Hi Deputy Dog & Tec....I'm not sure how its possible, but I think I agree with both of you?????? Is it possible you are both saying similar things in different ways? Or maybe you are both adding to each other. Either way I have enjoyed it. Thanks. Been refreshing
Does the Christian message fall apart without a literal interpretation of Genesis?
by nicolaou 175 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
tec
Or maybe you are both adding to each other.
I would like it if it were this. ^ If we were building one another up. Sometimes I think these things do come down to semantics, and sometimes its just hard to communicate what we feel in words.
I'm glad you enjoyed, Stillthinking.
Peace,
Tammy
-
still thinking
Yeah Tammy I agree. Words never really explain how we feel or sometimes what we think. They always lose some meaning when we try to explain. Frustrating isn't it?
-
wobble
I think the "Christian message" was really given by Paul, we do not have it much in the Gospels, and Paul condemned "fights about words".
This was because he had learned his faith, not from scripture, but by a mystical experience on the road to Damascus that persuaded him beyond doubt that Christ was risen.
He writes much about the necessity of experiencing union with the risen Christ, by baptism and faith, not by arguing about scripture, which he sees simply as an affirmation of the reality of the risen Christ, not the basis, or starting point, for belief.
His way of being a Christian appealed to the Gentiles for that reason , they were not required to become Jews. The Genesis account was not the starting point for their faith, it was not even vital to Pauls teaching on sin and redemption, though it does feature, but he is not necessarily being literal with his "through one man sin entered in to the world" more literary, than literal.
The way I see it, the Christian message that Paul gave, the message that first gave impetus to the growth of Christianity, without which perhaps the whole movement may have withered and died, did not even envisage a literal interpretation of Genesis, so why do any modern Christians feel the need to try to force a literal interpretation ?
-
lovelylil
I am wieghing in on this late. But I agree with Tec and Wobble here. I do not believe we can possibly understand every word written in the bible, nor do we have to. Paul said he saw things "in a hazy mirror" and that the church would not completely grow up (in understanding all things) until Christ returns.
Jesus also said that studying scriputures daily to see what they say about him was not as important as going directly to him. (john5:39-41)
While I do think we need knowledge of scripture to prevent us believeing in false doctrine, the bible unfortunately is open to interpretation. And as we learned by firsthand experience, many cults twist the bible's words for their own benefit. So, yes we should know the basics of the bible and christian doctrine but since no one is saved by knowledge of the bible, we need to put things in their proper perspective. Peace, Lilly
-
Deputy Dog
Tammy
Are Jude and James apostles? James possibly, though both he and Jude introduce themselves as servants of God and of Christ. Luke wasn't an apostle though. (you still haven't responded about him, btw) Thomas was... and I don't know very much about the Gospel of Thomas, except that it isn't in there. But why? Because some men chose what to put in and what to discard? Catholics and Protestants have a few different books that Catholics consider scripture and Protestants do not. Again, who is right?
First I used apostleship as ONE of the tests for inclusion in NT cannon, but not the only test. Without going into a long debate about the Cannon of the New Testament. Which has been beaten to death on this board. You can read about that without my help. The early church knew what was included, the questions and challenges arose as the church grew.
2nd I must not understand your problem with Luke. While he wasn't one of the 12 disciples, why would you assume he wasn't an Apostle?
My point for asking about these things, was, you seem to put the whole bible cannon into question, when the works of Paul are generally accepted by all Christians. It looks like you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In effect you only answer to an untestable voice in your head, not to the established word of God. In other words how would/could you be corrected or reproved when YOU get to pick and choose what YOU like.
2Ti 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
Even Luther who did question some of the established cannon, never refused to be corrected by them. He only refused to be subject to the books outside of the established cannon at the time. This was the reason for the (Catholic) books being added at Trent.
Would you rebuke the Bereans in Acts 17 for testing what Paul taught using the scripture? Paul commended them for using the scriptures this way, calling them noble.
You gave me a list of THINGS, YOU don't approve of, not a list of scripture (chapter and verse) you believe is of a "different spirit than Christ". (Interesting enough though, "An eye for an eye" is the basis for most of the civil law in our society today, including the death penalty.) It appears that you throw out anything connected with the Wrath of God on unbelievers, like in your quote of Jesus
Just as Christ said, "Moses gave you this law because your hearts were hard.) Things like that.
Hardened hearts are the hearts of unbelievers. In their culture this could have been seen as mercy on the wives, freeing them from torture or death. In this context Jesus never nullified this law, so I'm not sure I understand your objection to any of this scripture.
However, I also don't think Paul meant that in the same way the WT takes it,
I doubt Paul meant much of anything the way the WT teaches it. I would suggest that the WT be ignored on all accounts. They know NOTHING of the grace of God.
Christ is who he is, regardless of what we personally think. You can't learn from me who Christ is, if your understanding is wrong and mine is right. (and vice versa) We must go to Him... in spirit and in prayer. We can, however, still follow his teachings and love one another as he loved us. That's our job, isn't it? To listen to Him?
There isn't much to disagree with here, the problem though is; How YOU know what "his teachings" are and where to find them.
-
tec
2nd I must not understand your problem with Luke. While he wasn't one of the 12 disciples, why would you assume he wasn't an Apostle?
I don't assume anything. The only thing I asked you about Luke concerned 'inspired scripture'. Since Luke says in his opening to Theopholus that he had investigated matters fully... this is not indicative of inspiration, but of investigation and report. Do I think he loved Christ and God, and that his faith inspired him to be honest and sincere and to show the fruits of the spirit? Of course. But scripture are writings inspired directly by Holy Spirit, aren't they?
If you disagree with that, then perhaps we have been discussing the wrong topic ;)
He only refused to be subject to the books outside of the established cannon at the time.
Established canon at the time. Yes. That is kind of, or at least partially, the point. Either it was inspired or not. Either way, someone at some point, made a mistake.
My point for asking about these things, was, you seem to put the whole bible cannon into question, when the works of Paul are generally accepted by all Christians. It looks like you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In effect you only answer to an untestable voice in your head, not to the established word of God. In other words how would/could you be corrected or reproved when YOU get to pick and choose what YOU like.
Again, I don't reject Paul's writings. I believe that He was inspired by the Holy Spirit. That doesn't mean that everything he wrote was scripture, though, or that some of the issues that come up in his letters were contingent upon the time, customs, and specific situation he had to address. Some of the things he wrote, he specifically said that did not come from God, but from him.
I don't test anything against a voice in my head (though if I heard our lord speaking to me directly, and recognized it as Him doing so, then I would take His word over a writing), nor do I pick and choose what I like. I don't go against anything Christ is recorded to have said... though I understand about translation and scribal errors. I test everything against Him, and his teachings (that are recorded... and that I learn through experience so that I can not only read about things... but I can 'see' them also). Yet I also grow in love and understanding, and that comes from Him as well, and love can teach us a great deal.
I am answerable to Him. He will correct and reprove me. He is also forgiving and merciful, and I know that I depend on that. But no one had to have perfect understanding to be loved by Him. I also do not discount things that others say that show understanding in a way that I had not considered. I've been wrong about things in the past, am sure I'll be wrong again, and I of course accept that I can be wrong about some things right now. But I will not accept something as being true, just because someone else tells me to accept it. Even if it is an accepted/official doctrine of 'Christianity'.
Would you rebuke the Bereans in Acts 17 for testing what Paul taught using the scripture?
I wouldn't really rebuke anyone for anything, unless it went against what Christ said and did and taught, and they claimed that it was what Christ said. But the key point here is our understanding of what, exactly, consists of scripture.
You gave me a list of THINGS, YOU don't approve of, not a list of scripture (chapter and verse) you believe is of a "different spirit than Christ". (Interesting enough though, "An eye for an eye" is the basis for most of the civil law in our society today, including the death penalty.) It appears that you throw out anything connected with the Wrath of God on unbelievers, like in your quote of Jesus
No, I gave you a list of things that were in opposition to what Christ did, and taught. Since Christ shows the Father, and the Father does not change... then I have to believe that some of the things attributed to God, were not actually from God. Christ did say that MOSES gave them this law on divorce, but I agree that it probably was an act of mercy for the women... BECAUSE the men's hearts were hard, and would not do right by them without this allowance made for them. Damage control, as I mentioned earlier.
I agree that eye for an eye is the basis for much law in our society. But why is that relevant? It isn't what Christ taught. He taught us to turn the other cheek. Do not repay wrong for wrong.
"You have heard it said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, Do not resists an evil person. If someone strkes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well..." Matthew 5:41
Hardened hearts are the hearts of unbelievers. In their culture this could have been seen as mercy on the wives, freeing them from torture or death. In this context Jesus never nullified this law, so I'm not sure I understand your objection to any of this scripture.
Interesting to note that those who you call unbelievers, believed that they were believers.
I doubt Paul meant much of anything the way the WT teaches it. I would suggest that the WT be ignored on all accounts. They know NOTHING of the grace of God.
Not much to disagree with here ;)
How YOU know what "his teachings" are and where to find them.
I learned about Christ's teachings from the NT. From the recordings and accounts written about Him. I learn what they mean from Him, through experience and understanding that He gives me. And I do not believe that there isn't more to knowing Him than just what is written in the bible, because that is only a partial picture.
Tammy
-
tec
You know what? That was just too long, and I'm saying the same things again and again. How about this: You prove to me that the bible in its modern entirety is inspired scripture.
Then I can ask you questions, and you can do the explaining :)
Tammy
-
nicolaou
I don't want to break up the 'flow' of this conversation which I've been following with interest but just wanted to make a couple of points. Tammy, you said that "sometimes I think these things do come down to semantics, and sometimes its just hard to communicate what we feel in words."
I agree. But often the difficulty is because you are discussing things which defy identification, language simply cannot cope with concepts like 'holy spirit' or 'inspired scripture'. Debates like this one between DD and yourself will continue without meaningful resolution because definitions of the basic premises of the discussion cannot be mutually agreed upon by all parties.
I'm not saying that the discussion is meaningless, far from it, good for you and DD that you're trying to understand each other better. It's just that to a rationalist like myself your conversation appears meaningless, it has no bearing on reality. I don't say that to offend or 'wind you up' I just want you to try and understand MY position.
This topic was started because I wanted to understand how anyone could take the Christian message seriously when it was drawn from the same well as a fable about a talking snake convincing a naked girl to eat a piece of fruit. This being the start of a chain of events which led to the crucifixion of a man/god who would thereby save us all from sin.
Tammy, please allow me to take your question to DD and, with one small tweak, turn it around for you to answer;
Prove to me that any part of the bible is inspired scripture*. Then I can ask you questions, and you can do the explaining.
Nic'
* Let's agree that 'inspired scripture' is defined as biblical text that has been revealed to the writer by God.
-
tec
But often the difficulty is because you are discussing things which defy identification, language simply cannot cope with concepts like 'holy spirit' or 'inspired scripture'. Debates like this one between DD and yourself will continue without meaningful resolution because definitions of the basic premises of the discussion cannot be mutually agreed upon by all parties.
Nick, I absolutely agree with this. There are things I understand that I cannot put into words even for myself, let alone someone else. When I understand something - not necessarily limited to religious/spiritual things - I just absorb it. It becomes part of my outlook on life, and in order to explain where I am at now, I'd have to go back and explain all those things as well, and I don't have the words to do it. I don't know if that means there are no words, or if I personally don't have the words. I was never good at teaching. I used to tutor algebra because I was so good at it, (high school), but I could never explain the concepts. People would look at what I showed them, then ask me the same question, and I would be so frustrated. I would be screaming in my head: 'It's right there in black and white; how can you not see it?'
I also understand how a non-believer would find this sort of discussion without merit - how it would be a lot of time devoted to what you must consider a 'concept'. I do understand your position.
Your definition of inspired scripture is the same as mine. And of course, I cannot prove that anything in it is inspired. I thought about that last night, and it was also not fair for me to ask DD to prove that the whole thing was either. I should have asked him to explain to me why he believed it to be.
As for me, I have no idea. I take it "as is", many writings that tell the history and laws and beliefs of a people - sometimes through literal occurrences and sometimes through allegory to relay a truth in terms the people can understand... and also that it is many different accounts bearing witness to Christ while he was here, and what happened after he left. I understand that some is inspired, because Christ said so... but I don't really know which parts. I know the prophets and the law are supposed to be, but I don't know how much has been altered because of scribal or translation errors, or even how much is limited by their understanding at the time.
The only thing that makes it more than an interesting delve into history is Christ. So then, for me, everything that complies with what he said, I believe that. The rest I take with a grain of salt.
Tammy