother awareness. I just want to add a few comments which will hopefully bolster your point about the integrity of Ehrman. One of his latest books (2012), Did Jesus Exist? is catching flack from atheists and agnostics who have been in an uproar about this book and they have written books and articles in response to this book (see 80+ mythicist’s responses to B. Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist?) Why? Because he sets out to prove that Jesus did in fact exist and lived on this earth. As an example, Ehrman writes, “One of the most widely asserted claims found in the mythicist’s literature is that Jesus was an invention of the early Christians who had been deeply influenced by the dying-rising god, as found throughout the pagan religions of antiquity….” Ehrman points out that there are two major problems with this viewpoint: “First, there are serious doubts about whether there were in fact dying-rising gods in the pagan world, and if there were, whether they were anything like the dying-rising Jesus. Second, there is the even more serious problem that Jesus could not have been invented as a dying-rising god because his earliest followers did not think he was God.” The mythicists can't ignore this book or discount it because of Ehrman's integrity.

As a NT scholar Ehrman goes where the facts take him whether or not they are popular. Why are prominent fundamental Christian scholars willing to debate him (as can be seen on youtube---just google “Ehrman debates”) even though they disagree with him on some issues. Prominent NT scholar from Dallas Theological Seminary Daniel Wallace (also head of the “Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts” http://www.csntm.org/) has debated Ehrman several times and disagrees with Ehrman on some his conclusions, but has stated, “Bart … has worked diligently to recover the wording of the originals (NT), …All who work in New Testament textual criticism owe him a debt of gratitude for his incredible efforts over the span of three decades in this regard”. Wallace calls one of Ehrman’s scholarly works, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture “ground-breaking”. Wallace also stated, “I would agree with Ehrman that… we really don’t have any way to know for sure” who wrote most of the books of the NT or what they actually say. Of course, Wallace disagrees with a couple of Ehrman’s conclusions in this regard but Wallace is not the only conservative NT scholar to agree with Ehrman’s NT scholarly work and the statement that we really don’t know who wrote most of the books of the NT or what they actually say.

In regards to Ehrman’s best friend who heads up Yale’s religious department, Professor Dale Martin (http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152) and his wife, who both attend the Episcopal church I don’t think they will be preaching the fundamentalist line to him.

Responsibly dismissing Ehrman’s discussion about NT scriptures is not even being done by his scholarly colleagues nor should it be done by us lay people even though we might disagree with his positions. The primary reason that there is even this debate about his books is that he is considered a prominent NT scholar. If he wasn’t in that category no one would take him seriously plus he is reaching the masses as awareness has pointed out which has caused some of the most in depth analysis of Christian historical thought in recent years.

You can either listen to what he has to say because he speaking to almost everyone out there, Christian or otherwise, or stick your head in the sand. There is no third option. The problem of making fun of him as some have done on this forum is that maybe some of the people who have left the LC have read some of his books outside of zeek, awareness and myself and realize that in many ways he makes sense and can't be summarily discounted.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Look, since the local church I don't hook my wagon to anyone. I don't take anybody's personality as my own.

But I still feel to come to Dr. Bart Ehrman's defense. Ehrman is a Bible thumpers Bible thumper. He knows his Bible better than prolly 99.9% of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. He obsessed with getting to the actual words of God, by getting as close to the autographs as possible. He's considered the top scholar on the New Testament, the Greek manuscripts, and early Christianity. He writes text books for top seminaries like Yale. He's highly respected by other New Testament scholars, and hangs with them. He's smart, an expert in his field, and someone we should prolly listen to.

And it wasn't because of his studies of the New Testament and early Christianity that made him an agnostic.

He became an agnostic because of the problem of suffering and evil. He's unable to add up why an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, God can allow suffering of innocent people. That is, if God is all knowing and all loving He must not be powerful enough to do something about it. Or if He is omnipotent and omniscient He must not be all loving. Or maybe He's not omniscient, and knows nothing about it. It just doesn't add up. God can too make a rock too heavy for Him to pick up (inside joke to bro Ohio).

Therefore Bart is honest. He can't honestly say if God exists or doesn't exist. He didn't have to be honest. He could have just remained a historical/textual scholar, and a Baptist preacher, and never admitted it.

That's what most preachers do, or preachers that go to any of the seminaries in Europe and America. They all learn what Bart is teaching about the Bible, the manuscripts, and early Christianity. Yet they don't teach it in their churches. They want and seek to leave us as dumb as a box of rocks.

And the reason Bart is catching so much flack is not because he knows the Bible inside out, and the Greek manuscripts inside out, and all the early sources and writings of early Christianity inside and out, which he does, it's because he's so gifted at bringing it to the masses, at bringing it to the laity.

And just by his gift of the reaching of us ordinary people, with teachings all about all the variants in the Greek manuscripts, he's stirring up a real fecal storm, with those that hold to the Bible being inerrant ; who find it real convenient to use the fact that he (Bart) admits to being agnostic. It makes it easy to shoot the messenger.

But facts are stubborn things. And cuz of the internet they have become as persistent as a pitchman. They are as inevitable and unavoidable as suffering and evil. And yes, all us ex-LCers know that, it hurts deeply when we discover we've been wrong. And Bart is a big owie.

Bart is like the scribes and Pharisees, with a healthy dose of Sadducee thrown in. I really don't care how smart he is, though I highly doubt that he know the word as well as you say he does. Without faith, he is nothing, I am nothing, you are nothing, and this world is nothing. God will surely bring all the wisdom of this world to nothing, as He has told us.

Lots of us have trouble understanding God's ways. Pain and suffering among the innocents is at the top of this list. But His ways are vastly different than our own, and who makes the rules here, the Creator or the creature? For ole Bart and the world of agnostic/atheists the answer is simple, "I don't think You even exist, so I can live by the rules I want."

And Bart may be right in the short term. But God had special judgments for those, like the scribes and Pharisees, who knew so much about the law, yet prevented others from entering His kingdom. Some of this was recorded when Jesus said, "Woe to you ..."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

You can either listen to what he has to say because he speaking to almost everyone out there, Christian or otherwise, or stick your head in the sand. There is no third option. The problem of making fun of him as some have done on this forum is that maybe some of the people who have left the LC have read some of his books ...

Whenever someone presents to me two bad options, I can always rest assured that there will be a third option.

Funny how you can mock God on the forum, calling Him a "she," yet you get insulted when I dismiss your hero Bart Errorman. You're starting to sound more and more like a true soldier of Lee's Recovery.

[zeek]

It seems the Christian thing to do is to admit that the virgin birth is objectively ridiculous and yet simultaneously declare it yours because you have accepted the Bible as your book and the Incarnation as the central saving fact of your own life. If we could do that, wouldn't we open the possibility of participating in the Savior's glory by participating in his shame? Or are such considerations merely "outmoded Christian values"?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Whenever someone presents to me two bad options, I can always rest assured that there will be a third option.

Funny how you can mock God on the forum, calling Him a "she," yet you get insulted when I dismiss your hero Bart Errorman. You're starting to sound more and more like a true soldier of Lee's Recovery.

That is an interesting perspective. That is--I am on this forum as a solder of Lee's recovery and I am probably trying to break the faith of the faithful since they have left the Lord's recovery. Not very realistic but interesting.

In reading your response to awareness regarding Bart Ehrman I realize you and UntoHim have never read anything by him, only things about him. Here is where we differ. I think it was OBW mentioned Josh McDowell and I went and bought his book and read it so I have a realistic picture of what the man said. It was Bearbear who mentioned Philip Comfort and I went and purchased his book so I would have a better understanding what he states. I don't minimize their writings or call these people names nor do I look them up on the internet, trust the internet about people and then discount them. I try to understand the perspective of the people I am speaking with on this forum who are reading these books so I can respond intelligently.

You keep saying that I mock God by calling God a "she". Actually, God does not care either way because if God cared wouldn't God make an issue of it in the OT or the NT. Wouldn't God say something to the effect that if you say that I am a "she" you are mocking me and you will be condemned to eternity? You have no foundation for your statement other than stating that God is called a "he" in the OT. But then again, are you quoting from the Masoretic text or the Septuagint. God is simply God, cannot be defined, at least in the way you present God(i.e. all powerful, all present, all knowing)

I'm not sure you have a third option but no one can know for sure.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

The Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together…” Philo of Alexandria (25 BCE – c. 50 CE)
Sound familiar
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Yes. Let's give credit where credit is due. That's a Christian thing to do, no?

[zeek]

Let's say I go with inerrancy. It's really no problem if I simply admit I have no idea how it works because God hasn't explained anywhere. Then all the apparent discrepancies, historic modifications, etc. become no more or less the phenomena that they appear to be. No problem as long as I admit that I have no idea what their possible relation is to whatever the process is through which God makes his Bible infallible. It is simply a qualitative leap into the absurd. If that's what being a Christian entails then, so be it!

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Let's say I go with inerrancy. It's really no problem if I simply admit I have no idea how it works because God hasn't explained anywhere. Then all the apparent discrepancies, historic modifications, etc. become no more or less the phenomena that they appear to be. No problem as long as I admit that I have no idea what their possible relation is to whatever the process is through which God makes his Bible infallible. It is simply a qualitative leap into the absurd. If that's what being a Christian entails then, so be it!

Inerrancy is a more modern Christian concept anyway so I agree. Back in the day with the Church Fathers they were just trying to decide who believed what and are those beliefs consistent with the books or letters we want to include in the canon.

It's interesting because one of the foremost NT Christian scholars on early Christian devotion, Larry Hurtado, University of Edinburgh, indicates that early devotion to Jesus was binitarian and not trinitarian:The Binitarian Pattern of Earliest Christian Devotion and Early Doctrinal Development

He concludes in this article: "Quite simply, this required some creative theological efforts. With all due recognition that early Christians drew upon resources in Jewish tradition and in the wider cultural environment of the first few centuries, I contend that these early believers also produced ideas about God that involved some genuinely novel features. In particular, their efforts to affirm God’s unity and uniqueness, while also according such a high status to Christ, produced a novel form of exclusivist monotheism. And this remarkable theological development was, at least in part, also an attempt to construct an understanding of God that explained, justified, and measured up to the remarkable pattern of Christian binitarian worship/devotion."

In 2005 Christianity Today records this piece of Church history involving the Catholic, Origen: The great third-century theologian Origen, for example, pressed a bishop named Heraclides to define the relationship of Christ to God the Father. After much careful questioning, Heraclides admitted to believing in two Gods but clarified that "the power is one." Origen reminded Heraclides that some Christians would "take offense at the statement that there are two Gods. We must express the doctrine carefully to show in what sense they are two, and in what sense the two are one God.”

Tertullian (often called "the father of Latin theology"), around 213 A.D. wrote “… if He was God who spoke, and He was also God who created, at this rate, one God spoke and another created; (and thus) two Gods are declared. “

Hippolytus (who, according to The Catholic Encyclopedia "was the most important theologian and the most prolific religious writer of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era") wrote: “These things then, brethren, are declared by the Scriptures. And the blessed John, in the testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account of this economy (disposition) and acknowledges this Word as God, when he says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son.“

We ended up with trinitarian thought much later as we tried to understand which books belonged in the canon. Did we decide on our beliefs first and then put the canon together based on our beliefs or did we put the canon together (there were nearly a hundred+ books considered for the NT canon) and then try to figure out our beliefs? We put a lot of trust in the Roman Catholic Church forefathers for putting together the canon and afterwards the Protestant reformers for modifying it. As we all know the printing press wasn't until the 16th Century so there was a limited number of people controlling Christian thought. It seems like inerrancy is a slippery slope to travel on.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bart is like the scribes and Pharisees, with a healthy dose of Sadducee thrown in.

Oh I don't think Ehrman earns or is worthy of such appellations. He just a man. A scholar tho, of matters that should keenly interest us.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I really don't care how smart he is, though I highly doubt that he know the word as well as you say he does. Without faith, he is nothing ...

Not only is his testimony that he's an agnostic, but it includes that he first approached the Bible, during most of his education, as a born again believing the Bible is inerrant.

So even now that he's approaching the Bible as a historical critic, I think he can also see and understand it as approached thru faith.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Without faith, he is nothing, I am nothing, you are nothing, and this world is nothing.

Faith in what? The bottom has fallen out from under many of what I once put my faith in. Witness Lee is just one example among many. Looking back it seems God has been working hard at pulling the rug out from under everything I've put my faith in other than Him. I've learned I need to be careful with faith. Sometimes faith can cause us to see things that aren't there. Or to not see things that are there. That's why we should only place our faith on God ... where it belongs.

Originally Posted by Ohio

God will surely bring all the wisdom of this world to nothing, as He has told us.

I hope so.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lots of us have trouble understanding God's ways. Pain and suffering among the innocents is at the top of this list. But His ways are vastly different than our own, and who makes the rules here, the Creator or the creature?

It's the creators' rules that call the problem of suffering into question. Why would a loving creator allow His creatures to suffer? And don't play the free will card as an answer. I assume there's free will in heaven, where there's no sufferings.

Originally Posted by Ohiho

For ole Bart and the world of agnostic/atheists the answer is simple, "I don't think You even exist, so I can live by the rules I want."

Hey, nothing keeps a person that believes God exists from playing by their own rules either.

Originally Posted by Ohio

And Bart may be right in the short term. But God had special judgments for those, like the scribes and Pharisees, who knew so much about the law, yet prevented others from entering His kingdom. Some of this was recorded when Jesus said, "Woe to you ..."

Let's hope and pray that Bart is spared those woes. Let's hope in OSAS.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

So even now that he's approaching the Bible as a historical critic, I think he can also see and understand it as approached thru faith.

That is an important point because viewing the Bible as inerrrant is powerful. It is this revelatory realization that you are holding God's Word in your hands. It is powerful and it gives you its own life and sustainability. Why are the Mormon's so strong or the Jehovah Witness so strong? Because they believe that what they are holding whether it is the Book of Mormon or the New World Translation is the divinely spoken or translated word of God. It is a powerful thing and it is impossible to argue against. That is why those who remain in the LC are so strong...they believe that the writings of WL/WN are divinely given and the NT translation of WL was divinely given etc.

It's the power of believing in this realization that within your hands you have the absolute words of the living God which brings its own sense of uniqueness. I remember having that feeling when I was in the LC, listening to the Oracle or reading his messages or pray-reading. It is a powerful sense, even a sense of freedom that, lucky you, you have found the absolute word of God and only you and your unique band of Christians have this revelation. You can go to church praise God with excitement until the preacher points out some scripture that you haven't been following and then you feel guilty and promise to do better.

In any case, Ehrman had that experience and that is why he went to Moody Bible Institute where they are so strong on believing the Bible. Ehrman knows and understands the Christian point of view from his historical experiential perspective. He is not like a lot of people trying to undermine the Bible without that revelatory experience. He knows, he understands the impact that this power and the affect it has on people but through his research he determined that it wasn't what he thought it was so he developed another perspective. But you can't discount the power of believing that you are holding the absolute words of God and God can speak to you through this word you are holding in your hands. Yes, it is all faith but it is a powerful feeling and sense of peace as well. When you bring others together who believe the same, the experience just multiplies. Then, it's lucky us...wish other people could have this experience that we are having but it goes back to this belief that what you have in the palms of your hands is the absolute word of God.

[bearbear]

In John 17:3 Jesus says eternal life is to "know God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent".

The "know" here in Greek is ginōskō which means to know through personal experience. It's the same verb used in Luke 1:34 when Mary says she never "knew a man" as a euphemism for stating that she was a virgin. So perhaps ginōskō is used in contexts of not just "knowing about" someone, but to know someone intimately through personal experience.

Jesus also uses ginōskō when he tells those who deemed themselves to be Christians and called Jesus "Lord, Lord", "depart from me I never *knew* you, you workers of lawlessness" (Matthew 7:23).

Eternal life is found not in just knowing facts about Jesus, but coming to Jesus to have eternal life by knowing Jesus personally and intimately through relationship, perhaps only then can we have a faith that truly saves us and endures to the end.

Abraham had this deep relationship with God that resulted in a faith in Him that was so strong that it wasn't conditioned on God giving him his son Isaac in old age, which Abraham famously demonstrated when he laid Isaac on the altar. If our faith is conditioned on certain things, it's possible that God does not consider that faith, faith at all. Satan brought this point to light when he suggested to God that Job only had faith in Him because he was gifted with a good life.

On the other hand, the prophet Balaam had a relationship with God; he even got answers when he prayed to God and knew many facts about how God operated. Yet his relationship with God was never intimate and his heart was never aligned with God.

[bearbear]

Jesus taught there were two types of leaven to watch out for, the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Leaven is dangerous because though the whole batch could be good, even if a little error is introduced, the leaven will permeate and ruin everything. This implies that the Pharisees and Sadducees had a good batch to start with.

Good things the Pharisees had which the NT also affirms:
* belief in the resurrection of the dead
* belief in scriptures and God's promises
* belief in the spiritual world (angels, demons)

Leaven of Pharisees:
* Held oral tradition (Talmud / commentary on scriptures) at higher authority than God's word
* Stressed following extra-biblical rules and regulations outwardly while ignoring relationship with God and weightier matters of Torah (justice, mercy, faithfulness, Matthew 23:23)
* Lovers of money (Luke 16:14)

If you compare the good batch and the leaven of the Pharisees to that of the LCs, it's remarkably similar

LCs are an evangelical Christian faith so they:
* believe in resurrection of dead
* believe in scripture and God's promises
* believe in the spiritual world

Leaven of LCs:
* Life study commentary and other of Lee's writings hold greater authority and esteem over the bible and even Jesus' words and teachings
* Stress building up the LC ministry/Lord's recovery while ignoring justice, mercy, faithfulness and good works such as helping the poor
* Witness Lee showed himself to be a lover of money, LC leaderships show themselves to continue this tradition by charging $150+ for biannual trainings

The point is I don't think fundamentalism is to blame for negative experiences in the LCs and other conservative Christian groups, but it was the leaven that Jesus warned about. It only takes a little leaven to ruin the whole batch. Jesus also believed in inerrancy of scriptures, resurrection of the dead and the supernatural which fundamentalists also believe in, but he led a life without leaven.

This is why we eat unleavened bread during communion and why God gave us the feast of unleavened bread. It pointed to the Messiah being without leaven until his body was broken and he died and was buried.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by bearbear

If you compare the good batch and the leaven of the Pharisees to that of the LCs, it's remarkably similar

LCs are an evangelical Christian faith so they:
* believe in resurrection of dead
* believe in scripture and God's promises
* believe in the spiritual world

Leaven of LCs:
* Life study commentary and other of Lee's writings hold greater authority and esteem over the bible and even Jesus' words and teachings
* Stress building up the LC ministry/Lord's recovery while ignoring justice, mercy, faithfulness and good works such as helping the poor
* Witness Lee showed himself to be a lover of money, LC leaderships show themselves to continue this tradition by charging $150+ for biannual trainings

The point is I don't think fundamentalism is to blame for our horrible experiences in the LCs and other conservative Christian groups, but it was the leaven that Jesus warned about. It only takes a little leaven to ruin the whole batch. Jesus also believed in inerrancy of scriptures, resurrection of the dead and the supernatural which fundamentalists also believe in, but he led a life without leaven.

Great points bearbear.

Too bad they falls on deaf ears here on the alternative forum.

Ironically, there are no "fundamental" Bible thumpers here; they been replaced by "fundamental" agnostic/atheistic thumpers.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

In John 17:3 Jesus says eternal life is to "know God and whom you have sent Jesus Christ".

The "know" here in Greek is ginōskō which means to know through personal experience. It's the same verb used in Luke 1:34 when Mary says she never "knew a man" as a euphemism for stating that she was a virgin. So perhaps ginōskō is used in contexts of not just "knowing about" someone, but to know someone intimately through personal experience.

Jesus also uses ginōskō when he tells those who deemed themselves to be Christians and called Jesus "Lord, Lord", "depart from me I never *knew* you, you workers of lawlessness" (Matthew 7:23).

Eternal life is found not in just knowing facts about Jesus, but coming to Jesus to have eternal life by knowing Jesus personally and intimately through relationship, perhaps only then can we have a faith that truly saves us and endures to the end.

Abraham had this deep relationship with God that resulted in a faith in Him that so strong that it wasn't conditioned on God giving him his son Isaac in old age. If our faith is conditioned on certain things, it's possible that God does not consider that faith, faith at all. Satan brought this point to light when he suggested to God that Job only had faith in God because he was gifted with a good life.

On the other hand, the prophet Balaam had a relationship with God; he even prayed to God and knew many facts about how God operated. Yet his relationship with God was never intimate and his heart was never aligned with God.

This is precisely correct bearbear. The problem with Christian fundamentalism is that it confuses ginōskō which is subjective participative knowledge with the objective kind and therefore holds onto an empirically unsupportable worldview.

The problem with Witness Lee's theology, not the only one but perhaps the critical one as I look back was his totalizing dismissal of the ethical. It is theology of a tyrant. What we who joined him [as opposed to those who were born into it] should ask ourselves is why we missed it and went along with it. Let's call it temptation. He gave us a cookbook spirituality that supposed took us out of the ethical category. He despised Christian ethics. When he turned out to have a crass ethical behavior in his own life that he refused to confess to and acknowledge it should have been no surprise. But, it was because we had closed our eyes in wishful dreaming sleep.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The problem with Witness Lee's theology, not the only one but perhaps the critical one as I look back was his totalizing dismissal of the ethical. It is theology of a tyrant. What we who joined him [as opposed to those who were born into it] should ask ourselves is why we missed it and went along with it. Let's call it temptation. He gave us a cookbook spirituality that supposed took us out of the ethical category. He despised Christian ethics. When he turned out to have a crass ethical behavior in his own life that he refused to confess to and acknowledge it should have been no surprise. But, it was because we had closed our eyes in wishful dreaming sleep.

I don't buy this at all ... not that we are absolved of all responsibility ... but for me personally, it was those in my life who tirelessly promoted Lee who bear all the responsibility to properly inform us who we are following.

In my case and those around me it primarily fell on the shoulders of Titus Chu. He knew better. He knew Phillip Lee, and what he was doing at LSM. He knew WL's history in Taiwan. Obviously for personal gains, he bowed down to Lee and son rather than stand for the truth, and properly oversee / shepherd the saints.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

it was because we had closed our eyes in wishful dreaming sleep.

That pierces me to the heart. I grew up with those closed eyes. And closed eyes continued in the local church.

So I'm familiar with that wishful dreaming sleep. But actually more than familiar. More like bearbears' explanation of "know-ginōskō." It's in me like tea in water. It's my baseline, provided by my mother and the Southern Baptist church. Do I know fundamentalism? Yes! Like ginōskō!

Do I know faith? Of course. I lived it in the local church. I'm living it now.

Do I know what it is to read the Bible thru the eyes of faith? Of course. How could I not?

I know fundamentalism. I know it like a man ginōskōs a woman. It's in me.

So I know the benefits of faith. But I also know the shortcomings of faith. And how it can close eyes to wider or more specific truths.

Surely any that have come out of the local church will agree that it more than seems that faith can be a two edged sword ... cutting for good and bad.

Like a wise man once said: "There's a serpent in every paradise."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't buy this at all ... not that we are absolved of all responsibility ... but for me personally, it was those in my life who tirelessly promoted Lee who bear all the responsibility to properly inform us who we are following.

In my case and those around me it primarily fell on the shoulders of Titus Chu. He knew better. He knew Phillip Lee, and what he was doing at LSM. He knew WL's history in Taiwan. Obviously for personal gains, he bowed down to Lee and son rather than stand for the truth, and properly oversee / shepherd the saints.

Those transgressions didn't happen in a vacuum, but in the context of a voluminous ministry which is open to examination. To support my thesis, I would point to three factors in the corpus of the Nee/Lee preaching 1) Nee's policy of reducing ethics to obedience to authority 2) Lee's claim that Life transcends ethics 3) the absence of ethical teaching in Lee's teaching except for the rare sanction of sexual immorality because it would make the Recovery movement [ yes movement not "move" ] look bad. Lee's ethical philosophy was infantile, superficial and other-directed. And we bought it. What did that make us? Children? There was no need for ethical consideration. In fact we were taught not to think. We had the Spirit and the Body. Following one's conscience was repudiated as the legacy of too individual and fallen Christianity.

[zeek]

Dave said: We ended up with trinitarian thought much later as we tried to understand which books belonged in the canon. Did we decide on our beliefs first and then put the canon together based on our beliefs or did we put the canon together (there were nearly a hundred+ books considered for the NT canon) and then try to figure out our beliefs? We put a lot of trust in the Roman Catholic Church forefathers for putting together the canon and afterwards the Protestant reformers for modifying it. As we all know the printing press wasn't until the 16th Century so there was a limited number of people controlling Christian thought. It seems like inerrancy is a slippery slope to travel on.

Beliefs and canon evolved together. The canon was more or less set, the traditioning process goes on and can be seen in the Bible translations, sermons and religious experiences and theologies of every generation. I don't see it as a problem. After all, the Spirit is still with us, right? But it seems that "inerrancy" is in tension with the view of the Bible as a living book.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Those transgressions didn't happen in a vacuum, but in the context of a voluminous ministry which is open to examination. To support my thesis, I would point to three factors in the corpus of the Nee/Lee preaching 1) Nee's policy of reducing ethics to obedience to authority 2) Lee's claim that Life transcends ethics 3) the absence of ethical teaching in Lee's teaching except for the rare sanction of sexual immorality because it would make the Recovery movement [ yes movement not "move" ] look bad. Lee's ethical philosophy was infantile, superficial and other-directed. And we bought it. What did that make us? Children? There was no need for ethical consideration. In fact we were taught not to think. We had the Spirit and the Body. Following one's conscience was repudiated as the legacy of too individual and fallen Christianity.

I sure hope no one thinks you have to come to the dungeon to say that. It is too true.

But too often there are those among us who fight against the LRC, yet would disagree with your statements. My impression of our moral compass in the LRC was that it would naturally correct itself and we had nothing to do to "get better." Problem is that I cannot find that the Bible supports that theological construct.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Beliefs and canon evolved together. The canon was more or less set, the traditioning process goes on and can be seen in the Bible translations, sermons and religious experiences and theologies of every generation. I don't see it as a problem. After all, the Spirit is still with us, right? But it seems that "inerrancy" is in tension with the view of the Bible as a living book.

Of course, you must know the first part of your paragraph is not accurate. Irenaues in the later part of the 2^nd Century wrote Against the Heresies, Tertullian who is considered to be the most brilliant and wide ranging Christian author of the first three centuries wrote in early 3^rd late 2^nd Prescription of the Heresies which is a brilliant tour de force. There were the Ebionites, the Adoptionists, the Marcionites, the Docetists each with their own twist on the Scriptures. There were the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, James, infancy gospel of Thomas, the Epistles of the Apostles, the Acts of Peter, Paul, Thecla and John, Paul’s third letter to the Corinthians, Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans, the Apocalypse of Peter and Paul and many more. Many of these books were considered to be included at one time or another as well as the Epistle of Barnabas except that it was too anti-Jewish. Revelation was in and out. John appeared to be too gnostic at one point. It wasn’t until the early decades of the 4^th Century when Eusebius put together his famous Ecclesiastical History where we start to see the canon listed.

The Reformation developed a Bible that had different books then the RCC. There was a debate on the Septuagint vs the Masoretic text which goes on today.

As I wrote elsewhere many early Church Fathers believed in binitarianism and the Holy Spirit was not considered to be God. Even at the Council of Nicea they didn’t deal with Trinitarianism since they were too concerned about Arius’ viewpoint on Jesus that he was only a man and not God. The second coming became popular in the late 19^th Century. I like awareness’ statement as to the Bible being living, “then why isn’t it changing”. Is the Bible stagnant? So, I agree with your last statement!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I sure hope no one thinks you have to come to the dungeon to say that. It is too true.

I don't know. I'm glad you see it. But how many others here do? Ironic that the dungeon is the only place where we're allowed to speak freely isn't it?

But too often there are those among us who fight against the LRC, yet would disagree with your statements. My impression of our moral compass in the LRC was that it would naturally correct itself and we had nothing to do to "get better." Problem is that I cannot find that the Bible supports that theological construct.

Right. But we were taught to eat and drink the Bible not to understand it.

[zeek]

Dave said: Of course, you must know the first part of your paragraph is not accurate.

I didn't state or mean to imply that the canon was absolutely set or that it even began to be set before the fourth century so I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Probably my biggest mistake apart from posting here at all was referring to "canon" instead of "canons". But, correct me if I'm wrong, they're all closed aren't they?

I like awareness’ statement as to the Bible being living, “then why isn’t it changing”.

Awareness said that there are more variations among the manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament so I don't know how he can claim the Bible's not changing.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

I didn't state or mean to imply that the canon was absolutely set or that it even began to be set before the fourth century so I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with.

This is what you stated:

Beliefs and canon evolved together. The canon was more or less set...

Okay, I am not sure that "beliefs and canon evolved together" consistently. There is a question mark as to when orthodox beliefs finally took a foothold. There were competing beliefs going on in various parts of Mesopotamia after the break up of the kingdom of Alexander, in Egypt, in Asia Minor prior to Ignatius, and in Rome which finally won out because of its size and influence. The letter of 1 Clement (sent from "the church of God in Rome" to "the church of God in Corinth") provides the impression that most of the letter is intended for the purpose of only increasing Rome's size in order to enhance its importance and forcefulness. This letter also became the precedent for "apostolic succession" in Rome. In any case, Rome succeeded in imposing its will on Corinth. This is but one example showing that Rome eventually crushed the other churches in other areas I mentioned who held any other Christian beliefs by imposing its will due to its size and influence.

It's the same story with WL. He snuffed out the opposition and insisted on his perspective and put together his "orthodoxy".

I just don't think it is as simple as "the canon was more or less set"

Originally Posted by zeek

Awareness said that there are more variations among the manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament so I don't know how he claim it's not changing.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear on this because I was agreeing with you on this point in conjunction with awareness. You both seem to be making the same point. As to my statement "why isn't it changing" was a reference to the fact that now that there is an absolute inerrant Bible there is apparently no more revelation. Jesus appeared to Paul but since that time revelation has been barren...no more appearances to provide any further light.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't buy this at all ... not that we are absolved of all responsibility ... but for me personally, it was those in my life who tirelessly promoted Lee who bear all the responsibility to properly inform us who we are following.

But why were we following him in the first place?

[rayliotta]

And why is there no dialogue between those of us on the forum and the John Ingalls and Stephen Kuang's of the world (etc.)?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

This is what you stated:
Okay, I am not sure that "beliefs and canon evolved together" consistently. There is a question mark as to when orthodox beliefs finally took a foothold. There were competing beliefs going on in various parts of Mesopotamia after the break up of the kingdom of Alexander, in Egypt, in Asia Minor prior to Ignatius, and in Rome which finally won out because of its size and influence. The letter of 1 Clement (sent from "the church of God in Rome" to "the church of God in Corinth") provides the impression that most of the letter is intended for the purpose of only increasing Rome's size in order to enhance its importance and forcefulness. This letter also became the precedent for "apostolic succession" in Rome. In any case, Rome succeeded in imposing its will on Corinth. This is but one example showing that Rome eventually crushed the other churches in other areas I mentioned who held any other Christian beliefs by imposing its will due to its size and influence.

It's the same story with WL. He snuffed out the opposition and insisted on his perspective and put together his "orthodoxy".

I just don't think it is as simple as "the canon was more or less set"

True. I should have said "canons". What I was trying get at was that they are all supposedly closed.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear on this because I was agreeing with you on this point in conjunction with awareness. You both seem to be making the same point. As to my statement "why isn't it changing" was a reference to the fact that now that there is an absolute inerrant Bible there is apparently no more revelation. Jesus appeared to Paul but since that time revelation has been barren...no more appearances to provide any further light.

That seems true from the orthodox and fundamentalist standpoint. Once the canon is closed so is revelation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

But why were we following him in the first place?

The Lord answered my prayer and connected me with the church in cleveland. I was looking for fellowship and friendship in a community of believers. Slowly over time i got redirected to anaheim.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Jesus appeared to Paul but since that time revelation has been barren...no more appearances to provide any further light.

Oh but there were attempts to keep the revelatory visionary nature of Christianity alive and well, in the 2nd century. It was called The New Prophecy. It's founder was Montanus. He believed he was a prophet of God and that the Paraclete spoke through him. He had two female colleagues, Priscilla, and Maximilla, who likewise claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The New Prophecy spread thru-out the Christian world. They made such an impact that 30 yrs after Montanus the fiery and prolific North African author Tertullian became a promoter. And like Jesus and Paul before him, Montanus and his prophetesses claimed their generation was the end times. All based upon their current and fresh revelations.

But like Dave is saying about revelation coming to an end, in the words of the prophetess Maximilla: “After me there will be no more prophecy, but the End.”

Eventually, Montanist teachings came to be regarded as heresy by the orthodox Church. Prolly cuz The New Prophecy was attracting Christian churches from them, and getting the donation coffers.

References from Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism

And:

Ehrman, Bart D. (1999-07-26). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (p. 17). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

That seems true from the orthodox and fundamentalist standpoint. Once the canon is closed so is revelation.

Except to the MOTA ... like Nee & Lee. Isn't The Recovery proof revelation is still alive and well, even while the canon is closed? Am I wrong?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Except to the MOTA ... like Nee & Lee. Isn't The Recovery proof revelation is still alive and well, even while the canon is closed? Am I wrong?

They didn't claim that much. They claimed they were "recovering" what was already there in the closed canon, remember? Now Joseph Smith is another matter.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh but there were attempts to keep the revelatory visionary nature of Christianity alive and well, in the 2nd century. It was called The New Prophecy. It's founder was Montanus. He believed he was a prophet of God and that the Paraclete spoke through him. He had two female colleagues, Priscilla, and Maximilla, who likewise claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The New Prophecy spread thru-out the Christian world. They made such an impact that 30 yrs after Montanus the fiery and prolific North African author Tertullian became a promoter. And like Jesus and Paul before him, Montanus and his prophetesses claimed their generation was the end times. All based upon their current and fresh revelations.

But like Dave is saying about revelation coming to an end, in the words of the prophetess Maximilla: “After me there will be no more prophecy, but the End.”

Revelation 22:7,12, 20 Part of the fundamentalist belief is the soon return of Christ. In fact, Jesus says in Revelation 22, v20, “…I am coming soon”. The word soon in Greek is tachus (transliteration). It means quick, swift, speedy, prompt etc. In verse 7 Jesus says, “See, I am coming soon”. Same word, tachus. In verse 12, same thing, “See, I am coming soon…” same word, tachus.

If you are a fundamentalist you justify the verses because it never happened. Soon meant soon no matter how you cut it. It didn’t mean 2000 years later. His return was predicted in earlier verses in the gospels and Acts and Jesus would say that you will not know the day or the hour. He was specific---you will not know the day or hour. He did not say you will not know the week, month, year, decade, millennium etc. You will not know the day or the hour but it is soon. Matt: 25:13, Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour. Luke 12:39;Matt. 24:44 “Any you, be prepared, because you do not know the hour when the Son of Man is coming.”
Strong’s Concordance
tachus: quick, swift
Original Word: ταχύς, εῖα, ύ
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: tachus
Phonetic Spelling: (takh-oos')
Short Definition: quick, swift
Definition: quick, swift, speedy, ready, prompt.
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon: tachus=quick, fleet, speedy

By the time of Montanus there was probably already some anxiety. Jesus said he was going to set up a kingdom during his generation but it never happened. John writes that Jesus said, "soon" and it had been decades and nada. Of course there will be prophets coming out of the wood work and btw---they are still coming. It has been milliniums and still nada. In addition, if you compare John 22:10 (do not seal up this book) with 22:18 (if any one adds to them i.e. words of this book) you wonder if continuous revelation is open or closed.

The Bible is still a valuable book to use for morals and ethics as well as historical importance. It seems that was Jesus' message and that value is sufficient. Part of the problem even if your a Christian with some doubts (I am sure everyone has some) is that Christians have a social community within their church, their kids might be believers (e.g. my daughter) and it makes Christmas and other holidays all that more enjoyable when everyone sits around the Christmas tree reading Bible verses (which I would have no problem doing anyway) so it is understandable why it is so difficult to get beyond these hurdles.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

They didn't claim that much. They claimed they were "recovering" what was already there in the closed canon, remember? Now Joseph Smith is another matter.

But Zeek, and all other dungeonees,

If the Holy Spirit isn't moving what's the point in holding onto doctrine and dogma? What's the point in The Five Fundamentals? What's the point in the canon? Aren't we then just holding to something dead?

Which came first? The church or the canon? Revelation came first. The moving of the Holy Spirit came first. Then came the church and the canon.

I'm like Hosepipe back in the days of the C. in Ft. Lauderdale, who left and said: "If the Holy Spirit ain't there neither am I" (or something like that). I really enjoyed the days when the meetings where alive with the moving of the Holy Spirit.

Oh how I enjoyed those illusions of my youthful days in the local church. In fact, one of the things that really stumbled me in the local church, was when I discovered that the lead elder in the C. in Ft. Lauderdale, Mel Porter, was using 14 brothers to seed the meetings; to direct the meetings the way Mel wanted them to go; which always went something like: "Yea Witness Lee! Witness Lee is the greatest thing since sliced bread!" : fist pumpin' ... neck veins poppin'. What a letdown! Then I saw that the Spirit wasn't controlling the meetings, Mel was. But I'm like you bro Zeek, I hung in there still ... even after it all went dead for me. If the Holy Spirit isn't moving then what's the point? The was the beginning of the end for me, in the local church. No Spirit and I'm not interested.

My point stands. Christianity started with the moving of the Holy Spirit; with the revelation of Jesus Christ. And it's still true today. Either God is doing it or what's the point? If God isn't moving then the canon, The Five Fundamentals, and all produced from them, is just a institution, a cold godless corporation ... dead as a door nail.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Revelation 22:7,12, 20 Part of the fundamentalist belief is the soon return of Christ. In fact, Jesus says in Revelation 22, v20, “…I am coming soon”. The word soon in Greek is tachus (transliteration). It means quick, swift, speedy, prompt etc. In verse 7 Jesus says, “See, I am coming soon”. Same word, tachus. In verse 12, same thing, “See, I am coming soon…” same word, tachus.

If you are a fundamentalist you justify the verses because it never happened. Soon meant soon no matter how you cut it. It didn’t mean 2000 years later. His return was predicted in earlier verses in the gospels and Acts and Jesus would say that you will not know the day or the hour. He was specific---you will not know the day or hour. He did not say you will not know the week, month, year, decade, millennium etc. You will not know the day or the hour but it is soon. Matt: 25:13, Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour. Luke 12:39;Matt. 24:44 “Any you, be prepared, because you do not know the hour when the Son of Man is coming.”
Strong’s Concordance
tachus: quick, swift
Original Word: ταχύς, εῖα, ύ
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: tachus
Phonetic Spelling: (takh-oos')
Short Definition: quick, swift
Definition: quick, swift, speedy, ready, prompt.
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon: tachus=quick, fleet, speedy

By the time of Montanus there was probably already some anxiety. Jesus said he was going to set up a kingdom during his generation but it never happened. John writes that Jesus said, "soon" and it had been decades and nada. Of course there will be prophets coming out of the wood work and btw---they are still coming. It has been milliniums and still nada. In addition, if you compare John 22:10 (do not seal up this book) with 22:18 (if any one adds to them i.e. words of this book) you wonder if continuous revelation is open or closed.

The Bible is still a valuable book to use for morals and ethics as well as historical importance. It seems that was Jesus' message and that value is sufficient. Part of the problem even if your a Christian with some doubts (I am sure everyone has some) is that Christians have a social community within their church, their kids might be believers (e.g. my daughter) and it makes Christmas and other holidays all that more enjoyable when everyone sits around the Christmas tree reading Bible verses (which I would have no problem doing anyway) so it is understandable why it is so difficult to get beyond these hurdles.

And that's why the "soon fever" continues in every generation ... and lives on today. I can't count all the Christians that are telling me we're living in the last days. Soon is like tomorrow. It never gets here. But we keep hoping in it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Then I saw that the Spirit wasn't controlling the meetings, Mel was.

It would be fairly safe to agree that Mel controlling the meetings in CiFL was just his little power play.

But that doesn't mean that meetings where I can do whatever moves me and however it moves me is a better attempt at the Holy Spirit controlling the meetings. Sometimes a meeting is best when ordered by some who have a goal for the purpose of the meeting. When they have poured over the word and prayed. When they have considered before God where the meeting is going and at least partly how it will get there.

In the same way, sometimes prayers spoken before the congregation are most meaningful when they have been crafted in a similar manner and are not just whatever flows off the top of the head, peppered with snippets from pet verses that stir up the soul. (not that stirring up of the soul is a bad thing)

In short, I have no desire for meetings in which there is no control. Those are the ones that turn into chaos. They may stir up the emotions, but that is not necessarily anything of the Spirit.

But in saying that, I think that I like the control of people who are of higher stature and less authoritarian. Mel sure seems to fail.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

And that's why the "soon fever" continues in every generation ... and lives on today. I can't count all the Christians that are telling me we're living in the last days. Soon is like tomorrow. It never gets here. But we keep hoping in it.

I do not have any desire to get into the discussion of "soon" in this context. I am content that the Word does promise a return. And an end to the open evil of this age.

But my personal take on "soon" is that I need to live like "soon" is real as I live as if "soon" will still be "yet to come" when my grandchildren are my age. I don't intend to characterize it as a ruse to keep us in line as we wait for something that will not really happen during our life. That is not what I mean. I mean that I need to live daily as if it is the last, yet the life I live be consistent with someone living the life of Christ as if that is all I will ever know after living to a ripe old age. (Just wish I was actually doing that more often.) Neither negligent today because I think it is a long way out there, nor negligent because I think that life will not go on beyond today.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

That pierces me to the heart. I grew up with those closed eyes. And closed eyes continued in the local church.

So I'm familiar with that wishful dreaming sleep. But actually more than familiar. More like bearbears' explanation of "know-ginōskō." It's in me like tea in water. It's my baseline, provided by my mother and the Southern Baptist church. Do I know fundamentalism? Yes! Like ginōskō!

Do I know faith? Of course. I lived it in the local church. I'm living it now.

Do I know what it is to read the Bible thru the eyes of faith? Of course. How could I not?

I know fundamentalism. I know it like a man ginōskōs a woman. It's in me.

So I know the benefits of faith. But I also know the shortcomings of faith. And how it can close eyes to wider or more specific truths.

Surely any that have come out of the local church will agree that it more than seems that faith can be a two edged sword ... cutting for good and bad.

Like a wise man once said: "There's a serpent in every paradise."

We're using the same term; but, I don't think we are talking about the same concept. To me ginōskōs implies participation. The lover participates in the beloved, a symbol participates in what it symbolizes, a Christian participates in Christ by faith. Fundamentalism confuses objective knowledge with this kind of knowledge which ain't the same thing. [Uncerebral enough for ya?]

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

But Zeek, and all other dungeonees,

If the Holy Spirit isn't moving what's the point in holding onto doctrine and dogma? What's the point in The Five Fundamentals? What's the point in the canon? Aren't we then just holding to something dead?

Which came first? The church or the canon? Revelation came first. The moving of the Holy Spirit came first. Then came the church and the canon.

I'm like Hosepipe back in the days of the C. in Ft. Lauderdale, who left and said: "If the Holy Spirit ain't there neither am I" (or something like that). I really enjoyed the days when the meetings where alive with the moving of the Holy Spirit.

Oh how I enjoyed those illusions of my youthful days in the local church. In fact, one of the things that really stumbled me in the local church, was when I discovered that the lead elder in the C. in Ft. Lauderdale, Mel Porter, was using 14 brothers to seed the meetings; to direct the meetings the way Mel wanted them to go; which always went something like: "Yea Witness Lee! Witness Lee is the greatest thing since sliced bread!" : fist pumpin' ... neck veins poppin'. What a letdown! Then I saw that the Spirit wasn't controlling the meetings, Mel was. But I'm like you bro Zeek, I hung in there still ... even after it all went dead for me. If the Holy Spirit isn't moving then what's the point? The was the beginning of the end for me, in the local church. No Spirit and I'm not interested.

My point stands. Christianity started with the moving of the Holy Spirit; with the revelation of Jesus Christ. And it's still true today. Either God is doing it or what's the point? If God isn't moving then the canon, The Five Fundamentals, and all produced from them, is just a institution, a cold godless corporation ... dead as a door nail.

There is a difference between original and dependent revelations. An original revelation is a revelation which occurs in a matrix that did not exist before. The giving on God's side and receiving on the human side are joined for the first time. Both sides are original. In a dependent revelation the giving on God's side and its original reception together form the giving side, while the receiving side changes as new individuals and groups enter into participation in the original revelation. Jesus can't be the Christ, unless he is received as such. Peter received him as such in an original revelatory experience. The following generations met the Jesus through the original revelation of Peter and the other apostles as eventually written into the New Testament canon. Thus, there is continuous revelation in the history of the church, but it is dependent revelation. The Spirit of Truth must be alive and well and involved in both kinds of revelation.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not have any desire to get into the discussion of "soon" in this context. I am content that the Word does promise a return. And an end to the open evil of this age.

But my personal take on "soon" is that I need to live like "soon" is real as I live as if "soon" will still be "yet to come" when my grandchildren are my age. I don't intend to characterize it as a ruse to keep us in line as we wait for something that will not really happen during our life. That is not what I mean. I mean that I need to live daily as if it is the last, yet the life I live be consistent with someone living the life of Christ as if that is all I will ever know after living to a ripe old age. (Just wish I was actually doing that more often.) Neither negligent today because I think it is a long way out there, nor negligent because I think that life will not go on beyond today.

That is the traditional approach that all good Christians are told to follow and what choice do you have any way but wait? However, what if you concluded that Christ is not returning for whatever reason. Would you really live your life differently? That is the question for all the fundamental beliefs from my perspective. Once you get away from the two fundamental beliefs, "Love God" and "love one another" you have the potential to go off into many directions just as many of us were caught up in the LC. For me, all the "fundamental beliefs" are distractions and debatable except the two fundamental beliefs.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

There is a difference between original and dependent revelations. An original revelation is a revelation which occurs in a matrix that did not exist before. The giving on God's side and receiving on the human side are joined for the first time. Both sides are original. In a dependent revelation the giving on God's side and its original reception together form the giving side, while the receiving side changes as new individuals and groups enter into participation in the original revelation. Jesus can't be the Christ, unless he is received as such. Peter received him as such in an original revelatory experience. The following generations met the Jesus through the original revelation of Peter and the other apostles as eventually written into the New Testament canon. Thus, there is continuous revelation in the history of the church, but it is dependent revelation. The Spirit of Truth must be alive and well and involved in both kinds of revelation.

As I read your analysis I couldn't help but reflect on the same or similar terminology used by Paul Tillich. Interestingly enough James Luther Adams (JLA) met Tillich in Germany, translated Tillich's works into English, was involved in Tillich coming to the US and wrote the book, Paul Tillich Philosophy of Culture, Science and Religion which is a part of my library. You have a somewhat novel but useful way of presenting his concepts. Since Tilich indicated that "... revelation (whether original or dependent) is not an element of the structure of systematic theology per se, but an event" I think you have essentially presented it in the form that it was intended.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

That is the traditional approach that all good Christians are told to follow and what choice do you have any way but wait? However, what if you concluded that Christ is not returning for whatever reason. Would you really live your life differently? That is the question for all the fundamental beliefs from my perspective. Once you get away from the two fundamental beliefs, "Love God" and "love one another" you have the potential to go off into many directions just as many of us were caught up in the LC. For me, all the "fundamental beliefs" are distractions and debatable except the two fundamental beliefs.

I agree that this is generally the position that we have been taught. But I do not live my life with a lot of consideration of it, no matter how you read my post. Instead, I would agree that love God and lover one another is paramount to it all. If you truly follow Christ, that is the thing that motivates you. It is the willingness to be directed by a Lord — something that 21st century Americans just do not like. But that direction is not really difficult — unless we are determined that it is our God-given right to be nasty to heathen, indifferent to our fellow humans, etc.

And, as I have said several times (note necessarily in this thread), the necessities for belief are much less than even the 5 fundamentals. A whole lot less than the much larger list that was generated earlier. That does not make the doctrinal issues totally irrelevant. But they are mostly not relevant to the average believer. It is probably good that I believe in the actual God of the universe, not just some guy who claims to be Jesus. And it is probably important that my living demonstrate that my belief is in Jesus, not just my words.

After that, it is fairly easy to be open to a lot of different opinions about things. Not necessarily believe them. But not have a problem with them.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

As I read your analysis I couldn't help but reflect on the same or similar terminology used by Paul Tillich. Interestingly enough James Luther Adams (JLA) met Tillich in Germany, translated Tillich's works into English, was involved in Tillich coming to the US and wrote the book, Paul Tillich Philosophy of Culture, Science and Religion which is a part of my library. You have a somewhat novel but useful way of presenting his concepts. Since Tilich indicated that "... revelation (whether original or dependent) is not an element of the structure of systematic theology per se, but an event" I think you have essentially presented it in the form that it was intended.

Several years after I left Witness Lee's church I read Tillich extensively including his most popular book,The Courage to Be, Systematic Theology in 4 volumes, and A History of Christian Thought . The terms original and dependent revelations are his. Be that as it may, consider the reasonableness of my analysis' fit with the historical facts. Jesus was rejected as messiah by most of the Jews of Israel and the diaspora. Without a reception as messiah, in what sense can a person be a messiah? However, even if only Peter receives Jesus as messiah, then he at least is messiah to Peter. But, others who knew him received him as messiah as well. And then Paul, one who never knew him in the flesh, receives him as messiah, the Christ, in a new way. So, while the Kingdom doesn't come in full manifestation but it comes as a spiritual/ethical reality to individuals who receive and follow Jesus as the Christ. The parousia is delayed, but Christ's "reign" is spiritual and ethical in nature for individuals who follow him and make up the spiritual community which is his church.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Several years after I left Witness Lee's church I read Tillich extensively including his most popular book,The Courage to Be, Systematic Theology in 4 volumes, and A History of Christian Thought . The terms original and dependent revelations are his. Be that as it may, consider the reasonableness of my analysis' fit with the historical facts. Jesus was rejected as messiah by most of the Jews of Israel and the diaspora. Without a reception as messiah, in what sense can a person be a messiah? However, even if only Peter receives Jesus as messiah, then he at least is messiah to Peter. But, others who knew him received him as messiah as well. And then Paul, one who never knew him in the flesh, receives him as messiah, the Christ, in a new way. So, while the Kingdom doesn't come in full manifestation but it comes as a spiritual/ethical reality to individuals who receive and follow Jesus as the Christ. The parousia is delayed, but Christ's "reign" is spiritual and ethical in nature for individuals who follow him and make up the spiritual community which is his church.

It certainly makes sense. Of course, if Jesus really only intended to set up his kingdom to the Jews who were God's people and Paul was an anomaly how does that fit into the equation? Jesus would be the Messiah to Peter and the other Jews but who would he be to the Gentiles for whom he never intended to include.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

There is a difference between original and dependent revelations. An original revelation is a revelation which occurs in a matrix that did not exist before. The giving on God's side and receiving on the human side are joined for the first time. Both sides are original. In a dependent revelation the giving on God's side and its original reception together form the giving side, while the receiving side changes as new individuals and groups enter into participation in the original revelation. Jesus can't be the Christ, unless he is received as such. Peter received him as such in an original revelatory experience. The following generations met the Jesus through the original revelation of Peter and the other apostles as eventually written into the New Testament canon. Thus, there is continuous revelation in the history of the church, but it is dependent revelation. The Spirit of Truth must be alive and well and involved in both kinds of revelation.

I don't know. Are you talking about firsthand revelation and secondhand revelation? Paul had a firsthand revelation on the road to Damascus, and apparently by evidence in 1 Cor. 7:12, 1 Cor. 7:25, & 2 Cor. 11:17 a continuing revelation animating his writings and speakings. When we take these revelations they are only secondhand to us. Paul's firsthand revelations didn't require faith. That happened to him even while he wasn't believing. Our secondhand taking of Paul's revelation requires faith.

We don't experience the original revelation. We can't. We take it by faith. There actually is no such thing as a secondhand revelation. There can only be an effort to understand and interpret the original revelation.

Never the less, Christianity as it has come to us today came from revelation.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

It certainly makes sense. Of course, if Jesus really only intended to set up his kingdom to the Jews who were God's people and Paul was an anomaly how does that fit into the equation? Jesus would be the Messiah to Peter and the other Jews but who would he be to the Gentiles for whom he never intended to include.

Not until He revealed Himself to Saul/Paul. Then Jesus went after the gentiles. That was by revelation.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know. Are you talking about firsthand revelation and secondhand revelation? Paul had a firsthand revelation on the road to Damascus, and apparently by evidence in 1 Cor. 7:12, 1 Cor. 7:25, & 2 Cor. 11:17 a continuing revelation animating his writings and speakings. When we take these revelations they are only secondhand to us. Paul's firsthand revelations didn't require faith. That happened to him even while he wasn't believing. Our secondhand taking of Paul's revelation requires faith.

You seem to be looking at only at God's side and missing what Paul brought to the experience. If God was the transmitter of the experience then Paul was the receiver. And then there was the historical context. Paul's vision didn't happen in a vacuum. Paul was not a blank slate until his encounter. Paul was a human being with an ordinary human psyche, product of his culture and his time. He was already steeped in the faith of Judaism and educated in the knowledge base of the culture of the empire. He would have had a keen awareness of the religion and politics of his time. He already had an up-close and personal if hostile relationship with Christianity.

Paul already had faith. His experience transformed the content of his faith. Human being that he was he could only interpret his experience in terms of his knowledge, his psychology, his religion, his historical moment. If he had been a different person or living in a different time and place we might not know anything about his experience whatsoever or Paul might have given it a radically different interpretation that didn't include God or Jesus.

We don't experience the original revelation. We can't. We take it by faith. There actually is no such thing as a secondhand revelation. There can only be an effort to understand and interpret the original revelation. Never the less, Christianity as it has come to us today came from revelation.

We don't experience the original revelation because it was already posited before we were born. The Biblical Christian revelation is complete with a beginning, middle and an ending. To be a Christian involves seeing yourself in relationship to it.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Not until He revealed Himself to Saul/Paul. Then Jesus went after the gentiles. That was by revelation.

Paul and the author of Luke and Acts who was Paul's sidekick wrote that history. There were no independent sources quoted outside of those individuals who witnessed Paul's revelation whereas there were several who witnessed Jesus' miracles and so on. Considering the scenario that if Paul was out on his own, as I indicated "an anomaly" how does Paul fit into Tillich's original/dependent revelation theory, if at all? In other words, Jesus only came to the Jews to set up the kingdom. Okay, that didn't happen. Pauil has a "revelation" which carries it on although Jesus never intended to go further than he did. In other words, he never intended to set up Christianity. Paul develops Christianity so how does Paul fit into Tillich's concepts? That was my question.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

It certainly makes sense. Of course, if Jesus really only intended to set up his kingdom to the Jews who were God's people and Paul was an anomaly how does that fit into the equation? Jesus would be the Messiah to Peter and the other Jews but who would he be to the Gentiles for whom he never intended to include.

The New Testament tells how Jesus was rejected by the nation of Israel and God went on to reveal to Peter, Paul and others that they were to receive gentiles in the faith. All this is seen as the fulfillment of Hebrew scriptures. This is the Christian faith. Let's not confuse contingent more or less probable historical facts with eternal truth.

[rayliotta]

While you guys come here and parse out the finer points of doctrine and belief, there are people who are being actively gamed and manipulated by "spiritual" people with far too much time on their hands. (And a lot of them are far more adroit than Mel Porter with his blatant dictates.) Many of those being derailed are young people. I've seen it too many times not to...see it.

There are things going on presently in the Recovery that many of you would simply not believe. I don't think I have to be able to prove anything to say that much. An environment which exercises the kind of info control that they do, makes it well nigh on impossible to ever "prove" anything.

Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

While you guys come here and parse out the finer points of doctrine and belief, there are people who are being actively gamed and manipulated by "spiritual" people with far too much time on their hands. (And a lot of them are far more adroit than Mel Porter with his blatant dictates.) Many of those being derailed are young people. I've seen it too many times not to...see it.

There are things going on presently in the Recovery that many of you would simply not believe. I don't think I have to be able to prove anything to say that much. An environment which exercises the kind of info control that they do, makes it well nigh on impossible to ever "prove" anything.

Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.

That is why we parse out doctrine and belief. I personally don't believe the answer is bringing them out of a "blind belief" LC system and into a "fundamentalist" system that again depends on "blind belief" which is exactly where those in the LC are right now. It is not a smooth transition unless someone has only been in the LC for a very short time and not affected by the intense indoctrination.

Say what you will but the LC is at least comforting for many since all you have to do is follow what they say and you escape the wild west of what is today Christianity or the world for that matter. Blind faith seems to be more reassuring than trying to actually sort things out in a responsible way.

Blind faith is what brought us into the mess of the LC and while I gave it a whirl by getting into Christian churches when I left I found that there is a better way. I ended up looking at how I arrived at the point of my involvement in the LC. The root of it is "fundamentalism" and all of its issues especially in this country. It requires that you accept with "blind faith" certain doctrines and beliefs but it seems to ignore fundamental human faith i.e. the belief in each other without which there is no future.

It is easy for "leaders" such as WL to emerge in Christianity when there is a willing audience to listen who have as their basic "belief"---blind faith. It is the underlying problem driving all of this. Did WL or does the LC respect anyone who does not believe blindly in their "faith"? In China they repress the individual for the betterment of the all and expect "blind faith" in their doctrine. It seems like it spilled over into the LCs. Have we seen this elsewhere in Christian history: Constantine or the Inquisition etc. It emerges throughout history.

The way back starts with a democratic process and respect for each other and not "blind faith". But that is just the start.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

While you guys come here and parse out the finer points of doctrine and belief, there are people who are being actively gamed and manipulated by "spiritual" people with far too much time on their hands. (And a lot of them are far more adroit than Mel Porter with his blatant dictates.) Many of those being derailed are young people. I've seen it too many times not to...see it.

There are things going on presently in the Recovery that many of you would simply not believe. I don't think I have to be able to prove anything to say that much. An environment which exercises the kind of info control that they do, makes it well nigh on impossible to ever "prove" anything.

Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.

Sounds deplorable. I have no direct and few indirect connections to the "Recovery". So, please feel free to elaborate. Also, once you have established what is going on, please let me know what you think I should do about it.

Since I left Lee's church my policy has been to have as little to do with it as possible. On the few occasions that I have run into persons still involved there I relate to them as individuals. I have never worked against Lee's church, unless expressing my own opinions about it can construed as that. But, I'm open to read what you have to say and what you recommend I do about it.

I'm not much interested in participating in other forums on this board where my viewpoint is not welcome and has been censored in the past, so if you want to pursue the matter further, please do it here or start a thread in the Alternative Views.

[zeek]

In contrast to a fundamentalism here is how progressive Christianity describes itself according to http://progressivechristianity.org/the-8-points/

By calling ourselves progressive Christians, we mean we are Christians who…
1. Believe that following the path and teachings of Jesus can lead to an awareness and experience of the Sacred and the Oneness and Unity of all life;
2. Affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom in our spiritual journey;
3. Seek community that is inclusive of ALL people, including but not limited to:
Conventional Christians and questioning skeptics,
Believers and agnostics,
Women and men,
Those of all sexual orientations and gender identities,
Those of all classes and abilities;
4. Know that the way we behave towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe;
5. Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes;
6. Strive for peace and justice among all people;
7. Strive to protect and restore the integrity of our Earth;
8. Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

Sounds deplorable...

I'm not much interested in participating in other forums on this board where my viewpoint is not welcome and has been censored in the past, so if you want to pursue the matter further, please do it here or start a thread in the Alternative Views.

What is deplorable is my friend zeek saying he was censored for his viewpoint. Never happened one time on this forum and never would. Now one may get censored when they make personal attacks on the admins and moderators of any forum, and zeek knows this but just counted on me not seeing this post. Ray, you are more than welcome to dialog with zeek or anyone else on ANY OF THE FORUM BORDS on this forum. Now if you want to get into off base, "Alternative Views" regarding all sorts of anti biblical, anti Christian "progressive" stuff, you are more than welcome to do that here. It's what this forum board is all about!

"and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes"
This is the battle cry of this forum board. NO PROBLEM!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

Blind faith seems to be more reassuring than trying to actually sort things out in a responsible way.

Blind faith is what brought us into the mess of the LC and while I gave it a whirl by getting into Christian churches when I left I found that there is a better way.

It is easy for "leaders" such as WL to emerge in Christianity when there is a willing audience to listen who have as their basic "belief"---blind faith.
The way back starts with a democratic process and respect for each other and not "blind faith". But that is just the start.

Dave, please don't be offended. Got a question for you. What's the difference, in your worldview, between faith and "blind faith"? The reason I ask is that it seems to me that you do not differentiate between the two. ALL faith is blind faith to you, right? Please be clear what you mean by "blind faith". I suspect what you mean by blind faith is faith in the teachings of the New Testament, but hey, I've been wrong before!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Now one may get censored when they make personal attacks on the admins and moderators of any forum, and zeek knows this but just counted on me not seeing this post.

I thought I clearly stated that I was censored on other forums on this site which is why I'm not inclined to post there. Why would I "count on" you not seeing my post? I didn't think the truth would bother you.

Now if you want to get into off base, "Alternative Views" regarding all sorts of anti biblical, anti Christian "progressive" stuff, you are more than welcome to do that here.

That's an unsupported opinion. I get that you disagree with the post, but you haven't said why. What's anti-biblical or anti Christian about the progressive position? Can you back your opinions up? I notice that you do not enter into a discussion comparing and contrasting your view with the progressive one to show how yours is superior. Rather you stand in judgment of it and not only me but others here for bringing this kind of information to the forum. This seems to be characteristic of an exclusivism in contrast with the progressive Christianity more inclusive spirit. Anyway, thanks for the welcome.

"and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes"
This is the battle cry of this forum board. NO PROBLEM!

That seems preferable to Witness Lee's church where Lee's word was absolute and questions were forbidden. In rejecting the value of questioning you stand in solidarity with Witness Lee for whom every question represented Satan as symbolized by the serpentine question mark [?].

[awareness]

Yeah bro Zeek, stop confusing you with me.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

While you guys come here and parse out the finer points of doctrine and belief, there are people who are being actively gamed and manipulated by "spiritual" people with far too much time on their hands.

This is true. But how do we stop it? And do we always want to?

My long time friend (Hosepipe on these forums) has a son (MannaMan on the old Bereans site) that grew up in the local church. A couple of years ago on the old Berean forum he was still speaking fondly of growing up in the LC. But he couldn't be in it. Instead he put his trust in Pastor Bob Coy of Calvary Chapel in Ft. Lauderdale (grew to 20,000).

But last April it was discovered -- and eventually admitted -- that Pastor Bob was having too much "fellowship" with the young sisters. It also came out that the same was going on with some of the 200 preachers he had working below him, with even boys. Pastor Bob was one of those "spiritually adroit" authority figures you speak of, with two hundred spiritually adroit helpers. No one was allowed to question them.

MannaMan is now fishing on weekends. And he's no longer a gung ho preacher for Jesus, that he was famous for on the old Berean site.

Hosepipe and I tried to warn him, many years ago, about Bob Coy. We were acquainted with Bob way back when he was still wet behind the ears. It did no good. MannaMan had to learn it on his own.

Like all of us ... don't put your trust in a man (men).

Originally Posted by Ray

There are things going on presently in the Recovery that many of you would simply not believe.

Oh do tell! Pleeeeease! And do you think it's fixable?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes"
This is the battle cry of this forum board. NO PROBLEM!

The proving of your faith is much more precious than gold which perishes.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Dave, please don't be offended. Got a question for you. What's the difference, in your worldview, between faith and "blind faith"? The reason I ask is that it seems to me that you do not differentiate between the two. ALL faith is blind faith to you, right? Please be clear what you mean by "blind faith". I suspect what you mean by blind faith is faith in the teachings of the New Testament, but hey, I've been wrong before!

I am not easily offended so don't worry. That one post where I was questioning your presentation of "repent" "believe" etc was only because I didn't think it was productive but you were right, it was on the "fundamentalism" thread so I look at it differently now. So you can make your presentation in that way as much as you wish. In any case, back to your question about blind faith vs faith.

Blind faith is superstition and faith has evidence backing it up. Faith=I expect my wife home at 5 because she always comes home at 5. Blind faith---she has no history of coming home at any time and I expect her home at 5.

Lord’s return – expected within the 1^st century, 2^nd, 3^rd. 4^th 5^th….19^th 20^th 21^st …essentially you have nothing to base this on, thus, it moves from faith to blind faith…nothing substantiates it other than some people said it in the 1^st century but at that time they had some expectations because there were things going on such as all kinds of miracles, Paul blinded by the light of Jesus, the HS pouring out on Pentecost in Acts, the conversion of large numbers of people spreading Christianity throughout Asia Minor etc plus the most important was the close time frame of Jesus’ life, crucifixion and resurrection which apparently was witnessed by many people. People now are just making up stuff about the Lord’s return whether it was Miller in the 19^th Century or Hal Lindsey in the 20^th Century (btw—if you want the latest predictions Hal has a website hallindsey.com). Faith has some sense of certainty where blind faith has little to no basis. I know you will say, “ye of little faith”. I’ll take that without a problem but it should be “ye of little blind faith”.

People are always looking for a purpose and a mission in life and it is simple if you just have faith in Jesus and all that means. You find meaning, community and everything that entails and it is not easy questioning that meaning and stepping outside of that box and asking, does this really have meaning to me and if it does, what is its value to my life? I answered and felt that there was some value but not the entire line and sinker because some stuff is just not making any sense at all and I don’t need some of that stuff in my life to live a fulfilling life. I attend church every Sunday but it is in an environment that I agree with which in my opinion is more consistent with the values of the Bible without all the hoops I have to jump through and stuff that I have to believe that does nothing for me nor makes any sense.

You seem to have answered that question differently and that is fine. I honestly don’t understand how you make sense of most of it except blind faith and just ignore some facts but we are all probably guilty of that looking at others from our own perspectives. However, Christians know that this is not the Christianity that Jesus signed up for and they keep trying to revive the early church but it ends up creating another division just like Nee and Lee. And so it goes.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

(btw—if you want the latest predictions Hal has a website hallindsey.com).

Shame, shame, shame, on Hal Lindsey. While Hal should have been stoned as a false prophet, he's still selling "soon" to gullible Christians. He's basically a used Jesus salesman; a grifter selling "soon"-Jesus-snake-oil.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

Sounds deplorable. I have no direct and few indirect connections to the "Recovery". So, please feel free to elaborate. Also, once you have established what is going on, please let me know what you think I should do about it.

Since I left Lee's church my policy has been to have as little to do with it as possible. On the few occasions that I have run into persons still involved there I relate to them as individuals. I have never worked against Lee's church, unless expressing my own opinions about it can construed as that. But, I'm open to read what you have to say and what you recommend I do about it.

I'm not much interested in participating in other forums on this board where my viewpoint is not welcome and has been censored in the past, so if you want to pursue the matter further, please do it here or start a thread in the Alternative Views.

Hard to know how to respond. Hard to tell the tone of this post. Not sure how I could know what anyone could "do about it." I'm lucky to have seen through enough, myself, to have left it behind.

The only thing I can see that could be "done about it" would be for enough people still inside the movement to start posting specifics. The power in these antics and manipulations comes largely from the lack of information flow. It also comes from the tendency for those who need the information the most to be "cut off from the herd." (Happens all the time. Friend of mine went off the deep end into schizo-land. I don't say that lightly. I know the dude, and I know some of the antics he was at the receiving end of. How do I know? Because I got some of the same antics from the same Anaheim/Austin-loyal wise guys.)

In any event. We all know enough history. How many people have had similar conversations regarding priestly abuse in the Roman Catholic Church? Ongoing abuse situations in other close-knit organizations. Etc. Etc. Etc. How is anyone supposed to know what to do...

[rayliotta]

(P.S. I have to say that I'm now glad this part of the forum is password-protected. I wouldn't have posted even that much on the open forum.)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

(P.S. I have to say that I'm now glad this part of the forum is password-protected. I wouldn't have posted even that much on the open forum.)

What are you afraid of? To me it seems like it would be better if this forum were out in the open where people who were or are related to Lee's church can read a variety of alternate views in the freedom to make up their own mind.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

What are you afraid of? To me it seems like it would be better if this forum were out in the open where people who were or are related to Lee's church can read a variety of alternate views in the freedom to make up their own mind.

I think possibly what bro Ray meant was that he didn't want to call more local church heat down on him by speaking openly to the general public ... and feels free cuz this section passwords them out; them being those that might come down on Ray.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think possibly what bro Ray meant was that he didn't want to call more local church heat down on him by speaking openly to the general public ... and feels free cuz this section passwords them out; them being those that might come down on Ray.

I thought that's what he meant. How can the Leecal church come down on him?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I thought that's what he meant. How can the Leecal church come down on him?

Only he can tell.

Maybe this locked dungeon is a great place for those that don't want their words made public.

Let's get the word out for them to contact UntoHim at localchurchdiscussions@gmail.com

Ha ....

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think possibly what bro Ray meant was that he didn't want to call more local church heat down on him by speaking openly to the general public ... and feels free cuz this section passwords them out; them being those that might come down on Ray.

Well, I suppose that's one way of putting it. In groups like the LRC you learn that it's best not to attract attention. Doesn't mean there's any "coming down on."

Perhaps this forum lends itself best to things that can be said with some certainty. MOTA/Daystar/etc -- there are plenty of discussions to be had.

But in an insular group where a lot of people feel "trapped" or kind of wallow for years...there's plenty of room for nonsense to go on under the surface. Add to the mix full-timers with lots of time on their hands...and you have the perfect storm. But are those topics to explore via electronic communications? I'm not sure.

Notice how many lurkers there are, versus posters? People learn not to talk...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Well, I suppose that's one way of putting it. In groups like the LRC you learn that it's best not to attract attention.

Unless you don't care

Originally Posted by Ray

Doesn't mean there's any "coming down on."

I don't know about you but they sure came down on me ... even after being out of the LC for decades I was called the Antichrist by a LC brother.

Originally Posted by Ray

Perhaps this forum lends itself best to things that can be said with some certainty. MOTA/Daystar/etc -- there are plenty of discussions to be had.

Well here you can let it all hang out. Even speculation is welcomed. Fear not bro.

Originally Posted by Ray

People learn not to talk...

I think that's something we need to work towards to unlearn. It's part of getting free from the LC, and LC thinking. Being able to speak openly and freely is a sign that we've become free from the grip of local church insanity. Like Bob Marley sang, "Only we can free our minds."

[zeek]

I would love to hear what's going on in the Leecal churches today from people who are in it or have close connections to it in a context where we can speak openly without fear of censorship. The problem is, how many people who have those kind of connections to the LC have the password to this dungeon? You, Rayliotta, what kind of connections do you have to the LC today?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

To me it seems like it would be better if this forum were out in the open where people who were or are related to Lee's church can read a variety of alternate views in the freedom to make up their own mind

Oh I wouldn't worry about Local Churchers not being exposed to alternate views, the Internet is full of them! In fact the VAST majority of religious/philosophical Internet sites are extremely anti-orthodox/evangelical Christian. Most consider the Bible as full of myths and stories made up by the early disciples. In most of the free world Local Churchers can delve into this kind of stuff any time they want....they just are going to have to ask for the password if they want to do that here!

I've made it perfectly clear that one of the major functions of this forum is to assist Local Churchers in seeing the Truth of the Gospel and the true character and nature of God as revealed in the Bible. This forum does not lend itself to this major function and it should be painfully obvious to all that it does not and probably never will.

Just drop it zeek and enjoy the playground!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

(P.S. I have to say that I'm now glad this part of the forum is password-protected. I wouldn't have posted even that much on the open forum.)

Yet ANOTHER good reason to have Alternative Views password protected!

Thanks ray!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Oh I wouldn't worry about Local Churchers not being exposed to alternate views, the Internet is full of them!

Like Josh McDowell warned: "The Internet is the greatest threat to Christianity." Witness Lee would have liked the sound of that. But maybe not. Then he wouldn't have had something to attack.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

In fact the VAST majority of religious/philosophical Internet sites are extremely anti-orthodox/evangelical Christian.

Truth, or God, can handle it, surely.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Most consider the Bible as full of myths and stories made up by the early disciples.

Even if it is, it's still packed with deep and meaningful truths for us pitiful creatures.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

In most of the free world Local Churchers can delve into this kind of stuff any time they want....they just are going to have to ask for the password if they want to do that here!

I knew we were outside of the free world ... ... but can outside LCers even see alternative Views?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I've made it perfectly clear that one of the major functions of this forum is to assist Local Churchers in seeing the Truth of the Gospel and the true character and nature of God as revealed in the Bible.

If we can ever find it, and then all agree on it, that is.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Just drop it zeek and enjoy the playground!

And you have value to add, even if you have to watch your p's and q's. You're perchance acting like a caged animal ... with that great mind of yours pacing back and forth ... just lookin' fer a chance to break free. Freebird fly ....

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

I would love to hear what's going on in the Leecal churches today from people who are in it or have close connections to it in a context where we can speak openly without fear of censorship. The problem is, how many people who have those kind of connections to the LC have the password to this dungeon? You, Rayliotta, what kind of connections do you have to the LC today?

I was there but a few years ago. And the internet has allowed me to learn the happenings of a few people I knew (for better or for worse).

And...a few other connections. 'Nuff said?