|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Marketing Of Christianity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 683 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
quote: Could you please point out the word "horse" in the passages about Paul on the road to Damascus ? quote: So an epileptic fit changed Saul of Tarsus from a persecutor of the Christian church to an apostle ? So a well planned hallucination ( enacted by who ?? ) changed Saul 180 degrees around from a persecutor of the Christians to a disciple / evangelist / apostle and author of some 13 or so books of the New Testament ? The cherry picker seems to be you jar.
quote: Please produce three notable versions of the testimony and explain how it evolved. Show us the embellishments over time and explain its alleged "evolution". quote: By process of elimination we can be pretty certain that the disciple John was the author of the Gospel of John. Other disciples are mentioned in third person. And the writer's humble identity is that he was "the disciple that Jesus loved." Of course Jesus loved all the disciples. But to experience that love was all the identity that he wanted us to know - IE. "I was LOVED by Jesus". Anyway, I have no problem believing that John was the author of the Gospel of John. If I didn't want to believe that jar wrote anything I could equally spin a conspiracy theory that several different people are using his tag or PC. Thus I could rationalize that it is impossible to really know who is expressing the opinions under the id of jar. quote: What benefit did he derive from a delusional calling, except a life of much suffering, persecution, imprisonment, betrayal, criticism, and ultimately beheading from Nero ? The same Spirit of Jesus Paul experienced many of us experience. We can vouch that he pioneered deeply into this reality. You are going through a lot of effort to persuade yourself that the New Testament is not worthy of taking seriously.
quote: Peter, the first among the 12, recommended Paul's wisdom. Why would he if he thought Paul, a younger apostle and former enemy of the church, had not genuinely had a turn from unbelief to follow Christ ? As for the Three-One God, I suppose I will have to go into Romans 8:9-11 again. Paul uses the terms interchangeably - The Spirit of God , You have ONE supernatural "Person" with interchangeable names showing the unity and distinction of the "Persons" of the Godhead. Paul certainly taught the three-oneness of God.
This is not a doctrinal statement of systematic theology. This is the talk of one conversing with an audience who is enjoying the experience of the Trinity. He is encouraging their experience of the three-one God in their subjective participation. The Spirit of God = the Spirit of Christ = Christ = the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead. That is the Trinity
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 683 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined:
|
The Gospel of John claims authorship from "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 21:20) Who is that ?
We can eliminate it shouldn't be Peter, Phillip, Thomas, or Andrew. These disciples are mentioned in the third person (1:41; 6:9; 14:5, 8). The fact that the disciple leaned on the breast of Jesus (John 13:23-25) indicates that he was in the inner circle of the three closest disciples to Jesus (James, Peter, and John). The very close disciple leaning on the breast of Jesus at the last supper, had "inside information" as indicated in (John 18:15). Jesus also committed the care of His mother to this disciple, a request He made from the cross (John 18:26, 27) . This most likely eliminates James who died early in the days of the Jerusalem church about A.D. 44. Herod the Great had him killed (Acts 12:2). Peter, the other disciple in the inner circle of three, was named in the third person (John 21:21). So Peter and James each are not "the disciple whom Jesus loved" though, of course, Jesus loved all of the 12 disciples. The John Rylands Fragment suggests an early writing of John ( c. A.D. 117 ). Early witnesses to the authorship of the Fourth Gospel being from John include- Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. These writers lived approximately around the time of the writing of the Marcionite Prologue to John and the Muratorian Canon of the second half of the second century. Of these witnesses Irenaeus is specially significant because only one generation separates him and John. Polycarp was a teacher of Irenaeus (Eusebius V, xx.6). And Polycarp was a disciple of John. The first person references indicate that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness - (John 20:2; 21:4). Jewish attitudes and practices were quite familiar to the writer suggesting that the writer was likely a Jew. He was well acquainted with purification (2:6), burial (19:40), feasts (5:1), and Jewish attitdudes (7:49). Familiarity with the geography and topography of land (see 2:12; 4:11; 5:2; 18:11; 19:17). It can be ascertained that the author seems to be a Palestinian Jew. The evidence points to the disciple John. This information was derived from the book Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler, in the chapter The Historical Reliability of the New Testament .
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 683 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
It is not Message 401. But here is what needs to be examined. And I will.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 683 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
So I guess I have to look in his link What is Christianity? Message 401 .
We'll see. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 683 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined:
|
quote:
The formula " I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, ..." is believed by notable scholars to be the customary fashion in which a disciple indicated that he was faithful to the teaching he received. There is NOTHING in this passage that contradicts Paul's Damascus experience. Acts tells us that he was baptized by Ananias and was among Christians, though they feared him. Eventually he was received with the encouragement of Barnabus. Along WITH his personal dramatic experience Paul also surely was instructed by teachers as to fundamentals of the Christian gospel. It is not unthinkable that someone having a dramatic conversion, and being very learned, would also, in humility hear teaching passed on to him from others.
These are mostly points of major doctrinal importance. Along with them is his confession that the resurrected Christ also appeared to Paul, after he had appeared to these other mentioned people. That is completely consistent with the book of Acts. The only notable matter is that in Galatians Paul indicates that God directly revealed much truth to him. 1.) Both his personal revelations from God and his recalled instruction from older disciples are entirely possible. Most Christians have similar experience though not always as dramatic. 2.) Personal revelation could ALSO be in instruction he received from others.
quote: This is a lame observation, as if everything written by a man about a life changing experience has to be verbatim repetition of all details. What rule demands that every mention of a Christian's backround must be verbatim repetition of all details. I can give my personal testimony emphasizing certain matters at one time with one audience. I can give my personal testimony emphasizing other matters to another audience at another time. quote: The history I will ignore for the moment. What is important is if jar can locate serious discrepancies with the different accounts.
That the Gospel was not according to man is TRUE whether or not Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus. That the Gospel is sourced in God makes it NOT [edited] according to man though it is announced by man. Paul is saying the Gospel is not the product of human invention regardless of HOW he learned it.
That is consistent with Acts. And it is not negated by the fact that the brothers in the church informed Paul of major aspects of the Gospel. Even if he did hear them, he was persuaded that they did not invent these things. Therefore, either way, the Gospel is God's revelation rather than a product of human imagination.
That is certainly consistent with the book of Acts.
That merely means that God's hand was on his life way before he was an adult. From birth God had a plan for him. At the appointed time God revealed His Son IN Paul - ie. Christ entered into Paul to be his indwelling Lord and Savior. Not only so, Paul LIVED by this indwelling and growing Christ so that Christ was revealed more and more IN Paul. There is no morphing of his testimonial here. There is only realization that all his life God had His eyes on this chosen vessel.
quote: There is no "another version" in any major detail. One can recount one's dramatic personal experience and at different times highlight different aspects of it. The testimonial is essentially the same. Jar proves no evolution of the telling.
What difference is there of really significant nature ?
So he mentions something additional said by Christ which in another recounting he omitted or Luke omitted. You don't know which one, Paul or Luke, is responsible for the variation. What MAJOR difference does it present? None. The second account is really a confirmation rather than a contradiction. It certainly presents no serious descrepency such that we should be alarmed. No significant "evolving" of Paul's testimony is proved in this version. Details not mentioned previously are now mentioned. For all we know Jesus may have said even more to Paul on that occasion which did not come down to us in the New Testament. We are told what is most essential. What contradiction of significance can jar point out here?
No essential significant difference is in this version. It is entirely possible that the conversation between Paul and the exalted Jesus was more extended then ONE version reveals. It is possible that by putting two records of Paul's testimonial together, the exchange was more involved then the first testimony shows. This is jar's straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. I stop here for space and time. . Edited by jaywill, : editing on style Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : Editing of style. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : typo changed from Galatians to First Corinthians. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 683 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined:
|
So what ? What has your Oh So Superior reading ability have to point out as a major evolution in Paul's conversion story? What details here do you have a problem with as hugely significant indication of the morphing of Paul's testimonial ?
So what ?
So he was baptized and was with some disciples at Damascus. I do not see a major problem. When Peter recognized Jesus as the Christ the Son of God, Jesus said flesh and blood had not revealed this to him but God the Father (Matthew 16:13-20).
Yes, Paul said in Galatians -
This does not have to mean that he was not with the disciples in Damascus. I take it to mean that he needed no one to confirm what he knew, and knew what he knew he knew. Deep within God the Father had revealed to him that Jesus was the Son of the living God just as the Father had revealed to Peter. Flesh and blood teaching of a natural sort could not do what divine revelation from God could do. Perhaps he knew BETTER and DEEPER than any of the believers in Damascus concerning the nature of Christ. They may have been eager to teach him things. But deep in his being what God had burned into his being made their words a little anti-climactic. He did not have to confer with flesh and blood. I do not take Galatians 1:16 to contradict necessarily -
In the same Galatian letter he admits that he did talk with the "pillars " of the church in Jerusalem - Cephas and James. But he waters down the Galatians expectation of their seniority in terms of revelation. Paul says they added nothing to him. What they knew he also knew and quite deeply and more.
Where any contradiction in this?
Where the contradiction here ?
Where's the contradiction here?
Where any significant major contradiction here?
Where's any major contradiction here? In one instance he may exclude something. My conversion to Jesus was dramatic. I have told it many times. I probably included or excluded certain details which all happened, as I care to tailor my testimony. This is not falsehood. This is not necessarily repeating ALL the details in exactly the same way because of withholding or including aspects of the experience as I see fit. Then if someone else is writing about my speaking, for his own purposes he may do the same. You have nothing here jar.
There is nothing here that dictates because details of what Ananias said, proof of evolution indicates fabrication. I vaguely remember someone pointing out the light and the voice particulars cause some readers puzzlement. It has never been a major problem to me. Rather than differences like this being a test to Paul's testimony I think they are rather a test to the rest of us. Will we miss the point ? We are often experts at missing the point when it comes to God's revelation. If you have something else which you think proves a fictional account evolved over time about something that never happened, what is it?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 683 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined:
|
quote:
quote: I think you have to consider the phrase "of private interpretation" not to mean no one has a revelation. In the church meetings the Apostle Paul even said the functioning members may have a revelation.
Of course Paul also said that the other should discern. So I think it would be a reactionary over cautious attitude to think the New Testament says no Christian can have a private revelation. In fact Peter's words about the morning star arising in our hearts, indicates, if not revelation, illumination of spiritual light. The intimate personal revealing we derive from prayerful study of the word of God should not contradict the whole tenor of the Bible. That would be an indication that we may be being deceived. God will not tell us something in private to contradict what He has spoken in the Scripture. So I would take "private interpretation" in the sense of asking "Is this interpretation so personalized that it blatantly contradicts the whole Scripture?" We are not called by God to write the Bible. We are not called to add revelation to the Bible that God has not revealed to His apostles and prophets. We do receive enlightenment on passages which shine on our personal lives or our church lives. The footnote on First Peter 1:20 in the Recovery Version may help.
The word "borne" is the same in Greek as the word appearing in verses 17 and 18. No prophecy of Scripture was borne by the will of man. The will, desire, and wish of man with man's thought and exposition, were not the source from which any prophecy of Scripture came. The source was God. God's Holy Spirit was what bore men to write like the wind in the sails of a ship. The writers therefore spoke from God and from God's will and desire. What we speak today to illumine the word of God should build up the believers and be based upon what God has prophetically spoken in the 66 books of the Bible. When I introduce something of my own opinion, which I am not sure is confirmed by the Bible, I usually indicate such. And I don't think anyone today is adding new chapters to the Bible as new revelation. Some may be helping us to be enlightened to what is THERE in the Bible which we have difficulty seeing sometimes. I hope this helps. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 683 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined:
|
quote: I do not believe such gifts have been done away. I think there has been over emphasis on unusual manifestations such as tongues or the miraculous. Paul clearly said the more valuable gift for building up the church was to prophesy. And that does not mean supernatural prediction, at least only. It far more means to speak encouraging words from God or actually speaking forth God from your spirit to people and into people. He wanted all the saints to prophesy - speak forth God and speak out God and speak God into other people. Everyone should learn to do this. It is very important in the gatherings of a normal local church and/or small group gatherings (ie so called "cell groups") , that all the members be able to function and speak for mutual encouragement. Therefore the model of a one man speaker, meeting after meeting, is not healthy. This kind of practice which is prevalent in the denominations stifles the function of the members of the Body. If after even a short time of being saved, a Christian feels he or she cannot pray, or speak a word of encouragement or praise, this is not good. If they are indoctrinated to think that only a perfessional Pastor can pray, or speak, or praise, or give a little teaching for edification, this is playing into the hands of the enemy. " Each one has ... " - is the God ordained manner in which Christians should meet. At particular times, a single speaker may indeed be needed. Do not think that there are not times to give the floor for an extended period of time to one experienced Christian speaker. But to do so week after week, every single week, and every single Christian meeting does not build up the Body very well. This keeps members passive and expecting that they are not required to experience Jesus Christ in order to share the top portion of their enjoyment with the congregation. I do not meet with a Charismatic group per se. I have met with charismatic groups years ago, and enjoyed it. This requires a lot of fellowship. One post does not adequately speak to the matter. Would you like me to perhaps start a thread on the profitable Christian meeting ? Where I meet ALL participants are encouraged to be able to function in mutuality building up one another. We have to learn to be balanced by others, not either under function or over function. We have to learn to be attuned to the Body and tempered together with others. We have to learn that even for a new Christian in the meeting to utter a word of thanksgiving or praise is extremely healthy to the congregation. We also have to learn to gather with other Christians without being domineering and dominate all the functioning. To over function disallowing others to enter, is wrong. Also to under function, deeming that we are not qualified to say or do anything is also wrong. I can share more in a thread dedicated to Christian meetings. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 683 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined:
|
quote: I have not read ALL of the discussion. I am inserting my comment, therefore, in the middle of your talk. Your comment seems to assume that to tell people of the Redemption and Justification and Jesus being their Lord, Friend, and Savior is not an expression of love towards them.
quote: But after His resurrection there were only 120 followers in the upper room ready to follow Him in His next move. Where were the thousands who were fed and healed ? Sure, plenty got what they needed that day and disappeared back into society. Jesus had only 120 who cared enough to await the next stage in God's move on the earth. Your concept is not without merit in practicality. But it may be overly "man centered" as if the only need is that of man. What about the need of God? In Acts 13:1 it says a great missionary work began with Barnabas and Paul. Please notice that it started with the leading teachers and prophets in the church in Antioch ministering to the need of the Lord.
These consecrated men ministered to the Lord Jesus being concerned for what God's need was. Surely people have needs. But God has His need too. And these men were calibrated right, setting aside time to ascertain what God's need was. The 10,000 some fed and healed by Jesus may not have included that many people so concerned. Human nature is very self centered. And we often want God not to go away too far, because we may need Him again. But in the meantime we are nearly completely centered on ourselves. quote: There is no need to BEG for mercy. The sinner may simply THANK God for His mercy in the redemption of Jesus Christ. God is not interested in men BEGGING and groveling for mercy. God is interested that men BELIEVE the good news. I don't totally disagree with your complaint. Both preaching is needed and forming communities of faith as churches. We learn to coordinate together. Some evangelize. Some shepherd those who come to Christ. Some help care for the practical needs of the believers. And some, as you say, minister practical help in their outreach to manifest the love of Christ. There is room for both outreach in preaching and the service of practical helps. There is no need to pit one against the other.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 683 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
quote: No.
quote: We are made in God's image and in His likeness (Gen. 1:26,27). So some correspondence is expected. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 683 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
quote: I see. quote: We don't know the precise numner healed. We are secure to believe (if we want to ) that thousands witnessed His miracle/s. Acts 1:15 tells us that about one hundred and twenty were in the upper room praying together. quote: That's right. Why not? To remain together for ten days praying requires some kind of deliberate fortitude. That fortitude, I logically assume, had its source in the instructions of Jesus to do so according to His instructions (Luke 1:49; Acts 1:4) .
quote: As I review the New Testament "His will" ie. the will of God, encompasses much more than just this feeding. The "will" of God may include a feeding like this but it certainly doesn't end there. There is also the matter of God's permissive will and His perfect will. Man's tendency may lean towards understanding God's will to merely be what God will permit. A fuller appreciation of God's will includes not just this but what His plan is, what His purpose is. Sure, God permits me to just obtain a good meal and go off on my own way, assuming the will of God has been done. But Jesus taught about God's will in a more extensive sense. See John 17 for example. In the synoptic Matthew the will of God in chapters 5 through 8 consists of quite more than simply the material neediness of man being met.
I think you may be talking about abuse on the other extreme. The Apostle John taught the practicality of expressing the indwelling eternal life in caring for the practical need of the Christian brother.
And there are similar exhortations about the practicality of brotherly love. quote: This is not necessarily true. Some people have all the physical supply they practically need yet feel empty of purpose and meaning. There are also those who are rich yet have no real peace within. They need peace towards God.
quote: At this point without going back to read all your comments before I jumped into the discussion, would give me a clearer idea of what you meant. However, it is quite exemplary that the leading teachers and prophets in the church in Antioch were proactively seeking to minister to the need of God. However you would consider the spread of the Gospel, preaching and announcing the good news has its place and was commanded by Christ. He does desire that the preacher be living what he is announcing so that the message and the messenger are one. We announce the Jesus Christ that we live. And we seek to live the Jesus Christ that we announce. One theologian put your view perhaps in these words - "Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary." I would not go that far. But the point of the saying is a good one. At the same time Paul asks "And how shall they hear without one who proclaims Him ? (Rom. 10:14c) quote: So you want to move from this matter to another, concerning who to blame for man's fallen nature ? Another reason to announce the Justification through the redemption of Christ is that men obtain peace with God regardless of how strenuously they carry on the philosophical debate as to who is the blame for the fall of man. I would tell the thoughtful sinner that though the paradox of man's sinful condition is perhaps unsolvable in a total philosophical sense, they nonetheless may have the peace of Christ which surpasses every man's understanding. Since we were talking about practicality, this is important. There are paradoxes which I admit I cannot explain to the fault finder's full satisfaction, or even perhaps to my own. But the know God, to know Christ, and to know the Holy Spirit's salvation furnishes a peace with God which seems to practically supply the peace towards God.
This question of who is the blame for the fall of man is too tough for me. I might be able to answer an easier question. But Christ's incarnation, life, death, resurrection and indwelling as the life giving Spirit guards our hearts and our thoughts in the realm of this wonderful Person and His love. Nothing can separate us from this love of God which is in Christ Jesus. So I urge people to step into the sphere of this love of Christ. Perhaps in eternity we will see the mystery of God's overall providence more clearly to answer the philosophical question Well, whose to blame for this whole need for salvation anyway ??" Does not having the answer to that question interfere with wanting to believe in the Son of God ? Do you doubt that you have sinned or that others have sinned against you, because you're not clear who to ultimately blame for those sins? quote: Point taken there. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 683 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined:
|
quote: John Frame argues that there is no worldview that does not contain circular logic. I think he would say Marxism, Capitalism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism or any other world view contains circular logic. Can you with reason prove that you can reason your way to truth ? Now in the case of God, He says He is the Alpha and the Omega. He says He is the Beginning and the End. He says He is the First and the Last. Seeing that God is the ground of our being and existence and our destinies consummate involving God, I sometimes wonder that thinking about reality will begin with God and end with God, therefore is necessarily circular. While I contemplate that, you can contemplate how to reason that with reason man can arrive at truth (without arguing in a circle).
quote: This has been contemplated by some. I have never been convinced that this has to be so. And if I were a Darwinist speculating that since the Big Bang nothing but deterministic materialism has predetermined everything, it does nothing to alleviate the mystery of choice of freedom of will. If the gray matter in my material brain only firing off synapses about everything I believe, then I can take no credit for "choosing" to believe the truth or "choosing" to follow after error. Materially I was determined to do one or the other based on interactions of atoms. Then "choosing" to believe anything would be an illusion. What you believe, whatever you believe, was predetermined by material interactions wholly apathetic to your "freedom" to decide for the truth.
quote: Some people may see it that way. Agnosticism or Atheism (usually based on a materialist view of reality) does nothing to solve the paradox, as I have tried to show above. If the Materialist Atheistic view is right, you didn't really choose to believe what you just told me to be the way the world works. No thanks to the Materialist for choosing what was true over what was not. Your gray matter just pre-deterministically fired off neurons in the brain. From the Big Bang these interactions just happened in that way. I'd rather go with real freedom of will to choose what is true. Though, I do admit, the total explanation of that is a hard matter for the limited human mind to grasp. I see God warning the first man Adam. I do, however, see God's transcendent foreknowledge prepared to not be stopped in His will by man's disobedient exercise of his free will.
quote: From a pragmatic viewpoint, that's seems right to me at the moment.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 683 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
quote: It is not a geometry problem. And if you do wish to convert it into a geometry problem a theist could probably use the same tactic to address any contradiction you might want to rationalize in theology. I see no obvious reason why a clever theologian could not utilize the very same procedure to sidestep logical contradictions related to theology. ie. "Well, its a geodesic situation here, you know ?" Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021