Why do all intelligent Christians disobey Jesus?

by StoneWall 347 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • tec
    tec

    I hope, too, that you can understand how many of us indeed can become "bogged down" as this matter is potentially of such serious concern.

    I totally understand, and I believe you are completely sincere in your reflections - not being stubborn or choosing what is convenient.

    To point of fact, this whole thread threatens to bog me down with so many conflicting ideas. If those ideas are presented as I think, then they don't bother me any more than they bother StoneWall. When they're presented as 'fact' and everyone else is wrong, then I'm bothered. So I get how that looks to someone who is not a believer, and I think we as Christians are responsible for many people who turn away because we debate so voraciously amongst ourselves - and not always with love.

    But love is the most important thing. These other things can be and are misunderstood, but God is love and mercy. I use that love and mercy to help guide me in life, and I use it while reading scripture.

    Tammy

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    So I get how that looks to someone who is not a believer, and I think we as Christians are responsible for many people who turn away because we debate so voraciously amongst ourselves - and not always with love.

    But love is the most important thing. These other things can be and are misunderstood, but God is love and mercy. I use that love and mercy to help guide me in life, and I use it while reading scripture.

    Well said Tammy,

    We debate matters of doctrine because, well, its fun. :)

    In the grande scheme of things what is right is right and no doctrine will change that, we debate with love and understanding and with full knowledge that these are OUR opinions and not God and Jesus's.

    I firmly believe that HOW you go about reading scripture is the key to understanding and cultivating a personal relationship with God via Jesus and if you start with the premis that God is Love then so much fits so right.

    Yes many things need to be reconciled but the issue woudl be if they COULDN'T be reconciled.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    Tammy

    But love is the most important thing. These other things can be and are misunderstood, but God is love and mercy. I use that love and mercy to help guide me in life, and I use it while reading scripture.

    You're right love is the important thing. I hope you take the things I say with that in mind. I wouldn't say them just to hurt (it sure isn't what I intend), but, because I care.

    God is many things, He is love, He is also Just, Holy and a God of Wrath.

    I hope our discussion makes us all think a little more about what we believe.

  • tec
    tec

    Yes, it is a rejection. You have made yourself very clear that you reject the bible as the Word of God.

    I reject the bible as THE Word of God, yes. I hope I explained that well enough so that you can see the difference.

    John 5:39 - "You diligently study the scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."

    If you read it in context, the writer is telling them to be patient because they were worried about loved ones being left behind at the coming of Christ.

    I don't see that at all. Not trying to be stubborn. But I don't see it. (I meant 2Peter, by the way. Sorry. I'm sure you understood that anyway.)

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    In regards to because they were worried about loved ones being left behind at the coming of Christ.

    If they were predestined, why worry? and if Peter thought they were predestined he would have said as much to aswage their fears.

  • tec
    tec

    I firmly believe that HOW you go about reading scripture is the key to understanding and cultivating a personal relationship with God via Jesus and if you start with the premis that God is Love then so much fits so right.

    Well said.

    You're right love is the important thing. I hope you take the things I say with that in mind. I wouldn't say them just to hurt (it sure isn't what I intend), but, because I care.

    I wasn't hearing that before, but I am now that you've clarified. Thank you for that. I also hope our discussion makes us all think a little more about what we believe.

    Tammy

  • exjdub
    exjdub
    Well, actually I have not spun anything. I presented my evidence and the conclusion based on that evidence. Contrast what I have done with your statement quoted above. In it you make an assertion with no backing premises.

    Well, actually, what you presented is not evidence. Evidence would be something offered beyond a reasonable doubt and quoting scholars that lean a certain way is not evidence. It reminds me somewhat of the way the HoHo's explain "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise" vs. "Truly I tell you...today you will be with me in paradise." Nobody really knows what he said, really, now do they?

    Whether Jesus wrote anything is not the issue. The issue is whether or not what we do have can be considered reliable. Having read many scholars from both sides of the issue, I believe that the evidence clearly sides with the manuscripts being an accurate account of either direct eyewitnesses or the testimony of eyewitnesses.

    There is no whether, because he didn't write anything, at least anything that is recorded in scripture and nothing has showed up in manuscripts. It absolutely is the issue. We don't know what Jesus' thoughts were (unless it has been spelled out in scriptural accounts), why he chose certain parables, or what he meant by "turn the other cheek" (other than the literal interpretation that StoneWall pointed out).

    exjdub

  • XJW4EVR
    XJW4EVR
    Well, actually, what you presented is not evidence. Evidence would be something offered beyond a reasonable doubt and quoting scholars that lean a certain way is not evidence. It reminds me somewhat of the way the HoHo's explain "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise" vs. "Truly I tell you...today you will be with me in paradise." Nobody really knows what he said, really, now do they?

    Sorry, but it appears that you have confused evidence in a criminal trial with the way history is done. You might want to read up on that as I do not have the time to instruct you. Secondly, I did not provide an appeal to authority. I provided an example that confirms the interpretation that you dismissed. You seem to think that dismissal is refutation which it isn't. Maybe you are reading too much of the four horse's asses of atheism,

    Regarding the verse you mentioned no Greel scholar, liberal or conservative, that I am aware of holds the JW interpretation. You might want to look into these things before you post.

    There is no whether, because he didn't write anything, at least anything that is recorded in scripture and nothing has showed up in manuscripts. It absolutely is the issue. We don't know what Jesus' thoughts were (unless it has been spelled out in scriptural accounts), why he chose certain parables, or what he meant by "turn the other cheek" (other than the literal interpretation that StoneWall pointed out

    This statement does not make any sense. We have the historical and cultural context, as I have mentioned before, and that answers many of the questions that have been raised on this thread. Sadly, people like you refuse to look into them for reasons that are known only to you.

  • not a captive
    not a captive

    DD, When was Christianity determined to be solely reliant on the scriptures? I know you are quoting Martin Luther, but are you following Luther or of Jesus?

    The reason I ask is this: Luther was reacting to the Catholic Church's various accretions to the word of God. Like indulgences.

    But even the Apostles had to deal with sorting the Law of Moses from the new Christian freedom. Acts 15:28,29 cut out a lot of scripture. I'll bet there were slews of newly minted Christians that were in divine ignorance of all they were missing--(though the big issue they knew about involved a sharp bit of flint)

    Did the apostles ignore the scriptures, did they reject the word of God?

    When the Bible talks about us having the "mind of Christ", what does it mean?

    What practical information is there for you or me in using a word like predestination and pretending we know how it works?


    Church Fathers on the doctrine of predestination

    The early church fathers consistently uphold the freedom of human choice. This position was crucial in the Christian confrontation with Cynicism and some of the chief forms of Gnosticism, such as Manichaeism, which taught that man is by nature flawed and therefore not responsible for evil in himself or in the world. At the same time, belief in human responsibility to do good as a precursor to salvation and eternal reward was consistent. The decision to do good along with God's aid pictured a synergism of the human will and God's will. The early church Fathers taught a doctrine of conditional predestination. [6]

    Augustine of Hippo marks the beginning of a system of thought that denies free will and affirms that salvation needs an initial input by God in the life of every person. While his early writings affirm that God's predestinating grace is granted on the basis of his foreknowledge of the human desire to pursue salvation, this changed after 396. His later position affirmed the necessity of God granting grace in order for the desire for salvation to be awakened.

    Augustine's position raised objections. Julian bishop of Eclanum, expressed that Augustine was bringing Manichee thoughts into the church [7] . For Vincent of LĂ©rins, this was a disturbing innovation. [8] This new tension eventually became obvious with the confrontation between Augustine and Pelagius culminating in condemnation of Pelagianism (as interpreted by Augustine) at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The British monk Pelagius denied Augustine's view of "predestination" in order to affirm that salvation is achieved by an act of free will.

    The influence of Augustine also then showed in translations of the bible from that time on; variations which are not in themselves visible in the syntax or grammar of the New Testament Greek text. Perhaps the best example of this in the Vulgate is the addition of 'prae' to 'ordinati' in Acts 13:48 which is there only to give the idea this was God who did this. Later translations show this influence of the doctrine by the additions of the word 'his' in Romans 8:28 and 11:22 all suggesting an interpretation consistent with unconditional election.

    Augustine's formulation is neither complete nor universally accepted by Christians. But his system laid the foundation onto virgin ground for the then later writers and innovators of the Reformation period.


  • exjdub
    exjdub
    That is the STRENGTH of Christianity, the PERSONAL relationship we all have with God and our Lord Jesus.

    You missed the point completely PSac, but then most Christians that I have spoken to do. If you are going to form a construct of worship around a man that is supposed to be the Son of God and you want to keep it personal, then you don't owe an explanation to anybody and that would indeed be a strength of Christianity. However, if you are going to build a construct of worship that you think is the Truth and that you claim is the only way to everlasting life and you tell everyone you meet that they should worship that way if they don't want to be killed by the Bible God, which is what most Christians feel, then you need to bring a lot more than your personal relationship to the table or it is a WEAKNESS.

    While faith and a personal relationship (whatever that means when it is a one sided conversation) may do it for you, it is not enough for many people. Something to think about: If it truly is a PERSONAL relationship, then why do so many Christians feel the need to tell the rest of the world how to live? Kinda makes it not so PERSONAL at that point, wouldn't you think?

    I think where StoneWall makes some excellent points is that if you are going to follow Jesus, then follow him, but please don't say you follow him if you do things counter to what he preached. There is no way around what Jesus said as he said it quite plainly and it echoed what other great sages said and LIVED (as did Jesus). Jesus, Buddha and Lao Tzu were all peaceful men and had nothing to do with war and governmental politics and they all advocated giving posessions away and leading a simple life. Look at Jesus' life and the lives of the sages before him if you really want to know what his words meant. I find it quite ironic that I admire Jesus' way of life and his wisdom more now than I ever did as a Christian, I just don't think he was anything other than a great and wise sage.

    exjdub

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit