Sunday, November 04, 2007
'Beyond the Bones of Jesus'
I've been meaning to put this up since last Easter, when the James Cameron "documentary" was all over the news. I figured somebody would eventually put it online. No? Then allow me -- with a hearty AMEN.
--ER
By Robin Meyers
Senior Minister
Mayflower Congregational-UCC Church
(From the March 14, 2007, Oklahoma Gazette)
In case there is anyone out there who hasn't heard yet, filmmaker James Cameron, who gave us such believable movies as "Titanic," has made a new documentary called "The Lost Tomb of Jesus." In it, he claims that several "ossuaries" or limestone tombs unearthed by construction workers in Jerusalem in 1980 once contained the bones of Jesus, Mary, members of Jesus' family, and his son Judah by Mary Magdalene, who had a tomb of her own.
If true, this would contradict the claim that Jesus was bodily resurrected, as most Christians believe -- and that, therefore, Easter is a myth and Christianity is a lie. In the post-"DaVinci Code" world, there is big money to be made in the myth-busting business.
The only problem is, the validity of these claims notwithstanding, Cameron's project will produce what the media always gives us when it practices theology without a license: all heat and no light. Those who base their faith on a physical Resurrection will condemn it, and those who don't, or who are hostile to all religion, will use it to cast doubt on what they have already judged to be ancient superstition. Are you with us, or against us?
Not long ago it was the Shroud of Turin that was reputed to be the burial cloth of Jesus, his visage imprinted on the cloth as he was raised from the dead. Millions claimed that this was finally "proof" of the Resurrection, until the cloth was carbon-dated and found to be from the 11th or 12th century. The faithful regrouped, and the nonbelievers scoffed.
Now comes the latest effort to disprove the Resurrection by the doscovery of tombs inscribed with what were common names in first-century Palestine, but whose appearance together is said to be against great odds. The "discovery" of the tomb reputed to be that of Mary Magdalene is the weakest link, but if you are making a movie, this is irresistible.
What Cameron and his ilk don't realize is that Christians are not a bipolar monolith consumed by endless arguments over "dueling artifacts." Some of us understand Easter as a spiritual phenomenon, not a physical one, and we wouldn't care is someone found the entire skeleton of Jesus -- we would still believe that Easter is real and that God raised Jesus from the dead.
We are not interested in magic, or in special effects, or in the disassembling and reassembling of molecules -- as if Easter were some first-century version of "Beam me up, Scotty!" Instead we are heirs to the story of how ordinary, clueless, even cowardly disciples experienced the mysterious presence of Jesus after his execution, and it transformed them into new human beings. In response to this mystery, they formed communities that welcomed everyone, and dared to say that he was the Son of God, not Caeser. They ceased all animal sacrifice, believing that God no longer needed to be bargained with, and ultimately gave their lives in service to an alternative community where the only creed was "Jesus Christ is Lord."
What, I ask, is a box of bones compared to that? Perhaps if we could stop confusing faith with magic for just one moment, we might turn our attention to something more important than miracles as the suspension of natural law -- like the Sermon on the Mount, or nonviolence, or peace and justice.
Then, every time we act like true disciples in the world, the Resurrection becomes present tense, not past tense. And every time the church acts like the body of Christ in the world, it becomes self-evident that he lives.
#
--ER
By Robin Meyers
Senior Minister
Mayflower Congregational-UCC Church
(From the March 14, 2007, Oklahoma Gazette)
In case there is anyone out there who hasn't heard yet, filmmaker James Cameron, who gave us such believable movies as "Titanic," has made a new documentary called "The Lost Tomb of Jesus." In it, he claims that several "ossuaries" or limestone tombs unearthed by construction workers in Jerusalem in 1980 once contained the bones of Jesus, Mary, members of Jesus' family, and his son Judah by Mary Magdalene, who had a tomb of her own.
If true, this would contradict the claim that Jesus was bodily resurrected, as most Christians believe -- and that, therefore, Easter is a myth and Christianity is a lie. In the post-"DaVinci Code" world, there is big money to be made in the myth-busting business.
The only problem is, the validity of these claims notwithstanding, Cameron's project will produce what the media always gives us when it practices theology without a license: all heat and no light. Those who base their faith on a physical Resurrection will condemn it, and those who don't, or who are hostile to all religion, will use it to cast doubt on what they have already judged to be ancient superstition. Are you with us, or against us?
Not long ago it was the Shroud of Turin that was reputed to be the burial cloth of Jesus, his visage imprinted on the cloth as he was raised from the dead. Millions claimed that this was finally "proof" of the Resurrection, until the cloth was carbon-dated and found to be from the 11th or 12th century. The faithful regrouped, and the nonbelievers scoffed.
Now comes the latest effort to disprove the Resurrection by the doscovery of tombs inscribed with what were common names in first-century Palestine, but whose appearance together is said to be against great odds. The "discovery" of the tomb reputed to be that of Mary Magdalene is the weakest link, but if you are making a movie, this is irresistible.
What Cameron and his ilk don't realize is that Christians are not a bipolar monolith consumed by endless arguments over "dueling artifacts." Some of us understand Easter as a spiritual phenomenon, not a physical one, and we wouldn't care is someone found the entire skeleton of Jesus -- we would still believe that Easter is real and that God raised Jesus from the dead.
We are not interested in magic, or in special effects, or in the disassembling and reassembling of molecules -- as if Easter were some first-century version of "Beam me up, Scotty!" Instead we are heirs to the story of how ordinary, clueless, even cowardly disciples experienced the mysterious presence of Jesus after his execution, and it transformed them into new human beings. In response to this mystery, they formed communities that welcomed everyone, and dared to say that he was the Son of God, not Caeser. They ceased all animal sacrifice, believing that God no longer needed to be bargained with, and ultimately gave their lives in service to an alternative community where the only creed was "Jesus Christ is Lord."
What, I ask, is a box of bones compared to that? Perhaps if we could stop confusing faith with magic for just one moment, we might turn our attention to something more important than miracles as the suspension of natural law -- like the Sermon on the Mount, or nonviolence, or peace and justice.
Then, every time we act like true disciples in the world, the Resurrection becomes present tense, not past tense. And every time the church acts like the body of Christ in the world, it becomes self-evident that he lives.
#
Comments:
<< Home
Yor Pastor said: "The only problem is, the validity of these claims notwithstanding, Cameron's project will produce what the media always gives us when it practices theology without a license: all heat and no light. Those who base their faith on a physical Resurrection will condemn it, and those who don't, or who are hostile to all religion, will use it to cast doubt on what they have already judged to be ancient superstition. "
If practicing theology without a liscense is wrong, then ER I guess we will have to dis-engage and you'll have to shut down this here blog.
I've always had trouble with the virgin birth and the resurection. It became especially troublsome when I learned how many "gods" before Jesus had been born of a virgin and/or resurected from the dead. I was taught that those were the things what made the Christian Faith unique, and low and behold it ain't so. The thing that makes the Christian Faith unique is Grace. Push comes to shove, Grace don't need all these other "theological" under pinnings. It can stand alone.
If practicing theology without a liscense is wrong, then ER I guess we will have to dis-engage and you'll have to shut down this here blog.
I've always had trouble with the virgin birth and the resurection. It became especially troublsome when I learned how many "gods" before Jesus had been born of a virgin and/or resurected from the dead. I was taught that those were the things what made the Christian Faith unique, and low and behold it ain't so. The thing that makes the Christian Faith unique is Grace. Push comes to shove, Grace don't need all these other "theological" under pinnings. It can stand alone.
Not the intent of your words at all, but they fit nicely into a crisis I'm having today which ties in to Ezekiel Chapter 37, verses 1-14. It will be familiar. The point, in my understanding of it today, is that it is the spirit that brings life, not the bones, no matter how well they are put together:
Ezekiel 37:1-14
I won't hijack any more space here, but will blog at my place.
Ezekiel 37:1-14
I won't hijack any more space here, but will blog at my place.
Grace indeed is unique to Christianity. All false religions and cults rely on works-righteousness in some form or another.
Yet I wonder why someone would read the Bible and arrive at the conclusion that grace is true but that the virgin birth and physical resurrection not only didn't happen but weren't important.
The notion that other religions also had resurrections and such is largely mythical itself. Even if they did have such things, the question is whether it really happened or not. See this re. the Mithra myth, for example - http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm - and keep in mind that these resurrection stories wouldn't just have to pre-date Jesus but the prophecies for his life, death and resurrection as well.
"Perhaps if we could stop confusing faith with magic for just one moment . . ."
Ironically, the author is the one confusing faith with magic. He uses the foolish form faith - i.e., faith without evidence or, worse yet, faith in spite of the evidence. Biblical faith is evidential.
Yet I wonder why someone would read the Bible and arrive at the conclusion that grace is true but that the virgin birth and physical resurrection not only didn't happen but weren't important.
The notion that other religions also had resurrections and such is largely mythical itself. Even if they did have such things, the question is whether it really happened or not. See this re. the Mithra myth, for example - http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm - and keep in mind that these resurrection stories wouldn't just have to pre-date Jesus but the prophecies for his life, death and resurrection as well.
"Perhaps if we could stop confusing faith with magic for just one moment . . ."
Ironically, the author is the one confusing faith with magic. He uses the foolish form faith - i.e., faith without evidence or, worse yet, faith in spite of the evidence. Biblical faith is evidential.
Oh, bullshit: "Biblical faith is evidential." Keep clinging to that, but don't be surprised at the End when you're asked: "Why did you believe in a book written by men, rather than trusted in God, and his Christ, for peace beypnd all understanding?"
Re, "Yet I wonder why someone would read the Bible and arrive at the conclusion that grace is true but that the virgin birth and physical resurrection not only didn't happen but weren't important."
Because Jesus Christ is the anchor of our salvation, not the Bible, and for damn sure not our understanding of it. I say again: If the only Jesus you know is the one you've read about, then you've never experienced God, or Christ, and you're directing your worship toward an IDOL.
Re, "Yet I wonder why someone would read the Bible and arrive at the conclusion that grace is true but that the virgin birth and physical resurrection not only didn't happen but weren't important."
Because Jesus Christ is the anchor of our salvation, not the Bible, and for damn sure not our understanding of it. I say again: If the only Jesus you know is the one you've read about, then you've never experienced God, or Christ, and you're directing your worship toward an IDOL.
OK, here I don't care if you're offended or not, because this is written from YOUR perspective, as if you have the truth, yet you present it as objective "evicdence." Pbhththth.
"First of all, Christianity does not need any outside influence to derive any of its doctrines. All the doctrines of Christianity exists in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God (Zech. 12:10), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), was crucified (Psalm 22), the blood atonement (Lev. 17:11), rose from the dead (Psalm 16:10), and salvation by faith (Hab. 2:4).
Piff. Thpth. Blech. As rhetoric, I reckon it's fine. ... No, even as that, it's poor, just stacking Bible quotes. Meh.
"First of all, Christianity does not need any outside influence to derive any of its doctrines. All the doctrines of Christianity exists in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God (Zech. 12:10), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), was crucified (Psalm 22), the blood atonement (Lev. 17:11), rose from the dead (Psalm 16:10), and salvation by faith (Hab. 2:4).
Piff. Thpth. Blech. As rhetoric, I reckon it's fine. ... No, even as that, it's poor, just stacking Bible quotes. Meh.
Hi ER, glad you are in not-so-rare form tonight.
"Because Jesus Christ is the anchor of our salvation, not the Bible, and for damn sure not our understanding of it."
But where did you learn what you know about grace? Did Jesus give you special revelation? Next time He does, ask him about the physical resurrection and the virgin birth.
"If the only Jesus you know is the one you've read about, then you've never experienced God, or Christ, and you're directing your worship toward an IDOL."
That's a big "if," but thanks for passing judgment just the same.
"Why did you believe in a book written by men, rather than trusted in God, and his Christ, for peace beyond all understanding?"
Who says I don't trust in God? I have all my faith in what Jesus did for me.
Again, how did you determine the trust and peace beyond all understanding bits - special revelation?
"Pbhththth."
You got me there. I give. That made more sense than the guy you quoted.
"Because Jesus Christ is the anchor of our salvation, not the Bible, and for damn sure not our understanding of it."
But where did you learn what you know about grace? Did Jesus give you special revelation? Next time He does, ask him about the physical resurrection and the virgin birth.
"If the only Jesus you know is the one you've read about, then you've never experienced God, or Christ, and you're directing your worship toward an IDOL."
That's a big "if," but thanks for passing judgment just the same.
"Why did you believe in a book written by men, rather than trusted in God, and his Christ, for peace beyond all understanding?"
Who says I don't trust in God? I have all my faith in what Jesus did for me.
Again, how did you determine the trust and peace beyond all understanding bits - special revelation?
"Pbhththth."
You got me there. I give. That made more sense than the guy you quoted.
So Neil is still trolling around. Thank you for calling bullshit when you read it, because if you hadn't I would have been presumptuous and done so.
The virgin birth? Who cares? The resurrection? Physical fact or spiritual allegory, historically verifiable event or mythical story, it is neither unique to Christianity nor even all that surprising. The import of the resurrection narratives, for me, is the way they fit into, and complete, the ministry of Jesus. On even numbered days I insist on the validity of the narratives; on odd numbered days I wonder what the fuss is about. On February 29, I have a beer and listen to Tom Waits all day. Through all this back and forth, I end up thinking that it really doesn't matter in the details about whether and how I believe in something called "the resurrection" - it is whether my belief empowers me, is something I feel as outside me yet giving me life, and hope.
That's why I no longer worry all that much about questions of doctrine, even things people think are so vital like the resurrection. How we live our lives, that is the key. Do we live for others? Or do we simply try to make sure that we stand before the pearly gates even as dirt is tossed on our coffins down below? If the latter is the sole interest that Christianity holds for us - spiritual insurance, as it were - then I suspect that one might need to consider other means of ensuring one's soul's safety.
On the other hand, as I no longer worry overmuch about what happens when I die, I am far more concerned with how we live together down here.
I suppose, in Neil's eyes, this is just more evidence that I am a false teacher, perhaps even the anti-Christ himself.
Neil can pound sand.
No disrespect intended, of course.
The virgin birth? Who cares? The resurrection? Physical fact or spiritual allegory, historically verifiable event or mythical story, it is neither unique to Christianity nor even all that surprising. The import of the resurrection narratives, for me, is the way they fit into, and complete, the ministry of Jesus. On even numbered days I insist on the validity of the narratives; on odd numbered days I wonder what the fuss is about. On February 29, I have a beer and listen to Tom Waits all day. Through all this back and forth, I end up thinking that it really doesn't matter in the details about whether and how I believe in something called "the resurrection" - it is whether my belief empowers me, is something I feel as outside me yet giving me life, and hope.
That's why I no longer worry all that much about questions of doctrine, even things people think are so vital like the resurrection. How we live our lives, that is the key. Do we live for others? Or do we simply try to make sure that we stand before the pearly gates even as dirt is tossed on our coffins down below? If the latter is the sole interest that Christianity holds for us - spiritual insurance, as it were - then I suspect that one might need to consider other means of ensuring one's soul's safety.
On the other hand, as I no longer worry overmuch about what happens when I die, I am far more concerned with how we live together down here.
I suppose, in Neil's eyes, this is just more evidence that I am a false teacher, perhaps even the anti-Christ himself.
Neil can pound sand.
No disrespect intended, of course.
"1 Corinthians 15:12-19 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."
Yes, the resurrection doesn't matter . . . to non-Christians. To Christians, it matters a lot.
Unless, of course, ER's special revelation tells him otherwise. Because that is much more reliable than the Bible.
Yes, the resurrection doesn't matter . . . to non-Christians. To Christians, it matters a lot.
Unless, of course, ER's special revelation tells him otherwise. Because that is much more reliable than the Bible.
Niel: "keep in mind that these resurrection stories wouldn't just have to pre-date Jesus but the prophecies for his life, death and resurrection as well."
And so Niel some of them did. Osiris/Horus preceed the old testament by 1,500 years. The Persian Mithera by a 1000 years. Dionysis and Orpheus, were later stories, but did preceeded Jesus. In fact the Cult of Orpheus was at its height when and where Paul was while writing his letters. As for virgin births, they simply abound in ancient history and all were firmly believed to be true. Alexander the Great being but one of them. So I can't agree that "..The notion that other religions also had resurrections and such is largely mythical itself." Their story may be mythical, but the fact that there is a story is not.
Christ's virgin birth and resurection, true or not, is not unique and "unique" was what I was speaking to.
But you should be aware, if you are not, that no first hand account of the resurrection exist. All the stories are not less than third hand accounts and were written 40 to 120 years after the resurrection would have happened. Also the earliest versions of the earilest book of the Gospels, Mark, does not contain any reference to the resurection. They were added to Mark, after he wrote his work, by future scribes.
And so Niel some of them did. Osiris/Horus preceed the old testament by 1,500 years. The Persian Mithera by a 1000 years. Dionysis and Orpheus, were later stories, but did preceeded Jesus. In fact the Cult of Orpheus was at its height when and where Paul was while writing his letters. As for virgin births, they simply abound in ancient history and all were firmly believed to be true. Alexander the Great being but one of them. So I can't agree that "..The notion that other religions also had resurrections and such is largely mythical itself." Their story may be mythical, but the fact that there is a story is not.
Christ's virgin birth and resurection, true or not, is not unique and "unique" was what I was speaking to.
But you should be aware, if you are not, that no first hand account of the resurrection exist. All the stories are not less than third hand accounts and were written 40 to 120 years after the resurrection would have happened. Also the earliest versions of the earilest book of the Gospels, Mark, does not contain any reference to the resurection. They were added to Mark, after he wrote his work, by future scribes.
Re, "But where did you learn what you know about grace?"
By the preaching of Christian preachers, by the example of Christian kin, by the calm conversation (read: witness) of others in my community -- none of which, before 1979, relied solely on theior own interpretation of the Bible, but on their own personal ongoing, HUMBLE, knees-bent! relationship with CHRIST who is the HEAD of the Church.
Your slavery to the Bible is an insult to the freedom of the Christ to which the Bible, in all its flaws, points.
By the preaching of Christian preachers, by the example of Christian kin, by the calm conversation (read: witness) of others in my community -- none of which, before 1979, relied solely on theior own interpretation of the Bible, but on their own personal ongoing, HUMBLE, knees-bent! relationship with CHRIST who is the HEAD of the Church.
Your slavery to the Bible is an insult to the freedom of the Christ to which the Bible, in all its flaws, points.
Hi drlojobo,
"All the stories are not less than third hand accounts and were written 40 to 120 years after the resurrection would have happened."
That is incorrect in several ways, but just for the sake of argument let's pretend it is true. Those same documents teach you about grace. So why do you trust them for grace and not for other things? Or did you have special revelation of grace?
"All the stories are not less than third hand accounts and were written 40 to 120 years after the resurrection would have happened."
That is incorrect in several ways, but just for the sake of argument let's pretend it is true. Those same documents teach you about grace. So why do you trust them for grace and not for other things? Or did you have special revelation of grace?
What really amuses me is how Neil's veil of civility, which he is so careful to maintain at his own joint, so quickly falls here. Ha, and phhghth, again!
Re, "how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?"
I. NEVER. SAID. THERE. WAS. NO. RESURRECTION. OF. THE. DEAD.
I. NEVER. SAID. THERE. WAS. NO. RESURRECTION. OF. THE. DEAD.
"By the preaching of Christian preachers . . ."
Where did they learn about grace? How did they know to pray to Jesus? How did they know He is the head of the church?
If the Bible is so flawed, why can I trust that it points to Christ?
Just because I believe the Bible is all inspired by God doesn't make me a slave to it. I'm really not sure how you can judge my heart so accurately from all the way up there in Oklahoma.
It seems like a cheap shot to imply that if I don't hold your view of a flawed Bible that I'm engaged in idol-worship. Please explain why it wouldn't be possible to believe the original writings of the Bible turned out the way God wanted it to and also to attempt to live as Jesus taught?
Where did they learn about grace? How did they know to pray to Jesus? How did they know He is the head of the church?
If the Bible is so flawed, why can I trust that it points to Christ?
Just because I believe the Bible is all inspired by God doesn't make me a slave to it. I'm really not sure how you can judge my heart so accurately from all the way up there in Oklahoma.
It seems like a cheap shot to imply that if I don't hold your view of a flawed Bible that I'm engaged in idol-worship. Please explain why it wouldn't be possible to believe the original writings of the Bible turned out the way God wanted it to and also to attempt to live as Jesus taught?
Re, "Or did you have special revelation of grace?"
This is one of Neil's fave devices: If you disagree with me, yet dare to have relationship with Gold through Christ, then you must claim some "special revelation" -- that is, some revelation I don't have.
Bullshit again, Brother. It's. All. Right. There. For those who acting to INVITE the lost to GRACE, rather than acting to DENT GRACE to all. Pbhtht yet again.
This is one of Neil's fave devices: If you disagree with me, yet dare to have relationship with Gold through Christ, then you must claim some "special revelation" -- that is, some revelation I don't have.
Bullshit again, Brother. It's. All. Right. There. For those who acting to INVITE the lost to GRACE, rather than acting to DENT GRACE to all. Pbhtht yet again.
I love the fact that he throws around 1 Corinthians 15, a chapter near and dear to one of the biggest "resurrection deniers", who also happened to be a New Testament scholar of profound insight and faith, Rudolf Bultmann.
More to the point - one can toss around Bible quotes all one wants, and all that proves is one has a concordance in one hand, a cup of coffee in the other, and feels no reason at all to actually think about the meaning of the words one reads.
When I was in seminary, a young woman whined about the level of work we were required to do, when all she wanted to do was "preach Jesus". I responded that, (a) this was a graduate program, not an unaccredited Bible college, to which she was more than welcome to go; (b) it was fine that she wanted to preach Jesus, but God had given some people intellect, and it would be spitting in God's eye to not use that intellect in God's service; (c) further to that point, God may just have a job for her to do, but seeing as she was both stubborn and ignorant, might just find someone else to "preach Jesus".
I guess I wasn't civil back then, either.
More to the point - one can toss around Bible quotes all one wants, and all that proves is one has a concordance in one hand, a cup of coffee in the other, and feels no reason at all to actually think about the meaning of the words one reads.
When I was in seminary, a young woman whined about the level of work we were required to do, when all she wanted to do was "preach Jesus". I responded that, (a) this was a graduate program, not an unaccredited Bible college, to which she was more than welcome to go; (b) it was fine that she wanted to preach Jesus, but God had given some people intellect, and it would be spitting in God's eye to not use that intellect in God's service; (c) further to that point, God may just have a job for her to do, but seeing as she was both stubborn and ignorant, might just find someone else to "preach Jesus".
I guess I wasn't civil back then, either.
"What really amuses me is how Neil's veil of civility, which he is so careful to maintain at his own joint, so quickly falls here. Ha, and phhghth, again!"
ER, you are one of the few bloggers that literally make me LOL. Many thanks.
Sorry if I came across as uncivil. Sarcasm is one of my spiritual gifts. I'll try to be more civil like you and Geoffrey.
Seriously, I thought you would take the ribbing in the spirit it was intended. Apparently that wasn't the case.
ER, you are one of the few bloggers that literally make me LOL. Many thanks.
Sorry if I came across as uncivil. Sarcasm is one of my spiritual gifts. I'll try to be more civil like you and Geoffrey.
Seriously, I thought you would take the ribbing in the spirit it was intended. Apparently that wasn't the case.
I love debating with "Christians" who view it as a character flaw if you quote scripture. (Yes, more sarcasm.)
Another false claim by Neil and others:
If you don't believe the Bible as I do, then you don't believe that it is "all inspired by God."
Pbhhtthp! And you present yourself as a logician for Christ. Phhtb. You are no more than a bean counter of ideas that line up with your own ideas.
If you don't believe the Bible as I do, then you don't believe that it is "all inspired by God."
Pbhhtthp! And you present yourself as a logician for Christ. Phhtb. You are no more than a bean counter of ideas that line up with your own ideas.
I think Neil was referring to me with that "resurrection denying" remark. I don't deny the resurrection. I just said I wrestle with what the narratives mean, which is something totally different.
As for the "special revelation" business - it's a dodge. It isn't about "revelation", it's about interpretation, and how one derives meaning from the written word. As Neil sees meaning as transparent, this is not a problem for him. As it is not transparent for people who think, however, this is the crux of the matter - a matter to be wrestled with, to pray about, and most likely never to be satisfied in this life.
Don't let him get under your skin, bro'. He's convinced he's right, and that's fine for him. Let him live with his certainties. As long as we all can live with our uncertainties, we will all get along just fine.
Oh, and by the way, I never thought he was very civil at his own site.
As for the "special revelation" business - it's a dodge. It isn't about "revelation", it's about interpretation, and how one derives meaning from the written word. As Neil sees meaning as transparent, this is not a problem for him. As it is not transparent for people who think, however, this is the crux of the matter - a matter to be wrestled with, to pray about, and most likely never to be satisfied in this life.
Don't let him get under your skin, bro'. He's convinced he's right, and that's fine for him. Let him live with his certainties. As long as we all can live with our uncertainties, we will all get along just fine.
Oh, and by the way, I never thought he was very civil at his own site.
Ha! Re, "Sorry if I came across as uncivil. Sarcasm is one of my spiritual gifts. I'll try to be more civil like you and Geoffrey."
Dude, you can't spell sarcasm. I am neither offended nor surprised! I've got onbe eye on the Dallas game, and other on a never-ending-bullshit-argument over the fact that the Truth is one thing, and the Bible is another. But, really, don't think you;'ve offended me.
Dude, you can't spell sarcasm. I am neither offended nor surprised! I've got onbe eye on the Dallas game, and other on a never-ending-bullshit-argument over the fact that the Truth is one thing, and the Bible is another. But, really, don't think you;'ve offended me.
"Another false claim by Neil and others:
If you don't believe the Bible as I do, then you don't believe that it is "all inspired by God.""
You referred to the Bible "in all its flaws." I don't think the originals had flaws and you do. So it seems like a fair conclusion to say that you don't believe it is all inspired by God. Unless, of course, you think God makes mistakes.
This is going in circles now, but I have yet to see you explain why you believe the things you do about Jesus. You are obviously quite firm in your beliefs, which is fine with me. I just thought it was fair to ask what the source was. You dismiss chunks of the Bible - parts that the church has historically viewed as foundational - yet you gladly accept other parts, like grace.
So why do you believe the parts about grace but not other major parts?
If you don't believe the Bible as I do, then you don't believe that it is "all inspired by God.""
You referred to the Bible "in all its flaws." I don't think the originals had flaws and you do. So it seems like a fair conclusion to say that you don't believe it is all inspired by God. Unless, of course, you think God makes mistakes.
This is going in circles now, but I have yet to see you explain why you believe the things you do about Jesus. You are obviously quite firm in your beliefs, which is fine with me. I just thought it was fair to ask what the source was. You dismiss chunks of the Bible - parts that the church has historically viewed as foundational - yet you gladly accept other parts, like grace.
So why do you believe the parts about grace but not other major parts?
Niel says: "Yes, the resurrection doesn't matter . . . to non-Christians. To Christians, it matters a lot."
Why then bother with us non-christian christians? Dialog is stifled by absolutes, so have you won something here, or lost something?
The circular psuedo-syllogism of Paul are echoes of other circular syllogism about Orpheus. One is true and one is not? Yet even Paul's words are without context unless we know that they represent a struggle between the original Jewish Christians and the usurper Gentile Christians sponsored by Paul. The Christian Congration of Jerusalem believed Paul was hoplessly tainted by Helenistic thought. paul himself reports this although somewhat obliquely.
Oh well, I guess all this doesn't matter.
Why then bother with us non-christian christians? Dialog is stifled by absolutes, so have you won something here, or lost something?
The circular psuedo-syllogism of Paul are echoes of other circular syllogism about Orpheus. One is true and one is not? Yet even Paul's words are without context unless we know that they represent a struggle between the original Jewish Christians and the usurper Gentile Christians sponsored by Paul. The Christian Congration of Jerusalem believed Paul was hoplessly tainted by Helenistic thought. paul himself reports this although somewhat obliquely.
Oh well, I guess all this doesn't matter.
Niel says: "Hi drlojobo,
"All the stories are not less than third hand accounts and were written 40 to 120 years after the resurrection would have happened."
That is incorrect in several ways, but just for the sake of argument let's pretend it is true. Those same documents teach you about grace. So why do you trust them for grace and not for other things? Or did you have special revelation of grace?"
NO, NO, No you don' little man.
That shit don't cut it.
LOL if you will.
Try to tell me what part of what I said above in the quotes is wrong? Can you? Do you know? Or are you just a blowhard playing with his private parts while professing the correct interpretation of all what God means.
Score some points, or get out of the game. Taking points away from others does not count.
By the way. Yes, I have had my special revelation. I am my own priest. I do talk directly to God.
Hje does answer me in so many ways. If you haven't, and don't, then what are you?
7:24 PM
"All the stories are not less than third hand accounts and were written 40 to 120 years after the resurrection would have happened."
That is incorrect in several ways, but just for the sake of argument let's pretend it is true. Those same documents teach you about grace. So why do you trust them for grace and not for other things? Or did you have special revelation of grace?"
NO, NO, No you don' little man.
That shit don't cut it.
LOL if you will.
Try to tell me what part of what I said above in the quotes is wrong? Can you? Do you know? Or are you just a blowhard playing with his private parts while professing the correct interpretation of all what God means.
Score some points, or get out of the game. Taking points away from others does not count.
By the way. Yes, I have had my special revelation. I am my own priest. I do talk directly to God.
Hje does answer me in so many ways. If you haven't, and don't, then what are you?
7:24 PM
RE, "Where did they learn about grace? How did they know to pray to Jesus? How did they know He is the head of the church?"
REPEAT: "By the preaching of Christian preachers ..."
And before that, "by the preaching of Christian preachers ..." and before that, "the preaching of Christian preachers ..." and before that, "the preaching of Christian preachers ..."
I assert that Christianity as a whole is "apostolic" in that it all traces back to the first Christian believers.
I assert that idolatrous reliance on the Bible dates to King James, and that idolatrous reliance on the Holy Scriptures themselves dates to the invention of the printing press and the Renaissance, and that idolatrous reliance on the writings now regarded as the N.T. itself dates to the very political meetings of leading Christians themselves in the 300s and 400s -- and that reliance on the Old Testament itself dates to what the earliest Christian believers themselves had inherited from theor own Jewish faith experiences ...
All of which is a pretty strong line of intellectual and spiritual succession, all of which relies not solely on Scripture itself, but mainly on thinking *about* the Scriptures ...
The details of our faith have never been that important, save one thing -- "Jesus Christ is Lord."
It's very modern, and faithless, to say, "Take it or leave it (all)," when it comes to the Bible.
REPEAT: "By the preaching of Christian preachers ..."
And before that, "by the preaching of Christian preachers ..." and before that, "the preaching of Christian preachers ..." and before that, "the preaching of Christian preachers ..."
I assert that Christianity as a whole is "apostolic" in that it all traces back to the first Christian believers.
I assert that idolatrous reliance on the Bible dates to King James, and that idolatrous reliance on the Holy Scriptures themselves dates to the invention of the printing press and the Renaissance, and that idolatrous reliance on the writings now regarded as the N.T. itself dates to the very political meetings of leading Christians themselves in the 300s and 400s -- and that reliance on the Old Testament itself dates to what the earliest Christian believers themselves had inherited from theor own Jewish faith experiences ...
All of which is a pretty strong line of intellectual and spiritual succession, all of which relies not solely on Scripture itself, but mainly on thinking *about* the Scriptures ...
The details of our faith have never been that important, save one thing -- "Jesus Christ is Lord."
It's very modern, and faithless, to say, "Take it or leave it (all)," when it comes to the Bible.
I live the questions and God loves me maybe even because of that.
I just can't do otherwise, and He's been known to support me in that. It sure makes for an interesting life!
PS Thanks to GKS: not only do you have the coolest map on your site (I love seeing "me" blink!)
but I often feel like I'm the only one that feels that training the intellect is a responsibility/stewardship issue before God. And this will always involve hard work.
I just can't do otherwise, and He's been known to support me in that. It sure makes for an interesting life!
PS Thanks to GKS: not only do you have the coolest map on your site (I love seeing "me" blink!)
but I often feel like I'm the only one that feels that training the intellect is a responsibility/stewardship issue before God. And this will always involve hard work.
# posted by 
: 8:26 PM
: 8:26 PM
I generally make it a point not to respond to such attacks, but I'm feeling charitable and want to close out my contribution here.
Here's the thing: Sometimes, to advance a conversation, it is useful to concede a point for the sake of argument. You made a point about the dating of the New Testament which I find to be unsupported by the evidence and very Jesus Seminar-ish, but even if you were right it didn't matter with respect to this thread.
Therefore, I proposed that for the sake of argument we assume you are right. Given that, I asked why you believe the Bible on grace and not on the resurrection and the virgin birth.
You responded as ER and Geoffrey did, with insults instead of answers.
Once again, you guys have shown your true colors. I gave you all multiple chances to answer a simple question and it turned into Dodge City.
So as you go to bed tonight, ask yourselves: Why do you believe the things you about Jesus? Special revelation, or the Bible? And if any of it - ANY - comes from the Bible, why do you trust those parts and not the rest?
Yeah, I talk to God plenty, and I'll compare my deeds with yours any day. But that isn't where my faith is. My faith is in Jesus, and I learn about him through his word.
So you can keep up the personal attacks and try to convince yourselves that I'm sure of my beliefs and you're unsure and proud of it (though if you re-read the thread you might see that you actually come across as pretty sure of your beliefs), or you can answer my question for once.
And just because I'm so generous, I'll ignore all your insults and share my perspective on the dating of the New Testament - http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/06/29/when-was-the-new-testament-written/
ER, don't say I never come to visit!
G'night.
Here's the thing: Sometimes, to advance a conversation, it is useful to concede a point for the sake of argument. You made a point about the dating of the New Testament which I find to be unsupported by the evidence and very Jesus Seminar-ish, but even if you were right it didn't matter with respect to this thread.
Therefore, I proposed that for the sake of argument we assume you are right. Given that, I asked why you believe the Bible on grace and not on the resurrection and the virgin birth.
You responded as ER and Geoffrey did, with insults instead of answers.
Once again, you guys have shown your true colors. I gave you all multiple chances to answer a simple question and it turned into Dodge City.
So as you go to bed tonight, ask yourselves: Why do you believe the things you about Jesus? Special revelation, or the Bible? And if any of it - ANY - comes from the Bible, why do you trust those parts and not the rest?
Yeah, I talk to God plenty, and I'll compare my deeds with yours any day. But that isn't where my faith is. My faith is in Jesus, and I learn about him through his word.
So you can keep up the personal attacks and try to convince yourselves that I'm sure of my beliefs and you're unsure and proud of it (though if you re-read the thread you might see that you actually come across as pretty sure of your beliefs), or you can answer my question for once.
And just because I'm so generous, I'll ignore all your insults and share my perspective on the dating of the New Testament - http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/06/29/when-was-the-new-testament-written/
ER, don't say I never come to visit!
G'night.
I realize Neil will disagree, but touche, old buddy, with the last line of your last comment. You nailed it.
Game, set, match.
Game, set, match.
"REPEAT: "By the preaching of Christian preachers ...""
Sorry - just one more thing - I didn't see this until now.
Soooo . . . you trust any preacher? I see a whole bunch of false ones out there, and a whole bunch who disagree. How do you know whom to trust?
I test what they say in light of scripture.
Sorry - just one more thing - I didn't see this until now.
Soooo . . . you trust any preacher? I see a whole bunch of false ones out there, and a whole bunch who disagree. How do you know whom to trust?
I test what they say in light of scripture.
I test preachers say in light of my own reading of Scripture, guided by my own understanding of Christian history, and human history, in general, guided further by my recognition of the limitations of the culture I grew up in -- underlined by my own personal experience, and punctuated by the supreme fact that I am the created, not the Creator, and the best I can do at the end of the day when I drift off to sleep is to throw myself, yet again, into the arms of GOD and hope for the best.
BTW, I hpe you don't consider your penultimate post as "sarcasm." You were just being a smart-ass.
But that, too, is covered by Grace.
BTW, I hpe you don't consider your penultimate post as "sarcasm." You were just being a smart-ass.
But that, too, is covered by Grace.
What hypocrisy Geoff! Lamenting Neil's lack of civility when you're the most uncivil person here and elsewhere encountered?
As for Mr Meyers assertion that,
"Some of us understand Easter as a spiritual phenomenon, not a physical one, and we wouldn't care is someone found the entire skeleton of Jesus -- we would still believe that Easter is real and that God raised Jesus from the dead."
...what rubbish. If someone found the entire skeleton of Jesus and could prove conclusively that they were in fact the bones of the Son of God, then Robin Meyers wastes his/her time every time he/she stands behind the pulpit! How can you have the bones of Jesus in an ossuary here on earth, and still believe that Grace is even possible? If Jesus was resurrected then died again-- as did Lazarus --then everything after the resurrection as recorded in the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and all the Epistles are lies. If Jesus' bones are here on earth He is not in heaven making intercession for anyone. If Jesus is not at the right hand of the Father this very moment, the entire Bible is a lie, and no one is saved.
But then I imagine you and Geoff would be just fine with that too.
Sometimes you simply amaze me with the crap that flows from your keyboard.
As for Mr Meyers assertion that,
"Some of us understand Easter as a spiritual phenomenon, not a physical one, and we wouldn't care is someone found the entire skeleton of Jesus -- we would still believe that Easter is real and that God raised Jesus from the dead."
...what rubbish. If someone found the entire skeleton of Jesus and could prove conclusively that they were in fact the bones of the Son of God, then Robin Meyers wastes his/her time every time he/she stands behind the pulpit! How can you have the bones of Jesus in an ossuary here on earth, and still believe that Grace is even possible? If Jesus was resurrected then died again-- as did Lazarus --then everything after the resurrection as recorded in the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and all the Epistles are lies. If Jesus' bones are here on earth He is not in heaven making intercession for anyone. If Jesus is not at the right hand of the Father this very moment, the entire Bible is a lie, and no one is saved.
But then I imagine you and Geoff would be just fine with that too.
Sometimes you simply amaze me with the crap that flows from your keyboard.
Re, "I talk to God plenty, and I'll compare my deeds with yours any day."
Ha ha ha ha ha. Wasn't this the liturgical NT readiong just last week??? Pbhthth. (I have to quit that, or wipe off this keyboard!)
Hee hee. Hey. It's OK. We all get het up.
Ha ha ha ha ha. Wasn't this the liturgical NT readiong just last week??? Pbhthth. (I have to quit that, or wipe off this keyboard!)
Hee hee. Hey. It's OK. We all get het up.
First, Karen, thank you. Yeah, a site I visit from a woman in Portugal had that, and I just love it. It gives me a sense of awe - I really am reaching people all over the world. It's very humbling. Your kind words mean a lot, and please visit, and comment when so moved, as often as possible.
Neil, why do I "not believe" the Bible on the virgin birth? For the same reason I don't believe angels mated with women, that Noah saved kinkajooes and wombats and tree kangaroos and mole rats during the Flood, and for the same reason I don't believe that Sampson brought down the temple single-handedly. These are stories, in the same way David Copperfield, and One Hundred Years of Solitude and A Suitable Boy are stories that convey meaning without being made up. Since the whole "virgin birth" think is based upon questionable translation of a Hebrew word that could also mean "an unbetrothed woman", or even "a young girl", I don't worry much about it at all. As I doubt very much that the gynecological status of Jesus' mother was of any more concern to the Holy Spirit than her marital status, I just kind of shrug my shoulders and say, "So what?"
The core of the Scripture is the work of God for humanity, starting with creation and ending with the final reconstitution of the new creation. While there are morally reprehensible tidbits in both Gospels, the central fact is God' bounteous, overflowing love even in the face of profound disobedience, even to the point of denial, on the part of those God has chosen to be vehicles of God's grace. This is my hermeneutical standpoint. Therefore, whether God wants me to marry my sister-in-law should my brother die, or not eat shellfish, or if Paul says that women need to sit down, shut up, and keep their heads covered in church, I don't worry about these things - not because if they are false all of Scripture is false (that's the biggest red-herring of all), but because they are not part of the central thrust of the Biblical narrative, God' redeeming love.
Neil, why do I "not believe" the Bible on the virgin birth? For the same reason I don't believe angels mated with women, that Noah saved kinkajooes and wombats and tree kangaroos and mole rats during the Flood, and for the same reason I don't believe that Sampson brought down the temple single-handedly. These are stories, in the same way David Copperfield, and One Hundred Years of Solitude and A Suitable Boy are stories that convey meaning without being made up. Since the whole "virgin birth" think is based upon questionable translation of a Hebrew word that could also mean "an unbetrothed woman", or even "a young girl", I don't worry much about it at all. As I doubt very much that the gynecological status of Jesus' mother was of any more concern to the Holy Spirit than her marital status, I just kind of shrug my shoulders and say, "So what?"
The core of the Scripture is the work of God for humanity, starting with creation and ending with the final reconstitution of the new creation. While there are morally reprehensible tidbits in both Gospels, the central fact is God' bounteous, overflowing love even in the face of profound disobedience, even to the point of denial, on the part of those God has chosen to be vehicles of God's grace. This is my hermeneutical standpoint. Therefore, whether God wants me to marry my sister-in-law should my brother die, or not eat shellfish, or if Paul says that women need to sit down, shut up, and keep their heads covered in church, I don't worry about these things - not because if they are false all of Scripture is false (that's the biggest red-herring of all), but because they are not part of the central thrust of the Biblical narrative, God' redeeming love.
How do you square being married to a pastor and believe what you do about the Bible? If it's all just 'stories' why bother preaching at all?
You need to be saved. Not just from Hell, but from your own sense of personal enlightenment.
You need to be saved. Not just from Hell, but from your own sense of personal enlightenment.
LOL. Geoffrey is hopeless to the "fundamentalist cause" -- but he is a clear and honest human witness to an honest response to the Gospel.
I don't have the stomach for this tonight. Speak as evilly of me as you wish, the day has been too good thus far to let this nonsense drag me down.
EL, for GOD's sake: YOU need to be saved from your "own understanding"!
Hee. And so, yet again: We are reduced to a fighter over whose spiritual wand is the biggest.
Hee. And so, yet again: We are reduced to a fighter over whose spiritual wand is the biggest.
You wouldn't know an honest response to the Gospel if it kicked you in the behind.
Sorry to hit and run, but I'm outta here.
I know, I know... "Good Riddance!"
And I'm fine with that.
Sorry to hit and run, but I'm outta here.
I know, I know... "Good Riddance!"
And I'm fine with that.
Oh, BTW: Here's why I don't feel a need to pretend that Christians are s'posed to be all ovey-dovey with one another:
"They will know we are Christians by our love" is bullshit unless we really love one another -- and the fact is, we don't.
Great myth, just like "Politics ends at the water's edge." Like George Washington's alleged cutting down of the cherry tree, and Jesus's walking on water -- great stories, full of meaningand truth -- but facts, eh, probably not so much.
"They will know we are Christians by our love" is bullshit unless we really love one another -- and the fact is, we don't.
Great myth, just like "Politics ends at the water's edge." Like George Washington's alleged cutting down of the cherry tree, and Jesus's walking on water -- great stories, full of meaningand truth -- but facts, eh, probably not so much.
Wow. ELAshley once told me to get over myself, and yet . . . and yet . . . The only comment directed at him was me mentioning that I don't really think civility is all that important. That's it. And then he says this, which is apparently very civil:
"How do you square being married to a pastor and believe what you do about the Bible? If it's all just 'stories' why bother preaching at all?
You need to be saved. Not just from Hell, but from your own sense of personal enlightenment."
Sin my wife feels the way I do about the Bible, I don't think there's anything that needs to be squared. As I am saved, not by anything I do or say, but by the grace of God, I don't worry about hell. As for my own sense of personal enlightenment, I do believe you reached down and found that somewhere in an orifice of your own, because I have absolutely no idea what in the world you're talking about.
And now, he stalks off, feeling all hurt for no apparent reason whatsoever. He is really sensitive, you know. And then, he will deny being hurt, and insist that his feelings aren't hurt, and that we need to get over ourselves. I have seen it before.
"How do you square being married to a pastor and believe what you do about the Bible? If it's all just 'stories' why bother preaching at all?
You need to be saved. Not just from Hell, but from your own sense of personal enlightenment."
Sin my wife feels the way I do about the Bible, I don't think there's anything that needs to be squared. As I am saved, not by anything I do or say, but by the grace of God, I don't worry about hell. As for my own sense of personal enlightenment, I do believe you reached down and found that somewhere in an orifice of your own, because I have absolutely no idea what in the world you're talking about.
And now, he stalks off, feeling all hurt for no apparent reason whatsoever. He is really sensitive, you know. And then, he will deny being hurt, and insist that his feelings aren't hurt, and that we need to get over ourselves. I have seen it before.
I need to go to work, but I would like to issue a couple errata if I may. In the 8:58 comment, it should read "convey meaning while being made up", not without.
In my 9:19 comment, it should read "Since she believes", not "Sin" which is not a Freudian slip, or even a Freudian garter belt.
Have a nice evening, folks. Toodles.
In my 9:19 comment, it should read "Since she believes", not "Sin" which is not a Freudian slip, or even a Freudian garter belt.
Have a nice evening, folks. Toodles.
Niel said: "I'll compare my deeds with yours any day."
I wasn't aware we knew each other so that you would know what my deeds for good or ill were. But then, fantasy seems to underly much of what you say. So you seem to fanta-size me as weak sister at best.
I assume by your lack of comment that you were unaware of the pre-biblical existance of virgin births and resurections of sons of gods. The subject died so quickly.
Neil said...
"I generally make it a point not to respond to such attacks, but I'm feeling charitable..."
So you're quoting a biased blog as your source? "http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/06/29/when-was-the-new-testament-written/"
Have you ever hear of textual critisim, logic, and history being used to date things. Why didn't you just quote your momma and be done with it.
As for your concept that if I accept the concept of God's Grace but not the other "stuff" then I must be off base and wrong, that's just immature and childish.
Grace is preached by directly by Christ. And like the Jesus Seminarians that you arrogantly dismissed, I am more likely to buy into the correlated sayings of Jesus than the isolated additions of Paulian syncopathic drones and misguided additions by Orthodox copyist.
And the neat thing about grace is that even I, and you too(maybe even ER), can have grace even though we are both most probably way wrong (I'm certain ER is) in our theology.
I wasn't aware we knew each other so that you would know what my deeds for good or ill were. But then, fantasy seems to underly much of what you say. So you seem to fanta-size me as weak sister at best.
I assume by your lack of comment that you were unaware of the pre-biblical existance of virgin births and resurections of sons of gods. The subject died so quickly.
Neil said...
"I generally make it a point not to respond to such attacks, but I'm feeling charitable..."
So you're quoting a biased blog as your source? "http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/06/29/when-was-the-new-testament-written/"
Have you ever hear of textual critisim, logic, and history being used to date things. Why didn't you just quote your momma and be done with it.
As for your concept that if I accept the concept of God's Grace but not the other "stuff" then I must be off base and wrong, that's just immature and childish.
Grace is preached by directly by Christ. And like the Jesus Seminarians that you arrogantly dismissed, I am more likely to buy into the correlated sayings of Jesus than the isolated additions of Paulian syncopathic drones and misguided additions by Orthodox copyist.
And the neat thing about grace is that even I, and you too(maybe even ER), can have grace even though we are both most probably way wrong (I'm certain ER is) in our theology.
drblojo,
I see that rational dialogue with you is impossible, so I'll just make one final comment to clarify things for others.
Re. deeds: I just pointed that out in response to the prideful, illogical and repeated claims by those who always portray this as a false dichotomy: "You care about doctrine, we carry about living good lives and following Jesus." Hey folks, you can do both. In fact, with solid doctrine you can do the latter even better. You don't have to / get to make up your own rules.
"I assume by your lack of comment that you were unaware of the pre-biblical existance of virgin births and resurections of sons of gods. The subject died so quickly."
Please re-read my comments. My point was that these myths may have existed before Jesus, but many came after. More importantly, they weren't real (unless, of course, you believe in those virgin births and resurrections but not that of Jesus). So the question is whether Jesus' virgin birth (mentioned many times in Matthew and Luke) and the resurrection (an absolutely crucial element of Christianity) were true.
Re. dating of the manuscripts: Yes, I understand textual criticism. If you do a little homework you can find all sorts of things supporting an earlier dating. I'd link to them but I don't waste time with the closed minded.
I also understand the a priori assumptions used by the Jesus Seminarians and by their followers ("the miracles in the Bible aren't true because miracles don't happen.") They are a joke, as are any "Christians" who dismiss miracles before investigating them and just make a god in their own image. That has been going on since Cain and continues today.
"Grace is preached by directly by Christ." No kidding. And for the tenth time, where do we find the preaching? Oh yes, in the Bible. And what else do we find in the Bible? Lots of teachings about Jesus, doctrine and miracles. So why just pick the things you like and skip what you don't like? Talk about making idols.
I see that rational dialogue with you is impossible, so I'll just make one final comment to clarify things for others.
Re. deeds: I just pointed that out in response to the prideful, illogical and repeated claims by those who always portray this as a false dichotomy: "You care about doctrine, we carry about living good lives and following Jesus." Hey folks, you can do both. In fact, with solid doctrine you can do the latter even better. You don't have to / get to make up your own rules.
"I assume by your lack of comment that you were unaware of the pre-biblical existance of virgin births and resurections of sons of gods. The subject died so quickly."
Please re-read my comments. My point was that these myths may have existed before Jesus, but many came after. More importantly, they weren't real (unless, of course, you believe in those virgin births and resurrections but not that of Jesus). So the question is whether Jesus' virgin birth (mentioned many times in Matthew and Luke) and the resurrection (an absolutely crucial element of Christianity) were true.
Re. dating of the manuscripts: Yes, I understand textual criticism. If you do a little homework you can find all sorts of things supporting an earlier dating. I'd link to them but I don't waste time with the closed minded.
I also understand the a priori assumptions used by the Jesus Seminarians and by their followers ("the miracles in the Bible aren't true because miracles don't happen.") They are a joke, as are any "Christians" who dismiss miracles before investigating them and just make a god in their own image. That has been going on since Cain and continues today.
"Grace is preached by directly by Christ." No kidding. And for the tenth time, where do we find the preaching? Oh yes, in the Bible. And what else do we find in the Bible? Lots of teachings about Jesus, doctrine and miracles. So why just pick the things you like and skip what you don't like? Talk about making idols.
Neil, I never knew you could be such an ass. Brava!
You could "make" your "points" -- those air quotes around Christian are still God-damned -- without being so "smug."
Or maybe you can't.
As moderator of the ER Roadhouse, you're the one who gets a yellow flag. It all started right here, with your condescending sniff, your flippant dismissal of about 150 years or more of Christian scholarship, and your usual juvenile attempt to change the subject when you find yourself backed into a corner, oh, and the usual flurry of questions irrevelant to the point at hand, which I call argumentum ad-bullshittum:
DrloboJo: "All the stories are not less than third hand accounts and were written 40 to 120 years after the resurrection would have happened."
Neil: That is incorrect in several ways, but just for the sake of argument let's pretend it is true. Those same documents teach you about grace. So why do you trust them for grace and not for other things? Or did you have special revelation of grace?
Red flag for "special revelation." Like "straw man," you've misused the term to the point where it has no meaning coming from you.
Yellow flag for Geoffrey: There are no trolls, and no trolling, at the ER Roadhouse. I hate the term. All it means when used by the host of a blog is "someone I disagree with who annoys me." Since the whole point of this place sometimes to argument, bullshit and all, there are no trolls here. That, or we're all trolls, since we all disdagree with one another on some things and we all annoy one another at least once in awhile.
Trixie! If ya don't like the temp of the water, don't stick yer toe in more than once!
You could "make" your "points" -- those air quotes around Christian are still God-damned -- without being so "smug."
Or maybe you can't.
As moderator of the ER Roadhouse, you're the one who gets a yellow flag. It all started right here, with your condescending sniff, your flippant dismissal of about 150 years or more of Christian scholarship, and your usual juvenile attempt to change the subject when you find yourself backed into a corner, oh, and the usual flurry of questions irrevelant to the point at hand, which I call argumentum ad-bullshittum:
DrloboJo: "All the stories are not less than third hand accounts and were written 40 to 120 years after the resurrection would have happened."
Neil: That is incorrect in several ways, but just for the sake of argument let's pretend it is true. Those same documents teach you about grace. So why do you trust them for grace and not for other things? Or did you have special revelation of grace?
Red flag for "special revelation." Like "straw man," you've misused the term to the point where it has no meaning coming from you.
Yellow flag for Geoffrey: There are no trolls, and no trolling, at the ER Roadhouse. I hate the term. All it means when used by the host of a blog is "someone I disagree with who annoys me." Since the whole point of this place sometimes to argument, bullshit and all, there are no trolls here. That, or we're all trolls, since we all disdagree with one another on some things and we all annoy one another at least once in awhile.
Trixie! If ya don't like the temp of the water, don't stick yer toe in more than once!
Neil said: "I don't waste time with the closed minded."
Hell, I must have an open mind Neil. Otherwise how could all that stuff you detest so much get into it. J.B. Phillips would call your position on the Bible a 100 percenter. I need to encounter such every once in a while, but not a steady diet mind you, to remind me of what is really out there in many of those sunday morning boxes along the road.
50 something comments ago, I noted that Jesus' Unique message was God's Grace. You chose to ignore that and pick off the nits rather than speak to the message. Grace scares many people. It does me. It ask so much actually.
Hell, I must have an open mind Neil. Otherwise how could all that stuff you detest so much get into it. J.B. Phillips would call your position on the Bible a 100 percenter. I need to encounter such every once in a while, but not a steady diet mind you, to remind me of what is really out there in many of those sunday morning boxes along the road.
50 something comments ago, I noted that Jesus' Unique message was God's Grace. You chose to ignore that and pick off the nits rather than speak to the message. Grace scares many people. It does me. It ask so much actually.
Wow, ER, you sure get people all riled up and stuff!
Say, I had a Troll on my blog once upon a time. Let's see it was this one I think:
http://www.xanga.com/Juniorthebear/466387284/seattle-troll.html
Oh Trixie, My Trixie you can dip your toes into my blog as much as you want to.
Gee, ER, what do you think some of your bloogers would think about Fatman's garden and Yoda shrine and such. Good thing the inquestionistion is done and gone. It is isn't it?
Say, I had a Troll on my blog once upon a time. Let's see it was this one I think:
http://www.xanga.com/Juniorthebear/466387284/seattle-troll.html
Oh Trixie, My Trixie you can dip your toes into my blog as much as you want to.
Gee, ER, what do you think some of your bloogers would think about Fatman's garden and Yoda shrine and such. Good thing the inquestionistion is done and gone. It is isn't it?
# posted by : 8:01 AM
: 8:01 AM
No, it's *your* problem. Not mine, and not JTB's.
Besides ... well, I started to say "He's a bear and bears don't have souls," so what does it matter? But I do not know that bears do not have souls.
Besides ... well, I started to say "He's a bear and bears don't have souls," so what does it matter? But I do not know that bears do not have souls.
I was using the term "trolling" in the sense of reading a post, and deciding to comment. It was not a negative epithet at all. I was not saying that Neil was "an internet troll" because I, too, dislike the term. Neil has as much right to post here, or anywhere else, as far as I am concerned. I apologize for using a loaded term. Can the red flag be removed?
Drlobojo - you called Nail out, as did ER earlier, on exactly his tactics: change the subject, introduce red herrings and straw arguments, and dismiss what he cannot argue against. 'Tis sad, truly, because I really wanted, at one time, to have some kind of fruitful dialogue with Neil. I discovered that was impossible because (a) Neil is convinced he knows more of what people think and believe than they do; and (b) the only rude and awful people are those who call him on his tactics, not his arrogant, dismissive tone and his refusal to engage with serious points of an argument.
This has been fun and educational. Let's do it again sometime.
Drlobojo - you called Nail out, as did ER earlier, on exactly his tactics: change the subject, introduce red herrings and straw arguments, and dismiss what he cannot argue against. 'Tis sad, truly, because I really wanted, at one time, to have some kind of fruitful dialogue with Neil. I discovered that was impossible because (a) Neil is convinced he knows more of what people think and believe than they do; and (b) the only rude and awful people are those who call him on his tactics, not his arrogant, dismissive tone and his refusal to engage with serious points of an argument.
This has been fun and educational. Let's do it again sometime.
ER, bears don't have souls. They have spirits. They are a lot happier with spirits than we are with souls as they don't have to worry about religion. They just have to be bears. I'm beginning to think your pagan education has been sadly neglected. :)
One item I had hoped to have gotten to, was intimated by Trixie in her Ezekiel reference. The very concept of Christ's resurection can be the physical resurection of bones and corupt flesh like Orepheus or Osiris or it can be something more, the resurection of the spirit, the essence of life, the breath of God.
Much of what passes for "resurection" knowledge is derived more from Paul's Helenistic influence and the Revelations of John than from the Gospels. We get lost in the symbolic as though it was history. We get lost in the written word because we do not understand imagery.
But alas, those who know better and know all, precluded exploration. Their loss, but mine too.
Much of what passes for "resurection" knowledge is derived more from Paul's Helenistic influence and the Revelations of John than from the Gospels. We get lost in the symbolic as though it was history. We get lost in the written word because we do not understand imagery.
But alas, those who know better and know all, precluded exploration. Their loss, but mine too.
Tech, yer right!
Geoffrey, flag removed!
Drlobojo, whatcha wrote right there is enough to make a litero-fundamentalist's head explode!
Geoffrey, flag removed!
Drlobojo, whatcha wrote right there is enough to make a litero-fundamentalist's head explode!
Trixie! If ya don't like the temp of the water, don't stick yer toe in more than once!
I won't make the mistake again, E.R.
Oh Trixie, My Trixie you can dip your toes into my blog as much as you want to.
Thank you, my dear Junior!
One item I had hoped to have gotten to, was intimated by Trixie in her Ezekiel reference. The very concept of Christ's resurection can be the physical resurection of bones and corupt flesh like Orepheus or Osiris or it can be something more, the resurection of the spirit, the essence of life, the breath of God.
Thank you too, drlobojo. Perhaps I will blog about that, someday. Someday.
I won't make the mistake again, E.R.
Oh Trixie, My Trixie you can dip your toes into my blog as much as you want to.
Thank you, my dear Junior!
One item I had hoped to have gotten to, was intimated by Trixie in her Ezekiel reference. The very concept of Christ's resurection can be the physical resurection of bones and corupt flesh like Orepheus or Osiris or it can be something more, the resurection of the spirit, the essence of life, the breath of God.
Thank you too, drlobojo. Perhaps I will blog about that, someday. Someday.
Dadgum it, I didn't mean to bark at you, Trixie. Just was the wrong time to tsk-tsk me. I don't mind whompin' on blogamentalists. I feel bad for whompin' even a little on you. :-( I sorry.
Don't buy into that Trixie he is still the sam ole sadist male chauvenist linear thinker he's always been. He is just a scared that all his "support team" will back off and leave him to be deboned by the floggermentalist he attracts here. Heck even called me a bad bad name the other day and attributed evil intentions to my words. Me, his greatest....err...his....well...I don't dump on him all the time.
Wow, I've been gone and missed out on all this. My only thoughts are that I remember ER saying he held his fist up and demanded God to reveal Himself and I think that is going to happen. Better sit down, ER. It may come as an earthquake, a might wind or it could be a still small voice. Just open your heart and your EARS and keep you mouth shut. That is advice from an old woman.
One of the bad things about this post is that for some reason there is now a song about "Beyond the Bones of Jesus" running through my mind to the tune of the Hymn "All Hail The Power fo Jesus Name".
No, no I won't share the words with you.
Post a Comment
No, no I won't share the words with you.
<< Home
