My Beliefs- GDR

I really have to wonder if you actually read the quote. What did he say that was heretical ? He gave the historical background to belief about resurrection pre-Jesus and then in the last paragraph essentially stated that the Christian hope came from the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

You really don't know? That's hard to believe. But OK I'll try to spell it out. Bible believers are not materialists. Correct me if you or Wright have some other definition but materialism is generally understood to explain all things from a primarily materialist standpoint, which he goes on to do. Now there is a problem here in that he's explaining "religion" in which I suppose he's including Christianity, but a Bible Christian makes a huge distinction between Christianity and all other religions. If to some extent we might agree that the other religions may be explainable in terms of his categories (but only to some extent as most of the man-originated religions were prompted by demons), we certainly aren't going to agree that Christianity can be so explained. We regard the Bible as revelation to humanity from God Himself, of course speaking in familiar human terms but not having its origin in human beings at all but in God. It begins with God choosing Abraham to father a nation for Him, and goes on from there about many other leaders chosen by God Himself for His purposes. It's ALL God-originated, had nothing to do with politics, economics, technology etc., all GOD-originated, and everything else follows on that basic fact.So his first paragraph is straight heresy.Wright goes on: I'm sure a case can be made for materialist-based "religious worldviews" that could be said to be "in some meaningful sense religious." But Christianity isn't one of them. Simply lumping Christianity with "religions" is heretical on top of his materialist perspective.And more: About as far as you can get from Bible Christianity which is no illusion but the revelation of a reality we would have known little or nothing about without the revelation -- the nature of God Himself first, the nature of humanity, the Creation, the Fall, the plan of redemption, the promise of the Messiah to save us from our sins, and then the coming of the Messiah, His sinless birth of a virgin, His sinless life, His being God but humbling Himself as a man, His miracles, His teachings about the holy life, His death, resurrection and ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit, which are all evidence of His being God as well as man, and all for the salvation of those who believe on Him, and the defeat of the Satanic hordes who owned this planet since the Fall. I suppose his book tries to prove this but of course in the context of Bible Christianity it's just an absurdity. What a strange idea, an illusion becoming real? What universe does Mr. Wright live in anyway? Well, the part you quoted didn't include anything about the resurrection, but in the context already given the idea would be very out of place.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm not saying you're right or wrong. What I am saying is that neither of you knows which one is right or wrong - if any of you is even right at all.You're both placing faith on a group of people who you believe are right. There is no right or wrong.- Oni

NEITHER of us is "placing faith" in "a group of people." Sheesh.

OK. I had earlier quoted N T Wright, (post 273) who is often quoted by Christianity Today and is considered one of the top, if the not the finest Christian scholar and first century historian we have today. I assumed that is who you were referring to.The quote that you used was Robert Wright (post 283) and I used him as an example of a secular writer, who makes no claim to be a Christian and who showed historically that our understanding of the nature of God continues to become more focused, whether or not God actually exists.My point was if that is the case and if God does exist we should expect there to be foreshadowing of the resurrection in the mythologies of humans.

I know you wrote this to Faith but I'd like to respond. On one level I don't know that I'm right but on another level I am convinced that I have a grasp of of a truth that is more than just what we directly perceive.I'm sure some of the things I believe are wrong, but just as I don't believe the Bible to be inerrant I don't believe that my own beliefs are inerrant. There is ambiguity which is what we should expect if we are truly creatures with free will in an indeterminate world.Much of what is fundamental to what I believe is apart from Christianity. Most of us would believe that treating others as you would like to be treated yourself is a good way to live.The one key issue with Christianity is the basic question which asks whether Jesus is dead or alive. The Christian faith hangs completely on the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I can't prove it although I still contend that the best explanation for the rise of the early church is that the resurrection is an historical fact. In the end though it is about faith.

So I went back and read the quote from NT Wright about resurrection. It's a typical piece of liberal scholarship but on this subject at least I'd agree with most of it.It's typical in that he accepts the dating of modern "scholarship" which is based on nothing more scholarly than a refusal to believe in prophecy. That is, Daniel is called "the latest book of the Hebrew Bible." Bruce Metzger, who came up with that notion, admitted that it was based strictly on his unbelief in prophecy, so he dated it AFTER the events Daniel prophesied. Pure subjective tampering with the Bible by an unbeliever who should never have been allowed into that position. Of course Daniel CANNOT be the last book in the OT because it is clearly written during the Babylonian exile -- 6th century B.C. -- and to date it later falsifies all the information that pertains to that period of time. Six OT books were written after Daniel, after the Babylonian exile: Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.This is a side issue of course but it helps pin down N T Wright's frame of reference. Christianity Today, by the way, long ago lost credibility with alert Bible believers.His case for bodily resurrection, however, ought to be convincing to those who hold to onifre's belief that all Christianity did was ape the pagan religions.On that subject I might add that it's interesting that all those pagan religions kind of dropped out of sight during Christianity's spread over the next two millennia. That's because it was the real thing and all the others bogus attempts to fulfill the messianic story prophesied from Eden. Only Christ REALLY resurrected, only Christ's death REALLY paid for our sins, all the others are fake gods, Christ is the real God.And, last thought, although what he says about resurrection being unique to Jewish religion and therefore to Christianity, is true, I have to ask what he says about Christ's death for our sins. That's the part you keep refusing to accept so does N T Wright also reject it?

Sure you are, you may not know it though, or, this might be the frist time anyone has explained it to you.You are placing your faith on those who wrote the Bible to be telling the truth; that it truly is inspired by god and not just their own point of view passed on as the word of god.If you're not placing any faith on these people, then show me how you know for a fact the Bible is the inspired word of god. Becaue all you've ever said in every thread on the subject is you BELIEVE that to be true. Well, how do you know it to be true?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

I don't doubt that you've found a way to be content with that analysis. Although history has detailed the rise of the RCC at the time, and it was about 200 years after the death of Jesus - if in fact the story of Jesus is real. The church's rise had nothing to do with a supposed miracle that happened two centuries before.It is well cataloged how it came to power, and it was by the sword not the resurrection. But in nothing more than a collection of men who wrote stories - and stories that were not unique and came down from the ages.How can you be conviced you have a grasp on the truth?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I'm quite happy to agree that Christ died for the sins of the world. It's sorting out just exactly what that means that is not so easy. As far as Wright is concerned here is a web site with numerous lectures and interviews of his. N T Wright

I've not merely said that I believe it, I've also said that I find the testimony to be believable and honest. That's one of the reasons I trust the Bible, but I also trust it because I know the nature of God and how and why God inspired it. That's not "having faith in the writers," it's judging character, assessing honesty, etc etc., which we all have to do all the time in all sorts of contexts. My FAITH. however, is something else: My FAITH is in the "things unseen" that scripture teaches, things we can't know through our own abilities. One doesn't have to have faith in things you can judge for yourself.

I'll go bonkers if I have to try to find relevant passages in that morass of theological ponderings by Wright. I already slogged through one section on Justification. PLEASE, if you know what he said or where to find it point me to it. What does he say about Jesus' death to pay for the sins of believers, the blood of Christ, being born again etc.
Thanks.

By early church I meant the first century after the death and resurrection of Jesus. In that period it was spread by anything but the sword. It was later on when Christianity became more mainstream that people perverted the Christian message and used it as a route to power and influence.Here is the wiki account of Early Christianity. To a large degree that is true. In one sense the Bible is one book. It is a narrative of the story of God as understood by individuals at various points of human history. Here is a quote from C S Lewis.

quote:

---

My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David's court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.

---

I go back to Robert Wright’s book that I quoted earlier to you, written from his secular perspective that our view of the nature of God has continued to evolve over the centuries. I agree that the Bible is both personally and culturally conditioned by each of its many authors. In the Torah we get a largely authoritarian legalistic view of the nature of God. By the time we get to Isaiah we get a more loving God and the view that the one who will be anointed by Him will be a suffering servant.If we just have the OT I agree that if read as Faith understands it we can understand God to be tyrannical but also woven through the accounts we can get a picture of God that is loving and forgiving. God speaks through the hearts and minds of humans but that view is often out of focus.Then we come to Jesus who essentially says that He is speaking on God’s behalf. As John puts it in his Gospel, Jesus embodied the Word of God that has existed from the beginning of time. We are again dependent on men to accurately record what Jesus said and did. However if we agree that they didn’t record all of that perfectly we still have a clear picture of God’s nature of being one of love, mercy, forgiveness and justice and that he wants us to reflect His nature to the world.When we read through the Gospels we can clearly see that this was all fine with His followers except that they still expected that at the end of the day that following Jesus as the messiah would be the route to power and glory. We see that He tried to tell them that this wasn’t how it worked but they had their own ideas of what a messiah would do. A messiah was supposed to rebuild the Temple and rule as King and we can see that His followers thought they were getting in on the ground floor.Of course when Jesus was crucified that all came crashing down and their chief concern was to avoid suffering the same fate as Jesus had. I think that it is pretty obvious that if they were making the whole thing up they would hardly have put together an account that showed the disciples in such a bad light. However, it is IMHO pretty clear that something noteworthy happened that turned the whole thing around so that rather than being fearful they went out proclaiming that Christ had been resurrected.In the Epistles we see Paul and others doing their theological best to understand what Jesus’ teaching, as vindicated by His resurrection, meant in light of the Jewish story and specifically for Paul in light of his background as a Pharisee.So yes, I am largely dependent on the Biblical authors and I am also largely dependent on those who have continued since then to put together a coherent account of what God is doing and where we fit into that narrative. No one does it perfectly but the one thing that seems clear is that the God that I worship is a God who genuinely cares for all mankind and for all of creation for that matter. In addition I believe that we are called to reflect that care into the world. The resurrection of Jesus, which I believe is historical as per the NT accounts, confirms that view of God and at the same time tells us that we are part of a bigger plan that will see the resurrection of all creation at the end of time.

Sorry I finished that last post and realized that I hadn't answered this question.I am actually convinced of the fundamental truth of my beliefs while at the same time knowing that there are aspects of what I believe that I'm not going to have right. The problem is of course I don't know which parts of what I believe are wrong. I don't know that I am right in the same way I know the sky is blue but I do know that what I believe makes sense to me of the world that I experience. It is also more than just that however. The fundamental Christian message rings true in my heart and through my experiences of life.The truth is always the truth whether there is clear objective evidence or not. We all believe something about why we're here and what if any meaning there is to our lives, and none of us can be sure that we have it right. Neither one of us can be sure about whether I am right or wrong and we are all just searching for that somewhat elusive truth.

The trouble is Faith, Wright doesn't speak in short sound bites. The questions you ask aren't just a matter of ticking off the right boxes to determine whether someone is a heretic tor not. The questions are actually complex and require a complex answer as everyone has their own idea of what exactly the questions mean in the first place.Here is one quote that maybe will help you.

quote:

---

Our reading from Acts made it quite clear that in the earliest apostolic proclamation about Jesus of Nazareth his death and resurrection were directly linked to two promises, one about the future, and one about the present. These can be simply stated: the resurrection demonstrates that Jesus is the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead, and the resurrection demonstrates that he is the one in whose name forgiveness of sins can be had here and now. Now at first sight these two promises may seem somewhat arbitrary, and only somewhat loosely connected to Easter Day itself. But that again only shows how far we are off the mark. Easter Day is the moment when those great Psalms in the middle and late 90s come into their own, all about heaven and earth rejoicing, the sea thundering, the fields and the trees and the animals celebrating for joy, because YHWH is coming to judge the earth, to judge it with true justice and the nations with faithful equity. In other words, Easter is about the whole creation being set right at last, put back on track with the way it was supposed to be, and the way it had been longing to be. According to Paul, echoing Genesis of course, God intended that the created order should be governed by wise human beings reflecting God’s stewardly love into it. With human rebellion, this purpose was thwarted, and the earth brought forth thorns and thistles, not of its own will but because it had been subjected to futility against the day when humankind would be restored. Now, in the person of Jesus Christ, that restoration has happened; there is at last an obedient human being at the helm of the universe; and the heavens and the earth rejoice at the very thought. God’s judgment is the form that his mercy takes, when faced with a world out of joint.

---

It is from this sermon: Easter Sermon by N T Wright