Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Nor is my faith shaken

h/t to Conservative Hipster.

For the record, the "Jesus Seminar" was a bunch of liberal "religious thinkers", getting together with their own preconceived notions on who Jesus was, and upon those notions, made judgements on Biblical quotes from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Just to reference another Biblical quote, this time from the Apostle Paul, "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolishness?"

These are people who doubt the authenticity of the Word of God. So naturally, they're going to come to these kinds of conclusions. That's why most conservative believers reject their work outright... as I do.

Oh how about this one... bet they LOVE this passage... but just make sure you read THE LAST VERSE before you comment, okay?
1 Why are the nations so angry?
Why do they waste their time with futile plans?
2 The kings of the earth prepare for battle;
the rulers plot together against the Lord
and against his anointed one.
3 “Let us break their chains,” they cry,
“and free ourselves from slavery to God.”

4 But the one who rules in heaven laughs.
The Lord scoffs at them.
5 Then in anger he rebukes them,
terrifying them with his fierce fury.
6 For the Lord declares, “I have placed my chosen king on the throne
in Jerusalem, on my holy mountain.”

7 The king proclaims the Lord’s decree:
“The Lord said to me, ‘You are my Son.
Today I have become your Father.
8 Only ask, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance,
the whole earth as your possession.
9 You will break them with an iron rod
and smash them like clay pots.’”

10 Now then, you kings, act wisely!
Be warned, you rulers of the earth!
11 Serve the Lord with reverent fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
12 Submit to God’s royal Son, or He will become angry,
and you will be destroyed in the midst of all your activities—
for His anger flares up in an instant.
But what joy for all who take refuge in Him!

Psalm 2
But of couse, all this is irrelevant if this "Jesus Project" says that passages like Psalm 2 shouldn't really be included in God's Holy Word... if, of course, they even believe that it's Holy... or God's Word, or His only Word, for that matter...

Yea, my faith hasn't changed much due to these guys. If nothing else, it's only more resolved to not allow people like this to degrade and dishonour my Lord and Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.

22 Comments:

  • At Wed Jan 10, 01:04:00 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    So the bible is the literal Word of God to you? I am a Christian too but I recognize that it was written by men and to be comtemplated and interpreted rather than taking literally since it is not a literal text but a tretise on faith and the good life.

     
  • At Wed Jan 10, 01:06:00 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    A literal historical text I should have said. It is not a work of history but rather in large part a work of philosophy mixed with some history. If Jesus didn't actually say everything the bible says would it matter? Isn't the message the important part?

     
  • At Wed Jan 10, 01:45:00 PM EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    The Lord Jesus Christ, as recorded in the Bible, said many important truths about the human condition, which if taken away, takes away from His message... that of repentance from sin, and faith towards God.

    He also made claims of exclusivity, which, if taken away, could lead people into false hope in other faiths. He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the Father BUT BY ME."

    Do you propose that He didn't actually say that? That one statement makes a HUGE difference, don't you think? According to that statement, it's either Christ alone, or all's fair game.

    I believe that the Bible is to be interpreted with common sense... there are parts that a clearly figurative, and many parts that are literal. I hold to the view that it is much more literal than most people think.

     
  • At Wed Jan 10, 02:06:00 PM EST, Anonymous drew said…

    He also made claims of exclusivity, which, if taken away, could lead people into false hope in other faiths. He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the Father BUT BY ME."

    Do you propose that He didn't actually say that?


    He might have, He might not have, there's no way to know for sure.

     
  • At Wed Jan 10, 02:12:00 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Whether he actually said it or not, the message is the same. It would just be nice to know through historical analysis what the actual truths are so we can put it into context and perspective. It won't affect my faith, just my knowledge of its historical context since all ideas from various religions stem out of the history of the time. It's just nice to sort out fact from fiction. If parts of the bible are wrong (and we know there are significant parts that are such as most of the book of Genesis), if things weren't actually said, then finding that out is probably a good thing. The important thing though is the philosophy, not who said it, if it was said, or when it was said.

    Also, there is no one right nor is Christianity completely right. Given that the bible is written by people and all people as we know are fallible and subject to their own biases and understandings, it is simply impossible to say one thing is right and perfect. Maybe the "absolute truth" requries combining some pieces of different faiths together. I personally do not subscribe to the exclusive correctness claimed by the bible despite the fact I am a practicing Christian because I recognize these facts about mankind.

    Again, it is literary not literal. The philosophy is the important part. Remember, the conference isn't about the existence of Jesus but rather about his words and actions. Even if he didn't physically say all of the words of peace, tell all of the parables, etc. it doesn't make those ideas any less valuable as a moral ethic to subscribe to in order to live a better life.

     
  • At Wed Jan 10, 02:14:00 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    And excellent point Drew thank you. It again gets to the heart of the conference. Was exclusivity specifically stated by Jesus or rather put in there by the authors? Here again, we don't know. All we do know is that the bible is not historical fact nor an accurate historical record. That doesn't, however, invalidate the importance of right actions, compassion, charity, and peace.

     
  • At Wed Jan 10, 02:44:00 PM EST, Anonymous drew said…

    The issue of the accuracy of statements in the Bible aside, Scripture is full of different sorts of figures of speech:

    similes
    metaphors
    implications
    parables
    mysteries
    allegories
    myths
    visions
    signs
    types
    shadows
    examples
    images and imagery
    enigmas
    symbols
    codes
    idioms
    poetry
    euphemisms
    sarcasm
    irony
    puns and other plays on words
    hyperbole
    exaggerations
    anthropomorphisms or personifications
    condescensions
    diminutives
    association or metonymy
    appellations
    compound associations
    near associations
    circumlocutions or periphrasis
    paradoxes
    numerology and possibly gematria
    omitted nouns
    omitted verbs
    unfinished sentences
    omission or non-sequence

    (To name just a few, I could go on)

    What I'm getting at is that one could easily interpret John 14:6 (the passage referenced above) in an inclusive manner that tells us every goes to heaven just as easily as in the exclusive manner that you (Prescott) interpret it in. Keep in mind that modern, evangelical interpretations of Scripture are very new, historically speaking.

     
  • At Wed Jan 10, 03:09:00 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Also feeding into the issue of language is the fact that the bible has undergone multiple translations so the meanings of some phrases can be disputed.

     
  • At Wed Jan 10, 07:19:00 PM EST, Blogger vicki said…

    I haven't had time to do the research and comparisons. But I know of two intelligent men, one a lawyer, the other a journalist who took the time to research. Josh Macdowell was a lawyer who was determined to examine the evidence to disprove the authenticity of the Bible. His books are very detailed."Evidence that Demands a Verdict".
    And Lee Strobel was an American journalist who witnessed a court case that had evidence ignored and skewered.The outcome of the trial shocked him. He decided to approach the Bible from an investigative journalist point of view. His 'Case' series are very thorough.
    We can surmise and suggest , but I appreciate what C.S. Lewis had to say. Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or Lord. The evidence is there...we are free to decide if we believe.

     
  • At Wed Jan 10, 07:36:00 PM EST, Anonymous drew said…

    There are some good articles which show the weaknesses in all three of these apologists arguments at the Secular Web. Check out them out here.

     
  • At Thu Jan 11, 11:22:00 AM EST, Anonymous James Vellenga said…

    Drew, what a wonderful postmodern way of reading. Something can say whatever you want it to say. Of course that means that no meaningful discourse can happen at all. If that is the case why do you even bother posting anything on a blog. I can make is mean whatever I want taking your approach.

     
  • At Thu Jan 11, 12:57:00 PM EST, Anonymous drew said…

    The difference is that, while it is pretty much obvious what you and I and Prescott all mean here on the blog, Scripture is anything but clear and obvious in it's various meanings. Also, while we all speak and read modern English and generally understand what another English speaker or writer means even when they use various English figures of speech, we are not familiar with what all of the various Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek figures of speech that would have been used in Scripture mean (accurate literal translation is one thing, interpretation is a whole other issue). There is also no reason to believe that the Scriptures which won the canonicity battles (or at least the Protestant canon as there have been and are other canons in other strains of Christianity) are at all univocal or that this collection of spiritual writings was ever meant to be interpreted literally (many Christians throughout history have believed that they were meant to be interpreted much more spiritually, for instance). There is no way to know that modern Protestant methods of hermeneutics are at all helpful in determining what God actually intended (if He actually inspired the writings), theological presupposition is the only reason to interpret Scripture the way that today's Protestants do. That's not to say that they are definitely wrong, but they very well might be as well, and there is no way to say that their method of interpretation is any more accurate than mine or anyone else's. It all comes down to assumption. I will also say that Evangelical theology portrays God in such a horrific manner (it makes Him out to be a monster), so with that in mind there is no way I can condone interpreting Scripture in that way.

     
  • At Thu Jan 11, 01:18:00 PM EST, Anonymous James Vellenga said…

    Actually there are interpretations that are more accurate than yours, those based on research of the history, grammar, and syntax of that period. The more one knows about those things, the better than can understand them.

    How is the God of evangelicalism a horrible monster? I'm sorry I don't see it. How is a being who is perfect in every way, who his morally pure, and who is completely excellent a monster?

     
  • At Thu Jan 11, 02:05:00 PM EST, Anonymous drew said…

    "Actually there are interpretations that are more accurate than yours, those based on research of the history, grammar, and syntax of that period. The more one knows about those things, the better than can understand them."

    I doubt you even know what my interpretations are, so I don't see how you could emphatically say "Actually there are interpretations that are more accurate than yours." :)

    "those based on research of the history, grammar, and syntax of that period."

    Yes, I went to Bible college, I'm aware of modern Evangalical hermeneutical methods. The point is that we can't know for certain that these methods will help us discover spiritual truth, we can only make guesses and hope that the method we each choose is the most accurate.

    "How is the God of evangelicalism a horrible monster? I'm sorry I don't see it. How is a being who is perfect in every way, who his morally pure, and who is completely excellent a monster?"

    The God that most Evangelicals puts forth is one who will allow people to be tortured forever after death (I say most because there are some Evangelicals who don't teach this, thankfully), and anyone who could rescue someone from this fate but chooses not to is a monster in my eyes, particularly since there is no sin or crime that could warrant such a punishment. It's not at all a biblical teaching of course, even from a literal perspective (see my website), but that's what most of them teach.

     
  • At Thu Jan 11, 03:34:00 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    As I see it, drew, it would be immoral (and thus contrary to God's nature) to force people, who've shown they want nothing to do with Him, to spend eternity with Him. So, He quarrantines them to a place where they can spend eternity completely separated from Him, where they can do harm to no one but themselves. It's His way of saying to the unrepentant sinner "Alright, thy will be done." And that, my friend, is hell. Any torture or torment said sinner suffers was by his or her own choice.

     
  • At Thu Jan 11, 04:44:00 PM EST, Anonymous drew said…

    "As I see it, drew, it would be immoral (and thus contrary to God's nature) to force people, who've shown they want nothing to do with Him, to spend eternity with Him."

    Not a Calvinist then, I take it. :D I have no problem with the idea of God "forcing" people to change (it sounds much more moral than allowing them to be tormented forever), but that goes along with my belief in determinism.

    "So, He quarrantines them to a place where they can spend eternity completely separated from Him, where they can do harm to no one but themselves."

    I don't buy it. Seeing as God is supposed to be omnipresent, I don't believe that there can be a place where one is "completely separated from Him."

    "It's His way of saying to the unrepentant sinner "Alright, thy will be done.""

    Won't happen (IMHO, of course). I believe (and Scripture backs me up from what I can see) that in the end God will draw everyone to Himself and everyone will one day rejoice in Him.

     
  • At Fri Jan 12, 06:03:00 PM EST, Anonymous Jim Vellenga said…

    Drew, I checked out your website and skimmed over a few of the things you have there. Looking at them I believe we will have to agree to disagree. I am sad that you have rejected the clear teachings of scripture and that you have no sense of just how great your sins against the God who is from everlasting to everlasting are. Since you have went to Bible College I would guess that you know what Christianity believes, so it strikes me that further discussion will not prove anything to either of us. I do pray that God will open your eyes to see the truth, although I am sure you will consider that arrogant on my part because you think I am deluded.

     
  • At Fri Jan 12, 07:32:00 PM EST, Anonymous drew said…

    "Drew, I checked out your website and skimmed over a few of the things you have there. Looking at them I believe we will have to agree to disagree."

    That's fair enough. Most Christians don't believe in Universal Reconciliation (although many do) so I'm not surprised. :)

     
  • At Thu Jan 18, 05:11:00 PM EST, Anonymous Larry said…

    HERES three smart,informative and interesting books in which confirms the Biblical Jesus Christ. / 1.The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel, 2.The HandWriting Of God by Grant R.Jeffrey, 3.Evidence Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowel.

     
  • At Thu Jan 18, 09:53:00 PM EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Thanks for that advice Larry... I already own all three. ;-)

     
  • At Fri Jan 19, 10:49:00 AM EST, Anonymous drew said…

    "HERES three smart,informative and interesting books in which confirms the Biblical Jesus Christ. / 1.The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel, 2.The HandWriting Of God by Grant R.Jeffrey, 3.Evidence Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowel."

    I've posted this already, but those are not necessarily the credible sources that many Evangelicals think they are. Find info on at least two of those sources at this link.

     
  • At Sat Jan 20, 03:26:00 PM EST, Anonymous Larry said…

    HERES two Christian Websites in which are informative,entertaining and interesting: 1-lutheranhour.org the host pastor Ken Klause gives great sermons not borrring. 2-hit into "live from studio B" contains Christian Cd's, music/songs plus performing Christian artistists. Added note many don't realize the Holy Bible is actually a library of authoritive Books and Letters by many authors over a very long time spand. Many people don't read the Bible properly which is why some don't get it. Contains 66 Books and Letters, 27 for the NewTestament alone.{Both the King James and New King James Holy Bible versions contain history,prophecy,good philosophy,poetry and real Spirituality}.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home