My Beliefs- GDR

I’ll start from your last sentence and work backwards. I have no idea whether or not Jesus took quotes from every book in the OT but He certainly referred to their Scriptures all the time. As I said earlier He took His Son of Man reference from Daniel in order to explain His Kingdom message. Riding the donkey into Jerusalem was referring His followers to Zechariah making a messianic statement as well as proclaiming His message of peace. If you have a Bible that is well foot-noted it is plain that He is constantly referring to the OT. That however does not mean that He treated it as inerrant which is very different than saying it is inspired. I agree that it is inspired but I certainly don’t agree that is inerrant and neither did Jesus.Jesus was constantly correcting what was in the OT. Here are some examples just from Matthew 5.

quote:

---

31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

---

He is referring back to Deuteronomy 24 1-3

quote:

---

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

---

He is referring back to Exodus 21 24

quote:

---

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

---

He is referring to Deuteronomy 23 ;6 or Ezra 9:12There were all the sacrificial laws in the OT and Jesus declared that He wanted mercy not sacrifice.
So yes, Jesus viewed the Hebrew Scriptures as being important but He also viewed them as something that needed to be corrected where they were in error.Yes, I agree that the books of the Bible build on one another. It is a narrative that grows as the Hebrew people continue to be influenced by God continuing to speak to their hearts and minds. Here is a quote from CS Lewis about that.

quote:

---

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 is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, 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 truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical.

​

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 believe that Beethoven was inspired when he wrote his 5th symphony. God gave him an extraordinary talent and as a result Beethoven wrote wonderful music. That does not mean he did it perfectly The Bible authors were given the gift of being able to write down their ideas and in many cases were also inspired by specific revelation of God. Once again however, that does not mean they did it perfectly. All Scripture is both personally and cultured conditioned.What we should celebrate as Christians is the belief that God has given us His Word directly through Jesus. Sure, today we still are dependent on imperfect humans to transcribe His words to us, but we have a variety of authors so that we can cross-check one against the other to come up with a coherent message.So I agree that the OT is essential in understanding who Jesus was within the Jewish context. However, I also believe that our understanding of who God is and what He desires of us in the OT can only be understood through His Word as embodied by Jesus in the NT. I agree that the OT is a foreshadowing of Jesus. I don’t confine myself to Wright. I have shelves of books that I have read from a variety of authors including fundamentalists. Here is a good book which I have and have read that presents 4 different views on understanding the Scriptures.
Show Them No Mercy
In it you will find an author who you would agree with and one who I agree with and a couple in between.
By the way. Have you ever read any of Wright’s books? Why would you say that? I have written several posts to you explaining how I understand Jesus through reference to the OT. The problem is that you disregard anything that doesn’t fit your pre-conceived ideas. Your inerrant view of the OT trumps the words of Jesus. Others have believed all sorts of things in the past like believing that the world was flat and used the Bible to confirm their views. People in the past have believed all sorts of things about the Bible and there would be those who would agree with me. Firstly it does seem to me that God has given us a gift of reason and presumably He wants us to use it. Secondly I just wonder why it is that it is you and other like minded fundamentalists are able to discern the truth of what the Holy Spirit has to tell us but other Christians can’t. What basis do you have to believe that you are better able to discern what the Holy Spirit has to tell us than I am?

Deleted as I posted in the wrong thread.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Of course lots of things happen by chance. The odds against the specific sperm and egg combination that resulted in my existence are impossibly long but here I am.So yes, no matter how long the odds are, there are things that happen by chance. I am not offering up proof that our existence didn't depend of particles, (wherever they came from), by chance combining to become atoms, which by chance combined into molecules, which by chance combined into more complex molecules, which by chance combined into incredibly complex single cells, which evolved into simple and then ever increasingly complex life forms eventually resulting in intelligent life that is able to comprehend all of that.I don't say it is impossible for all that to happen by entirely natural processes. I just contend that the odds are so stacked against it that it is far more plausible to believe that there it is all the result of an external intelligence as a first cause.

There is no objective evidence. The writers of the Gospels and for that matter the epistles make specific claims. That is evidence and we subjectively believe or reject their claims.The fact that we exist or even that this universe exists is objective evidence that something happened for us to exist, and we can subjectively choose what to believe about the how and why of what that something is. That's what you said before and I don't agree that it is. I asked for you to explain how it qualifies as such and you just repeat your assertion. Well obviously you know your beliefs better than I do but, as I understand your views you seem to reject the notion of God, while allowing for the unlikely possibility that He actually exists. I on the other hand reject the idea that our existence could be the result of non-intelligent origins although I do allow for the unlikely possibility of that actually being the case.

All of the references in Ezekiel are using the term son of man in the literal sens, in that they are referring to the individual as human. In Daniel 7 it refers to one like a Son of Man who the Ancient of Days appoints as King and given dominion over all the Earth. Jesus refers to himself as The Son of Man not a son of man. It is an obvious reference to Daniel 7. Jesus’ message is a Kingdom message and Daniel 7 is the passage He uses to make that point. A messiah was never expected to be anything other than a human. Jesus being the Messiah has nothing to do with Him being part of the Trinity. The normal expectation of a messiah was that he would lead them in battle and defeat their enemies and establish the Jewish kingdom. Jesus essentially said that that is what He was doing but it wasn’t going to look like that.The entry into Jerusalem was simply a messianic statement with nothing whatsoever to do with taking away sins. Yes Jesus is the incarnate Word of God but that is understood separately from Him being the Messiah. I understand how you understand the use of the word inspired in this context but there is IMHO no good reason to use the word that way. I actually prefer the term God breathed as I believe God does, metaphorically of course, breathe His Word to us through the Bible but it does not have to be inerrant for Him to do that. In my view actually by reading as you do the Word becomes horribly distorted. I don’t buy that but let’s look at this passage from Matthew 19:

quote:

---

7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

---

There is no question of anyone suggesting that God said anything. Both the Pharisees and Jesus say that it was Moses, not God, who said those things and Jesus tells them that Moses got it wrong. When Jesus talks about hell He doesn’t talk about people going there because they got their theology wrong. Jesus gives examples as in the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 but He also says that it is a matter of belief. It is belief in Jesus who embodies the incarnate Word of God, so He is talking about those who reject God’s Word that love of neighbour, love of God, love of enemy, love of creation is what it is about. It isn’t about rejecting a belief that Jesus is part of the Trinity but about rejecting the Word of loving others as ourselves. Even you seem to agree that the command came from Moses and not God, and like I showed you above Moses got it wrong. Jesus didn’t say it would be easy. Was it easy for Jesus to say forgive them they know not what they do. I don’t know if I could hold up or not. Hopefully, I’ll never find out. Like most westerners I have led a very comfortable sheltered life. Actually it does, but no kudos because I’ve never had to actually do it. However many people have. On a large scale you might look up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa.

I have no problem with the idea that once life was started that it could have evolved on its own. My own bias is that it would have required tweaking along the way, but that is based on virtually no biological knowledge, and the Christian biologists whose books I have read believe that there was no tweaking so I'm pretty sure I'm wrong. I'm way out of my depth as far as the process itself is concerned but to get us from mindless particles to sentient life by natural causes requires a great deal of good fortune. OK, but as a theist that is part of the design.

Essentially yes, and I stand by it. I do have difficulty wit the term random in this instance as I understand God to be eternal and random has a an implicit time element involved.The only other point I'd make is that I believe in the resurrection of Jesus. On the assumption that I am correct then the basic Christian idea of God is to a very large degree confirmed.In considering Christianity the fundamental question to be asked is whether Jesus is dead or alive. I go with alive.

Actually nobody has ever proven the idea of a supernatural agency wrong. In one very real sense all religions worship the same enitity(s). Humans have always anthropomorphised their deities, and associating them with moons, planets etc and assigning them human like personalities and desires.Sure, in many cases it could be proven that they got the characteristics of their deities wrong.So what? Many people have various ideas about the characteristics of President Obama, some are wrong and some are right and likely no one is 100% right but President Obama still exists.I can't have Hagen Dazs in the house. It's one of those you just keep eating 'till it's gone.

First off, I’m not saying that Jesus isn’t part of the Trinity. I am saying that the term messiah does not mean that. Messiah means anointed one of God. God does not anoint Himself. There were numerous messianic movements between the Maccabees and the bar Kokbha rebellion in 135AD when Simon ben Kosiba was proclaimed as messiah.There was large messianic movement when Jesus was young led by Judas the Galilean. Certainly there were divine overtones to it but the messiah was the one who would be the saviour who would free them from their enemies and would reign with them over their homeland. Here is a site that talks about Messianic expectations.There is a thread though through the Hebrew Scriptures of God returning to His people and certainly Jesus understood that. He led a counter-Temple movement which came out of the tradition of the Essenes of which John the Baptist was one. Jesus tied the two together in Him own mission. The idea of forgiving sins was one of the things that only God could do and yet Jesus was going around doing just that which was one of the things that got Him in trouble with the Jewish leadership. Of course His Kingdom was not of this world but it was for this world. He came to establish a Kingdom of His followers who would be armed with His message of love, truth, mercy, forgiveness, peace and justice. He was proclaiming this to His countryman who were living under the brutal rule of a foreign occupying force. How on earth could that be anything but political? Do you think that in telling people that they were to love the enemy wouldn’t be political? The Jews were required to carry the kit of Roman soldiers but apparently they were only required to do it for a mile and then the soldier had to find some other poor schmuck. Jesus told them to go the extra mile. His message was that if you wanted to defeat the evil as personified by the Romans that you did it by changing hearts. He saves people from their sins but showing them a better way and that is the way of loving our neighbour as ourselves. There were hundreds of people with the name Jesus, and there still are, and none of them who made any divine claims. You keep stating that you are orthodox. Quite frankly I consider myself orthodox. You are the one that wants to read the Bible as being understood exactly as it is written. Jesus is clearly correcting the Hebrew Scriptures in those quotes from the Sermon on the Mount and your denial of that doesn’t change the fact.Let’s try again from Matthew 19.

quote:

---

They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" 4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

---

Jesus says that from the beginning a marriage was about being of one flesh. Jesus says, that Moses allowed it, (not God but Moses), because of the hardness of their hearts. Jesus then corrected Moses. If you are so sure about how hell works then tell me about what happens to:
1/ An infant who dies prior to being able to reason
2/ Some one who is mentally ill
3/ Someone from another culture raised in an entirely different faith
4/Someone who is terribly abused as a child etc.Your brand of evangelism is so focused on being saved or going to hell that you miss out on the Gospel message of serving God’s Kingdom. You turn faith into a work. We are made right with God by having loving hearts and by grace He gives us His own love so that we in turn can love.

Certainly many of our ideas about God, and what he has done, have been proven wrong. That doesn’t prove that there is no god. We can only say that God can’t be scientifically confirmed. Science can indeed show that things like a worldwide flood didn’t happen but that doesn’t tell us anything about whether God actually exists or not. But there is great deal that can’t be tested. For example how do you prove that the resurrection didn’t happen? It was a onetime event that didn’t follow natural law as we know it.

Humans are naturally curious and have a desire to understand things. As a result they speculate, as I do, in an attempt to answer questions about God. So far most of the speculations like the ones you have talked about have been proven wrong but that tells us nothing about whether God actually exists or not. A lot of people say they have experienced such things. Personally I haven't and I have to admit scepticism of such experiences myself, but who knows. I think you meant theistic, but many people do claim to be healed and have had prayers answered. There is no way of proving or disproving those claims. Well most of the NT is written by people who possibly were eyewitnesses or in most cases people who had contact either orally or from what was written by people who were eyewitnesses.The fact that there are relatively minor contradictions in the gospels is an indication that the essential elements have validity. If there were no contradictions it would be an indication that the whole thing was fabricated. If you like we can look at the Bible in the same way we can any historical account and we can choose to accept all of it, some of it or none of it as being factual, but like any historical record it is a form of evidence.

There is a distinction here between Lazarus and Jesus. Lazarus was resuscitated whereas Jesus was resurrected. There was a belief in large parts of the Jewish community that at the end of time they would all be resurrected into a new physical life in a new resurrected body. Paul wrote in Ephesians 1 that:

quote:

---

9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

---

In the case of Jesus we have the one who was resurrected in the middle of time. A resuscitated person is still going to die at some point but Jesus was resurrected into a new and non-entropic existence.I understand that this isn’t going to convince you but I just wanted to make the distinction between the two.The only other point I’d make out of interest is that I have read books like Quantum Enigma that look at the question of consciousness and the role it plays in our reality. There are those like Julian Barbour who believe that the key to our understanding of the universe is our lack of understanding about time or how things change.There is a lot of stuff that regardless of our theistic or atheistic beliefs that we don’t understand but science has shown us over the last century that our world is a lot stranger place than we ever imagined.I'm sure you enjoyed the Hagen Dazs although you their vanilla is better than their chocolate.

One of the verses you gave was Jer 33:16. How about we look at both vs 16 and 17.

quote:

---

16 In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.' 17 For this is what the LORD says: 'David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel,

---

It is like I told you. Jeremiah is talking about Judah being called The Lord our Righteousness and that it will be a MAN on the throne. It is about a messiah that will reign in place of their enemies which at the time of Jesus was the Romans.Here is your other Jeremiah quote from chap 33.

quote:

---

5 "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness. 7 "So then, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "when people will no longer say, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt,' 8 but they will say, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the descendants of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them.' Then they will live in their own land."

---

In this case Jeremiah is calling the individual The Lord of Our Righteousness which supports your case if you apply your interpretation to what the term meant. However, even in the same book you have discrepancies.Here is your Isaiah quote in a larger context.

quote:

---

1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-- 2 The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned. 3 You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy; they rejoice before you as people rejoice at the harvest, as men rejoice when dividing the plunder. 4 For as in the day of Midian's defeat, you have shattered the yoke that burdens them, the bar across their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor. 5 Every warrior's boot used in battle and every garment rolled in blood will be destined for burning, will be fuel for the fire. 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.

---

It is obvious that this is about establishing the nation of Israel. Isaiah is saying that The Lord will give them a King to rule over the land by the sea and along the Jordan and that he will rule in peace, justice and righteousness.As I said the Jews were looking for someone to rule a very Earthly Israel and that could only happen if the Romans were ousted. That was the expectation of a messiah. I mentioned all of the failed messiahs as it is obvious that they all saw the role of messiah to be to oust their enemies. Paul writes this in Ephesians chap 1:

quote:

---

9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

---

Paul includes all things on Earth.Matthew quotes Jesus in Chap 19:

quote:

---

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

---

Jesus talks of the RENEWAL of ALL things. This world will be renewed.I agree that there is ambiguity in the various verses of the Bible but if you go right back to Genesis the point is that we are to be good stewards of our portion of creation. If this world is going to completely cease to exist then why worry about stewardship. Also, the resurrected Jesus, who is the example of a resurrected creation will be like, was able to be physically present in this world which is a pretty strong indication that when the resurrection of all things happens this world will play a big part in it.However, how that will work out is a mystery and we aren’t going to come up with certainty so in the meantime the important thing is to plug away at being agents of God’s love, peace’ forgiveness, mercy and justice, and we’ll have these and other answers in the next life. You cherry pick this verse but let’s carry on in the same chapter. Here is verse 22-23:

quote:

---

22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

---

He is praying for them because they have a message for the world. Read again the about the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25. It is about having hearts that humbly love and serve others without thought of reward. The sheep who fed the hungry etc didn’t know they were doing it for Jesus. You just totally disregard the message of Jesus. In one sense because they took a non-militaristic approach in dealing with the Romans the message was not as obvious as it was with the revolutionaries, but just something as simple as love your enemies would be understood very clearly by any Jew. It would be akin to saying to the citizens of Holland while they were occupied by the Nazis that they were to love their enemies. Do you really think that the average Dutch citizen wouldn’t have looked at whoever said that as being nuts? Jesus had a very political message. The message was essentially saying that it isn’t the Romans who are the enemy but evil itself. With all of its problems the world is a more humane place than it was just a few centuries ago so it seems to me that God is winning. As far as the last days are concerned there have been those like you in every generation suggesting it’s going to happen any day now. As a Christian my hope is that this world goes on for millions of years yet so that there will be as many people as possible to take part in whatever it is that comes at the resurrection of all things at the end of time. But you have said that people have to believe to be saved, but now you are allowing that it may be that you don’t have to believe. Again, how about people who have never heard the Gospel, or those born before the time of Christ, or those with mental illness, or those born where other religions are practised and yet know in their hearts in the way that Paul talks about in Romans 2 and so on. Once you allow an infant in who didn’t have the right beliefs because they couldn’t then you have to consider others because they couldn’t.You talk about those who reject the Gospel. How about those who have been part of churches preaching the Gospel and then have been abused by church leaders?However I do agree that God is perfectly just and in the end perfect justice will be done. Read Romans 2 again. It is by having loving hearts that we are saved not by having the right theology. Read the Bible in large chucks and not in little bites. That is not the message of the Bible when taken as a hole. Yes, the concept of being born again is a process that sees God touching our hearts so that we are more attuned to His ways, but that does not mean that there aren’t those who have loving hearts without being a Christian. Even Jesus tells us:

quote:

---

But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

---

I agree that it isn't by our works that we are made right with God. It is by His grace. However the good works are the result of having a loving heart. And all love, whether we know God or not, is a gift of God to which we can respond.I see you made a bunch more edits and except for the last paragraph the response was to the e-mail I received which would be your original post and I'm now out of time.

I don't see it in the light. As long as we are dealing with a universe where time only flows in one direction then there has to be a cause or reason for that universe to exist. And although a basic particle may be simple compared to a human cell when we look at particles in the standard model they aren't all that simple either.We know that we are part of a greater reality as we only perceive about 4.5% of the universe. There are various theories about dark matter and dark energy. It sure seems to me that the more science advances our knowledge the more mysterious it becomes and it just raises a whole new set of questions.I don't think that the idea of greater intelligence apart from the intelligence that we possess existing outside of our perception is at all far fetched. We seem to be fine with speculating about intelligent beings on other planets that it seems only to exist because we perceive them. It seems to me that speculation of intelligence outside of our perceivable universe isn't nearly as far fetched. Not at all. Take this computer I'm working on. Which is more likely?
(A) It came into existence because it was created as the result of a greater intelligence or:
(B) It came into existence because somebody left a bunch of minerals around and they eventually began to get together piece by piece until -voila- it's a computer.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. (I'm sure that's my fault and not yours.) Then why don't we see that happening around us all the time? Why can't we observe the formation of new cells from non-cellular materials. Well I have read books that give the odds against it happening as some unmeasurably huge number to one, but I'm not sure how meaningful that is. However, do you really think that out of a soup of mindless particles, with no intelligent input, to wind up with the world we know doesn't require a considerable amount of good fortune? As I say, I'm probably missing the point here but I didn't say that it took too much "chance" to happen on its own, but that the odds against are longer than the idea of an external intelligence existing that provided the impetus is more plausible IMHO.Is that addressing your point?