OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)

[lch]

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Christians have many doctrinal disputes among us -- baptism, Holy Communion, church authority, etcetera -- but there are also central truths that must be held in common. The divinity of Christ is one such truth. If Jesus is not God, then why be Christian?

Why does he need to be God? Everything works out perfectly fine without that. I do believe that Jesus has ascended and that there is a trinity in spirit, if that's the right word, but I don't agree that God and Jesus are the same entity. And I don't believe in the virgin birth either. I think that's not that uncommon, and that's what I meant when I referring to catholics where they have a big cult around the holy Madonna, but this would then be a problem for me if I wanted to believe that Jesus is/was God. How and when did he become God? I'd consider it blasphemy that a man can become God, and that God becomes a man as well. I have to say that I connect a lot more with the Old Testament than with the New Testament, by the way.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Jesus Himself claimed to be God. He claimed His divinity repeatedly and forcefully. In the end, that's why the Sanhedrin had Him killed. If He wasn't God, then Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic. If He was a liar, then He was a particularly vile liar, because those lies have deceived countless people over the centuries. If He was a lunatic, then He was like one of those seriously-deranged people who needs heavy meds to keep out of trouble. Either way, Jesus would not be God's prophet, because God wouldn't speak His words through lies or insane ramblings.

As I said before, I don't take the bible literally. Partly because what I read in the bible has gone through at least two translations of different languages and has been written down years after it happened, a generation later, but that's not my point. And I don't want to set at defiance the rigorous work of the people who did the transcriptions and translations. Jesus has often been speaking in similes. Jesus Christ is holy, that is without question, but I do not believe that he is God. Just out of curiosity, if you believe that Jesus and God is the same, or at least that he forcefully claimed that, then why would he despair on the cross and call to God, asking why he had forsaken him?

[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by lch

Why does he need to be God? Everything works out perfectly fine without that.

God alone has the power to forgive sins. Without that power, Jesus wouldn't be much good as a Savior.

Originally Posted by lch

I do believe that Jesus has ascended and that there is a trinity in spirit, if that's the right word, but I don't agree that God and Jesus are the same entity.

Jesus (God the Son) is not the same entity as God the Father. They are both members of the Godhead, but they are different from each other. Three persons, one God.

That's why the Holy Trinity is such an essential piece of Christian doctrine. Without a clear understanding of the Trinity (as much as humans can ever understand it), we would be forever confused about God.

Originally Posted by lch

And I don't believe in the virgin birth either. I think that's not that uncommon, and that's what I meant when I referring to catholics where they have a big cult around the holy Madonna, but this would then be a problem for me if I wanted to believe that Jesus is/was God.

To be fair, the Catholic Church doesn't encourage or require any Cult of the Madonna. But yeah, plenty of actual Catholics seem to go overboard in their devotion for Mary. All I can do is to point to the official Catholic teaching, which does not encourage such behavior. Mary was a special person, and God chose her for a unique role to bear His Son ... but Mary was still a human being.

Originally Posted by lch

How and when did he become God? I'd consider it blasphemy that a man can become God, and that God becomes a man as well. I have to say that I connect a lot more with the Old Testament than with the New Testament, by the way.

Jesus was always God. He didn't "become" God. All the way back in Genesis, when God spoke the world into being, His Word was Jesus. That's the point that John makes in the first chapter of his Gospel:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

It goes back to the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus has always been God the Son, along with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by lch

As I said before, I don't take the bible literally. Partly because what I read in the bible has gone through at least two translations of different languages and has been written down years after it happened, a generation later, but that's not my point. And I don't want to set at defiance the rigorous work of the people who did the transcriptions and translations. Jesus has often been speaking in similes. Jesus Christ is holy, that is without question, but I do not believe that he is God.

I won't address the reliability of Scripture, but only because I've already spent so much time writing about it on this thread.

If you don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, what do you believe about it? Are some parts true and other parts false? How do you know which are which?

Also, as I mentioned before, the divinity of Jesus is one of the major themes of Scripture. You'd have to do away with an awful lot of the Bible to get around it....

Originally Posted by lch

Just out of curiosity, if you believe that Jesus and God is the same, or at least that he forcefully claimed that, then why would he despair on the cross and call to God, asking why he had forsaken him?

Back to the doctrine of the Trinity. God the Son (Jesus) became sin on our behalf. As He hung on the Cross, He became the sins of the entire human race. As God is holy, He cannot be in communion with sin. For those agonizing moments, the eternal unity between the Father and the Son was interrupted, and the Father turned His back on the Son. When it was finished, Jesus said so [John 19:30], and then He surrendered His spirit to the Father's care [Luke 23:46]. The Father and the Son were in unity once more, never to be separated again.

By the way, that was perhaps the ultimate punishment of the Cross: Jesus endured separation from God, which is the fitting punishment for all of us. Because He took it for us, we don't ever have to suffer that horrible separation. We can be united with God -- all three Persons -- forever.

[lch]

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

God alone has the power to forgive sins. Without that power, Jesus wouldn't be much good as a Savior.

Exactly, only God can forgive the sins. Jesus is the proxy.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Jesus (God the Son) is not the same entity as God the Father. They are both members of the Godhead, but they are different from each other. Three persons, one God.

I don't like the word "Godhead", but I don't like "Trinity", either. Yes, there exist all three, and they share something, but they are not one.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Without a clear understanding of the Trinity (as much as humans can ever understand it), we would be forever confused about God.

Only with that all-are-one-are-not-the-same definition, it seems. I am not confused with my model.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

If you don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, what do you believe about it? Are some parts true and other parts false? How do you know which are which?

Well, I'm sorry if my belief system doesn't match yours and we disagree about things. But I don't have to accept yours, in the same way as you don't have to accept mine. My belief in God and Jesus Christ works for me, and I don't regard yours as any "truer than mine" just because you managed to fit more of the bible into it. I am not one for dogmas. I can't believe in the inerrancy of scripture as, first, words are hardly capable to contain what happened concerning what you refer to as "divine", and second, if the scripture was without error, then we wouldn't need four gospels which disagree in parts with each other, then we'd only need one. The bible is a book written by human hands and you have to interpret it, which automatically happens and starts already when you read the words in it that are written down. One may hope to understand some things in it, I chose to decide what I can say I have understood and accept it and I decide to discard what doesn't fit in for me. Those parts are not canonic for me in order to save the whole. It may either be that the source got it wrong, or the written word is presenting it in a bad way, or my interpretation and decision is false. I do understand that a lot of things got into the mix from other religions, like Hell and the Devil. And I decide that parts in the bible, which is a work of many authors, are not valid, in the same vain like I decide that the Quran is not valid for me. And if I'm the only one with my belief system that matters little for me, as I do believe in "my" God.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Back to the doctrine of the Trinity. God the Son (Jesus) became sin on our behalf. As He hung on the Cross, He became the sins of the entire human race. As God is holy, He cannot be in communion with sin. For those agonizing moments, the eternal unity between the Father and the Son was interrupted, and the Father turned His back on the Son. When it was finished, Jesus said so [John 19:30], and then He surrendered His spirit to the Father's care [Luke 23:46]. The Father and the Son were in unity once more, never to be separated again.

It's strange for me because I'm jumping between "in principle we agree" and "no, that's not it" every odd second. It probably has to do with language as well, but I guess that my simple and working model disagrees with yours after all. I'd probably have to start going cross-eyed before I attempt to understand this in the way that it is meant to be understood. As I already said, I do not agree with dogmas like those that you state.

I don't want to convert anybody to my belief system, though, so let's just give it a rest. If I wanted to battle the dark ages, I'd be playing Dom3 some more.

[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by lch

Well, I'm sorry if my belief system doesn't match yours and we disagree about things. But I don't have to accept yours, in the same way as you don't have to accept mine.

I never said that you have to change your belief system. I simply asked you to explain it. I'm sorry if the question gave offense, but it was only a question.

Originally Posted by lch

My belief in God and Jesus Christ works for me, and I don't regard yours as any "truer than mine" just because you managed to fit more of the bible into it. I am not one for dogmas.

Minor point of clarification: I am not so arrogant as to believe that I know all about God. I simply know where to find all that I ever need to know about God. The Bible is perfect. My own understanding of God is very imperfect, and I learn more every day.

Actually, this conversation has helped me by forcing me to take another good look at my beliefs. What do I believe to be true? How do I support that belief? Christians are not expected to take our faith blindly, but rather to test it and examine it. Blind faith may work out well in the short-term, but it cannot survive the first challenge. Only a well-grounded, often-examined faith will enable you to face what life has to offer.

Originally Posted by lch

I can't believe in the inerrancy of scripture as, first, words are hardly capable to contain what happened concerning what you refer to as "divine", and second, if the scripture was without error, then we wouldn't need four gospels which disagree in parts with each other, then we'd only need one.

Another minor point of clarification: The canonical Gospels don't actually differ on any substantive issues. Each Gospel writer picked up a few events that the others missed, which is what you might expect from four different eyewitness accounts. Even so, the Gospels are all in agreement on the "big" things.

Originally Posted by lch

The bible is a book written by human hands and you have to interpret it, which automatically happens and starts already when you read the words in it that are written down.

I agree. Scriptural interpretation is very important. Of course, the next obvious question is how do you interpret Scripture? Theologians refer to this concept as Biblical hermeneutics.

Originally Posted by lch

And if I'm the only one with my belief system that matters little for me, as I do believe in "my" God.

Again, you are free to believe whatever you believe, and you certainly don't need my approval.

My question is about how you believe what you believe. And my question may be particularly focused because you have professed a Christian faith. Therefore, I'm trying to understand how your belief fits into Christianity.

Originally Posted by lch

It's strange for me because I'm jumping between "in principle we agree" and "no, that's not it" every odd second. It probably has to do with language as well, but I guess that my simple and working model disagrees with yours after all. I'd probably have to start going cross-eyed before I attempt to understand this in the way that it is meant to be understood. As I already said, I do not agree with dogmas like those that you state.

So here's my other point: Names have meaning. If I wanted to call myself a Pastafarian, that would bring certain meanings along with it. My identification with the Flying Spaghetti Monster would imply certain things about my beliefs. I am not especially familiar with Pastafarianism, but I think it would require me to accept (at least) the following beliefs:

1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the universe.
2. He is omnipotent, invisible, and very powerful. (Surely this last point is redundant, if he's also omnipotent.)

Source: http://www.venganza.org/worship/guid...astafarianism/

However, I don't believe that the FSM exists, that he created the world, or anything else about him. Therefore, if I called myself a Pastafarian, I would be incorrect in doing so. Furthermore, I might expect that Pastafarians would ask me some questions about my beliefs.

(Before anyone gets huffy, I should add that I know that the FSM is satire. I used it in my example so that I could avoid needlessly offending believers of other faiths.)

Originally Posted by lch

I don't want to convert anybody to my belief system, though, so let's just give it a rest. If I wanted to battle the dark ages, I'd be playing Dom3 some more.

Understood. As I told KO, I don't seriously expect to convert anyone via the Shrapnel forums. I'm looking to increase our mutual understanding.