What is: The Gospel According To You?

If I took something out of context tell me how. Yes I used part of a sentence, but the rest of the sentence didn't change the meaning of the part I quoted, I just forgot to put the ....

If I were you I wouldn't bother ag. Reading the bible cover to cover doesn't smell of grace and love - it smells of works. Figuring out your way to heaven. That is NOT good news for it would imply that only the smart get to heavenIf you can imagine God to be bigger than your wildest dreams (for you would be a fool to imagine less) then take it for granted that his way of your finding him is a lot classier than what sits at the root of your way of finding himBut if you insist, read Romans. That is the part of the bible which explains the gospel in a mechanical, intellectual way - although if you are blind then you might not see it anywayFor all of the intellectual discussions I engage in it was heart that brought me to Christ. I don't know how near or how far you are away from him at this point in your life but I remember this prayer when I was where you are:Lord I don't love you
I don't even want to love you
But I want to want to love youThat prayer came out of the blue to me at a time when me and God were chalk n' cheese. Should you ever come then remember it for others

Well, lets look at what I actually said and see if the rest of the post made any difference. Let's let the readers decide.Here is, TTBOMK the post you quotemined.

If you don't mind, I will reinterpret (should it occur) my relationship to God directly rather than through you or anyone else.This message has been edited by anglagard, 04-14-2006 02:52 AM

For me, the Gospel, or 'Good News' can actually be found in the Old Testament.Careful study of the Old Testament has, for me anyway, shown the 'Good News' that set me free from the myth of Christ.By studying the Old Testament, it becomes clear that Jesus was no messiah, and that really is the Good News.The NT good news, IMO, is that every one is born into sin, this sin keeps you from God, but the Good News is that this sin can be washed away by having faith in Jesus as the Son of God and by having faith in His victory over death.Brian.

Only 9 posts left until End of Thread.

​

It is a good time to start winding down and presenting summaries or conclusions.

​

Thanks for debating, carry on.

to systematically study and dissect the religions of the world! Its time to add our final thoughts and wrap this topic up, however! I personally think that God reaches us...we won't find God through study or philosophical searches for truth. Communication is the key to success, anglagard.1) Communicate with God on a daily basis...sometimes even moment by moment.(First Commandment...Love God with all you are)
2) When attempting to reach others, it is useful to have at your disposal lofty words and philosophies....but in the final analysis, its all about helping, encouraging, and listening rather than preaching! IMHO, anyway. Just out of curiousity, Brian....why is it good news to conclude that Jesus is no Messiah?Does that prove that human wisdom is still the final arbitrator and give us a sense of security in ourselves?I agree with your conclusions about the NT, however...yet it seems so ambiguous coming from you. Comments, Professor? This message has been edited by Phat, 04-14-2006 03:25 PM

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

I don't know if I have complete faith in scholarly unbiased calculations, but I respect the heart of the critical scholars such as yourself, if doubting the mind. We can agree, however, that an unexamined faith is not worth very much!(see my post above, Brian! )This message has been edited by Phat, 04-14-2006 03:35 PM

I realize your comments, along with others, are well informed and well meaning and that I have been unduly harsh in my replies, to you in particular. For that I apologize.Please let me illustrate why I am overly sensitive to the manner in which some advocates for a particular understanding of the Christian message deliver thier comments.Back in 1992 or thereabouts, a friend of mine, Mike Witte by name, died in a traffic accident. His funeral was organized by his sister-in-law (?) where a Baptist preacher stood up to deliver the oration. At this funeral were most of my friends at the time, a diverse assortment of some of the finest people I had ever known, from PhDs to the impovrished. At this funeral, the preacher stated that every single one of us (my infant daughter was there) were going straight to hell unless we attended his very church that very Sunday.No one, least of all Mike Witte, deserves that kind of sendoff. The proceedings were the most insulting thing I had witnessed. Had it not been for Dave Thomas (of Panda's Thumb fame, among other endeavors) jumping in and playing Ripple the second that preacher shut up, there could have been a riot.I have told this story to a few fundamentalists and they saw nothing wrong with this kind of behavior.So I am quite oversensitive if I think, right or wrong, anyone is even remotely hinting that the only way to salvation is through them, rather than through Jesus.Please accept my apologies for assuming the worst. I will be more understanding in the future.This message has been edited by anglagard, 04-15-2006 04:17 PMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 04-15-2006 04:26 PMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 04-15-2006 05:16 PMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 04-15-2006 05:21 PM

You'd put many a Christian to shame including this one. No prob AG my skin is thicker than a Rhinos hide - a free gift from EvC. Let it be said that I can be a tad proscriptive but if you have the message (I believe) I have then desparation causes one to thread over the line at times. There is little profit in it (but do read Romans 1-8 if you get a chance - the gospel mechanics are contained within ) As a person beloved by God your reaction wouldn't have resulted in any dissent in the heavenly realms. As a Christian I feel well within my rights to say he was being an asshole. And a totally incorrect asshole at that Let me dispel any notion that you may have that I would do so. I'm just a tool in his hands. And he may not even have chosen yet to take me out of the toolbox.See you around

Hi phat, Well, for one thing I wasn't worshipping a false God anymore. Another thing is that I was able to read the NT with open eyes instead of from a pro Christian angle. When I did this it really opened my eyes when viewed in context. I realised, for example, that the arrest, trial and execution of Jesus was historically impossible, and that when we compare the Gospels there are times when it doesn't even look like they are talking about the same person.Perhaps it is the freedom to view the entire Bible from an objective position that was the main thing that the liberation from Jesus brought.I still appreciate the Bible, but see it now as a collection of texts that tells more about the societies that produced it rather than some divine truth.It was a long road thought phat, it didnt happen overnight.Brian.

quote:

---

Perhaps it is the freedom to view the entire Bible from an objective position that was the main thing that the liberation from Jesus brought.

---

That's how I felt. It is a very long road with many twists and turns, but the inner peace was worth it.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

How can ones viewing of the Bible from ones own subjective position and the subjective positions of others (assuming that any interpretation is considered to be subjective), be objective? Subjective x subjective x subjective = subjective (although it enhances the possible error)You might hold that a Christian is also looking at it subjectively. If however Christianity is true then there is at least a possibility for them to be analysising objectively - if only because God is the one supplying the analysis through his spirit.The flaw in your argument about Gospel 'inconsistancies' pre-supposes that the central purpose of the writers was to supply a coherent historical narrative. This exludes a view of the Bible which supposes it being first and foremost a spiritual vehicle whose purpose is to first resurrect dead spirits, then nourish them through babyhood and so cause them grow. Your standpoint excludes any spiritual dimension and in so doing aligns itself precisely with 1 Cor 2:14. The spiritually dead CANNOT get it. Not for want of trying even. They are simply unable to get it. Unequipped. All that is seen is paradox and inconsistancy and so it is declared subjectively to little more than 'foolishness'

No one is ever completely objective, but I was no longer too close to the Book to make critical conclusions about its contents. When I say ”objective’ I mean that I was now viewing the Bible in the way that I would view any other texts, without preconceived notions about it. Of course they are, and many are far too subjective and appear to be completely ignorant of its contents. The oddballs who try to justify the Flood as an historical event or try to argue that the Exodus was a literal event are doing the Bible a disservice and really need to study it a lot more. How can God’s spirit be objective? How can anyone who has gone through the mind-altering process of being ”reborn’ possibly be objective? They are far too subjective. This is one of the problems with the born again crew, they are so close to the text and so blinkered that they cannot see how silly they are being about most biblical issue. I suggest that you read the Bible again, best to begin with the Old Testament where the content is almost exclusively about Yahweh, the God of Israel who interacts in human history. The OT is about a nation’s relationship with their God, a God who is said to be directly involved in human history. The Israelites could not have escaped form Egypt without God’s interaction in human affairs, God brought down the walls of Jericho, God raised Judges to free Israel, and God spoke to prophets.The central belief of Christianity is the historical reality of Jesus’ resurrection. So, forget the poor excuse of the spiritually dead being unable to see, the main events of the Bible are said to be historical facts. If Jesus’ resurrection was not historical then Christianity is a sham, and when we examine the historical events surrounding Jesus' arrest, trial and execution, there is no other conclusion than these events did not happen.Also, when examining many of the major events of the OT, there is no doubt that most of them have been shown to be false. Now, if writers can invent stories about the Flood, the Exodus, the desert wanderings, the conquest, the period of the Judges, the united Monarchy etc. then why can they not invent the spiritual claims? This is certainly a way to avoid facing the disharmony between biblical texts, and the insurmountable obstacle of the contrary evidence of science, archaeology and history. The problem is that the spiritual world needs to interact with the material world if Christianity is to be considered true. If the authors of the Bible were guided by the Holy Spirit, then which texts do we consider the HS passed on accurately, the spiritual claims that can never be tested only affirmed or denied, or the whole collection?When we discover that many of the biblical texts are wholly inaccurate, then why should we conclude anything other than the text is man made propaganda, or fireside folk tales?Brian.

Whilst approaching the Bible with a particular preconception might well corrupt your study, the alternative chosen would only be appropriate if the Bible was something that should or could be approached like any other text. In making the switch you simply jumped from one pre-conception to another - without posing why the latter is objectively superior to the former. And this pre-conception will, as did the other, inform subsequent analysis. As the rest of your post makes clear.In amongst the hyperbole we find this: .Former Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Darling, was a man who rose to the very pinnacle of the legal profession in a country with a highly developed system of law. His job involved dealing with evidence and few men would be better qualified than him to comment on the evidence and how it should be received. He said this No doubt his professional qualifications and long experience can brushed to one side as soon as one finds out that this man was a believer. But then I suppose that charge can be levelled at anyone. Including me. Including you.300 posts?It is finished