ahh, come on trans h/68, some of us need all the hope we can get and repetition is good. Tec always has new info in her subject.
Tec --- Yes, I think he gets buried or stuffed somewhere.
Image of God - the Bible or Christ?
by tec 132 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Black Sheep
I have no Middle eastern ancestors and I don't see why any of their gods would be of any interest to me?
-
soft+gentle
the image of christ is powerful and works - this to me is the main thing.
I have been reading about how in ancient cultures a period of dissolution, somewhat like what we experience when we enter a period of change, (in leaving Jehovahs witnesses for example) can lead to what christians describe in their experiences of christ. I am fascinated that there is a a huge aspect of universality about these sorts of experiences that are open even to committed atheists. The best way to describe it is as coming into the light but it isn't just that - there also has to be a deep sense of being born again in the sense of being in terrifying darknesss and then clarifying light and fire which provide a new begininng. it is something you have to try for yourself and then you will understand what I mean if you want to that is.
these sorts of experiences transcend authoritative texts and are simply ways of helping people break free
-
Qcmbr
Nowhere in the bible is there evidence of a god who does not like structure, authority and organisation. Every page carries themes of obedience, exactness, ways to worship and behaviours that are not acceptable. Steadying the ark , as many gnostic / liberal Christians do when they presume themselves so in tune with divinity that they can act as papal editors would not fly with either bible god or bible Christ.
Some things this laissez faire approach to worship will struggle to answer without launching into full prophet mode ( I.e. will require you to claim scriptural ability as you overturn and replace existing scripture ) the following 2 things:
Priesthood - authority to perform acts in Gods name such as baptism, temple service, leading the body of Christ and so forth. There is no structure, all existing scriptural prophets are demoted - there words easily thrown out - all the male / Christ symbolism gone and all is replaced by broad fuzzy definitions of Christ ( love/ light/yumminess) designed to be undefinable. Anarchy of fools.
Fellowship - while the Internet is a handy modern get out of jail free card it has not been a possible method for most Xians who need to experience the full body of Christ. The organisation of churches is fundamental to the ability to break bread together, evangelise and to be built as a body united as one. The moment the wannabe prophetesses and prophets decide to arbitrate on what god is or is not ( something AG and her disciple Tec do constantly ) then confusion is sown because no self made prophet creating a god in their own image will ever agree with another. You start to get bizarre beliefs like dragons, crucified leprous Jesus and yahoo answers to readers questions Jesus who is such BFF with prophet x that they can pop off for a sec to find out Christs current words on a poster or what he really did at the cross.
In summation Christ is a product of imagination and will continue to be recreated in the minds of the faithful onwards, every believer knows they are a true believer and their Christ is the authentic one. There is no way to pass on information , no structure to act as a repository of teaching and knowledge and no reason to trust that anyone is being guided by Christ ( I could happily masquerade as a liberal xian by trotting out very childlike verbal responses to questions - you are talking about others not me, Christ is <nebulous infinately malleable concept like 'truth'> , respect is all I ask for, have some cake and crumpets..repeat ) .
-
LV101
Qcmbr - now just let me get this straight one has to go to a church, break bread, learn their belief system for knowledge then deprogram and learn Christ is a figment of my imagination --- I think I interpreted that wrong and you're referring each believer's own creation of him, personally not that Christ isn't real? Sounds like slews of various Christs out there! That's a lot of time and money wasted attending religious institutions. What about our bodies being the temple, Christ living in us and our time/resources going to the needy, disadvantaged equals a win-win. If it's all hype why bother (if this is what you mean and he's not real) --- one has been thru enough in life but I think basically this would be the right way in a perfect world for instruction, social stucture, same belief level, maybe good regardless. I edited in places/hope it makes sense.
Cake sounds good.
-
Qcmbr
What I'm trying to get at is that any image of Christ not described by the bible or by a representative structure is no different to imagination ( ergo useless to anyone and a fairly poor witness.) The only reason we have any concept of Jehovah is because it was written down not because there is a guy called Christ or a force called the spirit revealing god on a general basis. If you ditch the bible( plus all associated commentaries or spin off religious works such as Islam) and then close down all evangelical discourse( especially with children) it will take exactly one generation for Christ to cease utterly.
For Christ , as a concept, to be 'resurrected' it would require the bible again. No independent revelation occurs such that an insulated person spontaneously generates the idea of Christ. These liberal Xians who debase religion and structure are somewhat parasitically feeding off the efforts of those very religions they disparage. Religions/books carry the image of Christ , all else is secondary imagination.
-
soft+gentle
I disagree qcmbr, and although there are many here who would support your view and I would go so far as to acknowledge that it would be very fruitful for believers to experience atheism, to me even if we look on the christ image as some sort of trope the important thing is that it works even for an atheist. perhaps it is as Hume said - that the brain functions by means of making associations - but even then (even if we are only using our imaginations to conjure up fanciful images) the fact that they work for many is enough to consider their importance to people leaving an unwholsome place or situation such as one founded on bible or human inerrancy.
-
OnTheWayOut
The God of Christianity is supposed to be all-knowing and wise and perfect. If He was involved in the writing of ANY of the Bible, why would He allow it to be spoiled by the writings of men that turns out to be in error?
Writers of the Old Testament and the New Testament say the words were inspired by God. The prophets and writers say the words of others in the Bible are inspired by God. Which of the numerous times that it says "God said..." or "The spirit of the lord came upon/spoke through...." should we treat as fabrications or mistakes? Wasn't Paul referring to the entirety of the Old Testament when he said that "All Scripture is inspired by God..." and useful for the things he went on to write? Or should individuals be free to ignore that text as another one that is not inspired of God?
Can we get a new set of books? The one bound volumn of "The Actual Word of God" and another bound volumn of "Added Words of Men." Maybe we can add "...According to Tammy" on the cover.
Here we go:
Luke 24:44-45 , "Now He said to them, ' These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. ' Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures." "....oh- except for that part that Tammy or someone else said wasn't part of it. And when you write more inspired words, don't bother to explain how some of the words are not inspired."
-
elderelite
While thats a good suggestion OTWO, that book too would be ever evolving depending on what was whispered on any given day. There is no diffinative "truth", its all subject to the whims of a what people "hear", meaning what THEIR understanding is on any given day. If the creator cannot convey even basic ideas without the People who receive them misunderstanding, i question the so called creator and his impotence in the most basic of all things, coveying concepts to his creations.
-
tec
I'm sure we are all very happy for you, tec- but why do you have to go on & on about it like a cracked record?
Same reason other people go on and on about things. Because some are interested.
I have no Middle eastern ancestors and I don't see why any of their gods would be of any interest to me?
Christ is for everyone who wants to come to Him. If you're not interested, then that is entirely your business.
these sorts of experiences transcend authoritative texts and are simply ways of helping people break free
Absolutely. I think because experience is REAL... and a re-telling of experience is just that, a telling. The real experience is always more profound, imo.
(something AG and her disciple Tec do constantly )
The more you trot this out, Q, the more you assure me that you don't have a handle on things of faith, certainly not mine. But you keep playing that card if it helps you dismiss anything that is not what you think true faith should be (even though you think it is all false).
For Christ , as a concept, to be 'resurrected' it would require the bible again. No independent revelation occurs such that an insulated person spontaneously generates the idea of Christ. These liberal Xians who debase religion and structure are somewhat parasitically feeding off the efforts of those very religions they disparage. Religions/books carry the image of Christ , all else is secondary imagination.
I believe I was speaking about Christ being the image of God. You are here speaking about the image of Christ? We can learn about Christ throught the writings about him. We can know Him by going to Him, as He says... come to me... and being taught, in Spirit. But this thread is about the image of God.
But again, some people cannot move past the bible (or their chosen religious leader) to look at Christ as Truth, Word, Image of God. That is what this thread is about.
Because no matter what people say, there is nothing in that book that suggest IT is the image of God, or that IT is inerrant/infallable. That is a man-made doctrine.
Now what you say above is untrue. Because the writings are based on Christ, not Christ based on the writings. People knew Him in person, and wrote about theirs and others experiences. It is just a witness account for us.
If He was involved in the writing of ANY of the Bible, why would He allow it to be spoiled by the writings of men that turns out to be in error?
I hear this a lot, but it makes no sense to me. He was involved in the creation of all things, but he still allows us to do what we choose. Why would it be different with writing?
Besides all that, Christ did not write anything down. Because he came to teach that we are to listen to the Spirit. Men will always write and then twist those writings to suit himself, and then lord that over his fellow man.
Writers of the Old Testament and the New Testament say the words were inspired by God. The prophets and writers say the words of others in the Bible are inspired by God.
Some of the writings, OTWO. Not the bible as a whole. When Peter said that Paul wrote according to the understanding Christ gave him, he could not have meant everything. Because even Paul distinguishes between something from God, and something he thought was true.
Which of the numerous times that it says "God said..." or "The spirit of the lord came upon/spoke through...." should we treat as fabrications or mistakes? Wasn't Paul referring to the entirety of the Old Testament when he said that "All Scripture is inspired by God..." and useful for the things he went on to write? Or should individuals be free to ignore that text as another one that is not inspired of God?
Only if Paul thought the entire OT was scripture, but there is nothing to suggest that he did think so. Even so, Paul said that it was useful ... he certainly never taught that anything else should take the place of Christ, including himself.
Is there anyone who thinks, truly, that the bible - containing many books, and many different pieces of writing, not all of which IS inspired (or scripture)... is the image of God, over Christ?
The living God, has a living Image. A living Word. Living Truth.
The bible is many different books and many different authors, and it is not living. It was not even in existence as it is, at the time Christ came. Why would it replace Christ as the Image of God?
Can we get a new set of books? The one bound volumn of "The Actual Word of God" and another bound volumn of "Added Words of Men." Maybe we can add "...According to Tammy" on the cover.
I meant to add this to the OP, and forgot, sorry:
if you are listening to Christ, then you don't have to go back and compare his teachings to everything else ever taught or written. Because people have asked me (some mocking, some serious) why a person doesn't just go back and rewrite what is true or not. That is
unnecessary and probably detrimental. Because it would then still be about rules on paper, rather than the Spirit teaching you from within.
Nothing needs to be re-written. That too, is going backward. Just look at and listen to Christ.
Now listen to what you just quoted from Luke: HE opened their minds to understand the scriptures. Meaning they did not understand with Him. So how can you? As well, he speaks of everything written about Him being fullfilled. It points to Christ. It is all a shadow of the One who was to come, and teach all things. Christ.
Peace,
tammy