Predestination
Predestination
Was wondering what individuals here think about predestination. Specifically God electing his children that will come to faith.
Predestination
"For He chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will." Ephesians 1:4-5
In other words, God has chosen his elect. These individuals that will come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ and be welcomed into heaven as his adopted children. The non-elect will be condemned to hell for their sins. Otherwise, man does not have freewill to come to God. God made the decision as to whom would be saved before he even created this world.
In other words, God has chosen his elect. These individuals that will come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ and be welcomed into heaven as his adopted children. The non-elect will be condemned to hell for their sins. Otherwise, man does not have freewill to come to God. God made the decision as to whom would be saved before he even created this world.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Predestination
I just don't believe in that at all, Bepps. Even when I was a christian I didn't believe in that. I don't think God will reject anyone for not being "saved."
Predestination
Just questioning peoples beliefs. I can list a dozen verses of scripture where God chooses, not man. God setting Pharoah up just to destroy him so God's power could be displayed to the world as an example. People can choose to disbelieve scripture but people cannot deny what scripture says. That is why I always list the chapter and verse so people can look in their own bible or on the net so they can read it in context. People do not like to face the obvious, prefering to rely on their "feelings", not God's written word.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Predestination
How can you prove to me that the bible is God's word?
Predestination
It's not a matter of me to prove anything to you. You either choose to believe it is God's written word or you do not. How can I prove to you anything. No more than you can prove to me whatever it is that drives your faith, or lack of it.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Predestination
bepps;740366 wrote: People can choose to disbelieve scripture but people cannot deny what scripture says.
People do not like to face the obvious, prefering to rely on their "feelings", not God's written word.
This is why I'm asking for proof. If you personally feel it's obvious that's one thing but to assume it applies to others is a whole different matter.
People do not like to face the obvious, prefering to rely on their "feelings", not God's written word.
This is why I'm asking for proof. If you personally feel it's obvious that's one thing but to assume it applies to others is a whole different matter.
Predestination
RedGlitter:-6
I can join you in that question.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I can join you in that question.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Predestination
Hi Ted. 
Good to see you.
Good to see you.Predestination
RedGlitter:-6
Thanks. Same here.
I just kind of hang around like an old cob web.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thanks. Same here.
I just kind of hang around like an old cob web.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Predestination
bepps:-6
Welcome to the garden. I do hope you enjoy your stary.
Please be advised that there are folks here of many faiths and no faith at all. One just has to agree to disagree ultimately.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Welcome to the garden. I do hope you enjoy your stary.
Please be advised that there are folks here of many faiths and no faith at all. One just has to agree to disagree ultimately.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Predestination
Understand that completely about agreeing about disagreeing. Based on "shalom" are you of Jewish faith? If you are, what are your views about God choosing based on the Torah and other Old Testament writings?
Predestination
Hi there Bepps,
I'm the drunken one. Just so you know.
I think predestination is a philosophical concept not a faith based one. I don't put much belief into predestination argument. Let me try to give you an example of how I connect predestination to my own salvation. The thing that has always been an issue with me and the Biblical notion of saving my soul is quite possibly a philosophical concept as well. I have problems understanding how people have said that if you reject God then you will be separated at death from the creator. Most simply, what constitutes rejection? I think that's what you are talking about here. If God has already chosen those who come to eternal life then what is the point of even trying to understand the Christian faith? If that's what the Bible does say, what difference does it make whether I believe or not in the Son of God? I have a long explanation for my own conflicted view and I would just hope anyone who reads the whole thing realize it's something I have totally hard time with.
Even when I first became overwhelmed with this belief of Jesus as my Saviour I wondered what does this mean?? It had always been my feeling that if I or anyone didn't understand this precept that Jesus was son of God then how could this be evidence to God of rejection of the Almighty when we hadn't understood this in the first place? Take the aborted fetus/baby (for prolifers) or the indigenous tribe in, you name the outback, anywhere, really, or the child who died of leukemia before she had a chance to be born again. Any person who did not know Christ and his teachings would fall into this category. But I wonder what about people like me? Like when our feelings changed after we had an initial revelation? I can see on some level how my (then deep) understanding of God's love for me through Jesus Christ was a covenant between myself and the Supreme. But if I later have questioned my faith and even rejected some of what I believed before, does this constitute an absolute rejection of the Biblical God and make me a lesser child and did God know I would do this all along?
Am I banned from union with God for feeling these conflicted opinions of Biblical teachings and my own knowingness? Will God cut me out of his grace for these feelings that lead to actions not Christ or God centered such as not supporting the crede that Jesus is the only way one can get to God? Many Christians would say that only by listening to God's word can we do what is not a rejection of God, that only by Jesus can we know the way. I tend to not think or believe this because I doubt anyone can know God's word on earth through any one earthly message. I mean, if I know God to the degree that God has made his plan for me, in the beginning, then I would naturally do everything in the perfect example of God and, in my Christian faith, Jesus, would have for me.
But if I'm not there yet, at that point yet, do I think God would ever cast me out of union with the Almighty for a superficial understanding that in human eyes would appear to be rejection just because of undeveloped human development?? I don't think so. Or feel so. God is greater than any of us could ever know, where the heart and mind of mankind is transparent.
Predestination is not even a play by which my God can understand, it's a human idea, born from us, not God. God wants all to be elevated, loving, growing, surpassing. There are no prerequisites for this end. Sounds wordy and all but just how I feel about it.
Erin :-6
PS, I will give an example of my own conflicted feelings about God's plan for me and whether God had known I would do this, because that's what predestination is, like the apostle who did this, who was that guy, the one who ratted out on Jesus? Oh well, names aren't important anyway. Though the example I'm gonna use is because any hardcore Christian I've ever met would find what I'm going to say blasphemous (I have a problem with fundamentalists, that I do-argh!!).
Anyway, I cannot for the life of me reconcile that Jesus is the one and only way to God. I have no argument for this and by many Christian standards I will likely be cut off from God for believing this. Is this predestination? Is this something God knew I would eventually conclude? See, I don't think so. I believe God would never underestimate my desre for a union with the Almighty. Would never judge me so harshly even if my destiny had already been marked. There is circular reasoning in predestination, I'm not ready to give my reasons for it, but I know it doesn't make sense.
I'm the drunken one. Just so you know.
I think predestination is a philosophical concept not a faith based one. I don't put much belief into predestination argument. Let me try to give you an example of how I connect predestination to my own salvation. The thing that has always been an issue with me and the Biblical notion of saving my soul is quite possibly a philosophical concept as well. I have problems understanding how people have said that if you reject God then you will be separated at death from the creator. Most simply, what constitutes rejection? I think that's what you are talking about here. If God has already chosen those who come to eternal life then what is the point of even trying to understand the Christian faith? If that's what the Bible does say, what difference does it make whether I believe or not in the Son of God? I have a long explanation for my own conflicted view and I would just hope anyone who reads the whole thing realize it's something I have totally hard time with.
Even when I first became overwhelmed with this belief of Jesus as my Saviour I wondered what does this mean?? It had always been my feeling that if I or anyone didn't understand this precept that Jesus was son of God then how could this be evidence to God of rejection of the Almighty when we hadn't understood this in the first place? Take the aborted fetus/baby (for prolifers) or the indigenous tribe in, you name the outback, anywhere, really, or the child who died of leukemia before she had a chance to be born again. Any person who did not know Christ and his teachings would fall into this category. But I wonder what about people like me? Like when our feelings changed after we had an initial revelation? I can see on some level how my (then deep) understanding of God's love for me through Jesus Christ was a covenant between myself and the Supreme. But if I later have questioned my faith and even rejected some of what I believed before, does this constitute an absolute rejection of the Biblical God and make me a lesser child and did God know I would do this all along?
Am I banned from union with God for feeling these conflicted opinions of Biblical teachings and my own knowingness? Will God cut me out of his grace for these feelings that lead to actions not Christ or God centered such as not supporting the crede that Jesus is the only way one can get to God? Many Christians would say that only by listening to God's word can we do what is not a rejection of God, that only by Jesus can we know the way. I tend to not think or believe this because I doubt anyone can know God's word on earth through any one earthly message. I mean, if I know God to the degree that God has made his plan for me, in the beginning, then I would naturally do everything in the perfect example of God and, in my Christian faith, Jesus, would have for me.
But if I'm not there yet, at that point yet, do I think God would ever cast me out of union with the Almighty for a superficial understanding that in human eyes would appear to be rejection just because of undeveloped human development?? I don't think so. Or feel so. God is greater than any of us could ever know, where the heart and mind of mankind is transparent.
Predestination is not even a play by which my God can understand, it's a human idea, born from us, not God. God wants all to be elevated, loving, growing, surpassing. There are no prerequisites for this end. Sounds wordy and all but just how I feel about it.
Erin :-6
PS, I will give an example of my own conflicted feelings about God's plan for me and whether God had known I would do this, because that's what predestination is, like the apostle who did this, who was that guy, the one who ratted out on Jesus? Oh well, names aren't important anyway. Though the example I'm gonna use is because any hardcore Christian I've ever met would find what I'm going to say blasphemous (I have a problem with fundamentalists, that I do-argh!!).
Anyway, I cannot for the life of me reconcile that Jesus is the one and only way to God. I have no argument for this and by many Christian standards I will likely be cut off from God for believing this. Is this predestination? Is this something God knew I would eventually conclude? See, I don't think so. I believe God would never underestimate my desre for a union with the Almighty. Would never judge me so harshly even if my destiny had already been marked. There is circular reasoning in predestination, I'm not ready to give my reasons for it, but I know it doesn't make sense.
Predestination
"1 Timothy 1: (3) As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer (4)nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. (5)The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. (6)Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. (7)They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. "
Too often we drill for water, find the aquifer and keep on drilling. It’s simple to me too. God loves me. I accept that love as manifest in the life, sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus. I don’t need to know who is lost and who isn’t. When someone asks me I will gladly tell them of the good news I found when I discovered the aquifer that floods my life with living water. I’ll also tell them how I once drilled through the aquifer missing the opportunity to drink.
Too often we drill for water, find the aquifer and keep on drilling. It’s simple to me too. God loves me. I accept that love as manifest in the life, sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus. I don’t need to know who is lost and who isn’t. When someone asks me I will gladly tell them of the good news I found when I discovered the aquifer that floods my life with living water. I’ll also tell them how I once drilled through the aquifer missing the opportunity to drink.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Predestination
Clint;740448 wrote: "1 Timothy 1: (3) As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer (4)nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. (5)The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. (6)Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. (7)They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. "
Too often we drill for water, find the aquifer and keep on drilling. It’s simple to me too. God loves me. I accept that love as manifest in the life, sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus. I don’t need to know who is lost and who isn’t. When someone asks me I will gladly tell them of the good news I found when I discovered the aquifer that floods my life with living water. I’ll also tell them how I once drilled through the aquifer missing the opportunity to drink.
Hi Clint,
What you wrote fills me with guilt. Why is that? Am I rejecting Jesus and what you say is confirming this? What do you mean?
Btw I'm happy for you.
love,
Erin
Too often we drill for water, find the aquifer and keep on drilling. It’s simple to me too. God loves me. I accept that love as manifest in the life, sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus. I don’t need to know who is lost and who isn’t. When someone asks me I will gladly tell them of the good news I found when I discovered the aquifer that floods my life with living water. I’ll also tell them how I once drilled through the aquifer missing the opportunity to drink.
Hi Clint,
What you wrote fills me with guilt. Why is that? Am I rejecting Jesus and what you say is confirming this? What do you mean?
Btw I'm happy for you.
love,
Erin
Predestination
I sure didn’t mean to cause anyone to feel guilty.
I did hope what I said might set someone free. I believe God wants us to experience what he has for us when we find him. I experienced my first love of him then got caught up in the idea that to experience him more I needed to search out the esoteric morsels of religion. I now believe he really wants me to experience his grace, joy, peace, hope and love like a child.
I don’t think I was rejecting Jesus by accepting him then searching for him. We all seek him in our own way. God created us to be unique in the way we live and the way we come to him. If my path to him includes lessons about not using a magnifying glass to look through a dark glass, I only have to thank him for the experience. I can’t say I’ve reached a point in my walk where I have it figured out. I have reached a point, at least for now, where I can rest in him.
He does warn us to avoid getting caught up in the knowledge stuff to the point we can't know him.
One thing is certain. We cannot seek him and reject him at the same time.
I did hope what I said might set someone free. I believe God wants us to experience what he has for us when we find him. I experienced my first love of him then got caught up in the idea that to experience him more I needed to search out the esoteric morsels of religion. I now believe he really wants me to experience his grace, joy, peace, hope and love like a child.
I don’t think I was rejecting Jesus by accepting him then searching for him. We all seek him in our own way. God created us to be unique in the way we live and the way we come to him. If my path to him includes lessons about not using a magnifying glass to look through a dark glass, I only have to thank him for the experience. I can’t say I’ve reached a point in my walk where I have it figured out. I have reached a point, at least for now, where I can rest in him.
He does warn us to avoid getting caught up in the knowledge stuff to the point we can't know him.
One thing is certain. We cannot seek him and reject him at the same time.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Predestination
One of the things that did make sense to me about my faith was that Jesus was said to come to a person where she was on her journey at the level she could understand. This idea has always appealed to me. Makes me wonder how God could ever find someone rejecting because in a sense we are always embarked on this journey and never reach the end or perfection. I find this one of the best parts of being human, that I can count on my life being an adventure, never completed. Even people who do worthless things in my eyes might be obtaining some sort of lesson, even if not obvious, that could later serve to draw him or her closer to the Divine. Who's to say?
Erin
Erin
Predestination
Jester;740443 wrote: God chose everyone, all are called to be the elect, it isnt that he decided before time who would be chosen, what he did was for everyone, the question isnt who did God choose, the question is who will choose God. The elect, simply are Gods named, but anyone can be one of the elect.I think bepps' point is that God hardened Pharaoh's heart for His own purposes, not that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. "God setting Pharoah up just to destroy him so God's power could be displayed to the world" is an accurate description of the Exodus. How does Pharaoh choose to respond if God has deliberately imposed an inability on the guy? "And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them ... And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go ... And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses". Is Pharaoh a type or is he a unique individual? "O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance."?
It happens in the New Testament too - in John 12: "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."
It happens in the New Testament too - in John 12: "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Predestination
bepps:-6
No I am not Jewish. I am a Christian pluralist. My use of "shalom" is simply because it expresses more than other terms about how we should relate not only to other human beings but also to the divine.
Shalom
Ted:-6
No I am not Jewish. I am a Christian pluralist. My use of "shalom" is simply because it expresses more than other terms about how we should relate not only to other human beings but also to the divine.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Predestination
watermark:-6
Dogma and doctrine are purely man made. They do not come from God. What counts and is very clear throughout the sacred scriptures of many of the world's great faiths is that one live in a developing, transforming relationship with God as seen manifested in Jesus of Nazareth.
The original meaning of the words translated to faith is best shown in the word "trust". The word faith has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with right belief or getting it exactly right. If it were than Christendom is in trouble with some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Dogma and doctrine are purely man made. They do not come from God. What counts and is very clear throughout the sacred scriptures of many of the world's great faiths is that one live in a developing, transforming relationship with God as seen manifested in Jesus of Nazareth.
The original meaning of the words translated to faith is best shown in the word "trust". The word faith has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with right belief or getting it exactly right. If it were than Christendom is in trouble with some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Predestination
There are a few words that I would like to comment on here. For those who think they are following orthodoxy you might be interested.
"The word "salvation" like the word "savior", has a meaning for many Christians much narrower than its biblical meaning. For many Christians, "salvation" is closely connected with post death existence, with "going to heaven". When the word is understood that way, Jesus as God's salvation becomes Jesus as God's means of "going to heaven." But in the Bible, the word has much more this-worldly, here-and-now meanings, including rescue, deliverance, liberation, protection, healing and being made whole. Psalm 27:1 affirms: "The Lord is migh light and my salvation; whom shall i fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" pg 187, "The First Christmas", M. Borg and D. Crossan.
Shalom
Ted:-6
"The word "salvation" like the word "savior", has a meaning for many Christians much narrower than its biblical meaning. For many Christians, "salvation" is closely connected with post death existence, with "going to heaven". When the word is understood that way, Jesus as God's salvation becomes Jesus as God's means of "going to heaven." But in the Bible, the word has much more this-worldly, here-and-now meanings, including rescue, deliverance, liberation, protection, healing and being made whole. Psalm 27:1 affirms: "The Lord is migh light and my salvation; whom shall i fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" pg 187, "The First Christmas", M. Borg and D. Crossan.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Predestination
Now to the word redemption.
"To make best use of the redemption metaphor, prople today must concentrate on the idea of liberation. The idea will come to make spiritual sense if they can identify those negative forces from which they want to be set free: unfounded anxiety, basesless fear, self-denigration, greed, or addiction." pg206, "From Literal to Literary", James R. Adams.
Repent was a word that meant to change ones mind or to turn back.
"Many children brought up with the King James Version of the Bible were puzzled by the passages that told about God repenting. From their Sunday school lessons they had learned that to repent was to be sorry for your sins and be determined to do better, but from what they had learned about God in other lessons, they found it hard to imagine God sinning and having to make amends. Few teachers knew that, whenever the Hebrew Scriptures said that God repented, the original word was nacham, which did not necessarily have to do with bad behavior but was a metaphor that could mean changing your mind. The literal meaning of nacham may have been to sigh, which was often an expression of regret.
Perhaps for the benefit of all the confused children, the translators of the New Revised Standard Version decided never to say that God repented but instead say that God had a change of mind." Ibid pg 207.
The idea that God might change His/Her mind is rather interesting as well!
Thus I prefer to use the term transformation or a changing about. It is a finding of a new way of living in this world.
Shalom
Ted:-6
"To make best use of the redemption metaphor, prople today must concentrate on the idea of liberation. The idea will come to make spiritual sense if they can identify those negative forces from which they want to be set free: unfounded anxiety, basesless fear, self-denigration, greed, or addiction." pg206, "From Literal to Literary", James R. Adams.
Repent was a word that meant to change ones mind or to turn back.
"Many children brought up with the King James Version of the Bible were puzzled by the passages that told about God repenting. From their Sunday school lessons they had learned that to repent was to be sorry for your sins and be determined to do better, but from what they had learned about God in other lessons, they found it hard to imagine God sinning and having to make amends. Few teachers knew that, whenever the Hebrew Scriptures said that God repented, the original word was nacham, which did not necessarily have to do with bad behavior but was a metaphor that could mean changing your mind. The literal meaning of nacham may have been to sigh, which was often an expression of regret.
Perhaps for the benefit of all the confused children, the translators of the New Revised Standard Version decided never to say that God repented but instead say that God had a change of mind." Ibid pg 207.
The idea that God might change His/Her mind is rather interesting as well!
Thus I prefer to use the term transformation or a changing about. It is a finding of a new way of living in this world.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Predestination
I was questioning to get an idea as to people's knowledge of scripture on this forum.. Spot was correct in his post as to what I was trying to get at. I would like to post another scripture concerning God's will and His will being done.
"What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardnes whom He desires." Romans 9:14-18
In other words God decides whom he will save. Those he does not save are doomed to damnation in hell. Another poster said that everyone is God's elect. If that was the case then everyone would go to heaven, which according to scripture is not true. In fact, Jesus talked about hell in the bible second only to money.
Some people will say, that's not fair. Why would God choose some and not everyone. Why would God choose "me" for instance but not my mother or father or brother or sister or my son or my daughter. (I am not referencing "me" specifically, but you the reader) God's response are the next few verses.
"You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will? On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" Romans 9:19-21
Even though I typed the verses above I encourage you the reader to read these verses in your bible for yourself so that you will see that I did not twist or warp the verses or take them out of context. After that I would like to entertain a serious discussion on God's will compared to this concept of man's will. Several people are going to say that they choose to ignore what the bible says and have their own belief structure which is fine. I expect that from most of the people on this forum because "wide is the path that leads to destruction and many there are on it" (quote from Jesus). I will even go so far as to say that there will be some Christians that do not know what to think about this because many Christians have a very superficial understanding of scripture. They went to church because their parents either made them go or they are believers because their parents told them they were. Anyway, I would love to discuss further.:yh_star
"What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardnes whom He desires." Romans 9:14-18
In other words God decides whom he will save. Those he does not save are doomed to damnation in hell. Another poster said that everyone is God's elect. If that was the case then everyone would go to heaven, which according to scripture is not true. In fact, Jesus talked about hell in the bible second only to money.
Some people will say, that's not fair. Why would God choose some and not everyone. Why would God choose "me" for instance but not my mother or father or brother or sister or my son or my daughter. (I am not referencing "me" specifically, but you the reader) God's response are the next few verses.
"You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will? On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" Romans 9:19-21
Even though I typed the verses above I encourage you the reader to read these verses in your bible for yourself so that you will see that I did not twist or warp the verses or take them out of context. After that I would like to entertain a serious discussion on God's will compared to this concept of man's will. Several people are going to say that they choose to ignore what the bible says and have their own belief structure which is fine. I expect that from most of the people on this forum because "wide is the path that leads to destruction and many there are on it" (quote from Jesus). I will even go so far as to say that there will be some Christians that do not know what to think about this because many Christians have a very superficial understanding of scripture. They went to church because their parents either made them go or they are believers because their parents told them they were. Anyway, I would love to discuss further.:yh_star
Predestination
bepps:-6
I would love to discuss this further as well. I've been a biblical and theological student both formally and informally for the past 40+ years. In fact I still take courses at the Vancouver School of Theology.
"wide is the path to destruction." Did Jesus say this or are they the words of the evangelist placed in Jesus' mouth?
Shalom
Ted:-6
I would love to discuss this further as well. I've been a biblical and theological student both formally and informally for the past 40+ years. In fact I still take courses at the Vancouver School of Theology.
"wide is the path to destruction." Did Jesus say this or are they the words of the evangelist placed in Jesus' mouth?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Predestination
bepps;740924 wrote: "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!Does not the potter have a right over the clay, that's the question. Am I to put up with the ground rules of this jealous just god or am I free to choose without a threat of impending punishment hanging over my decision. I have no desire to spend eternity in his presence but my sole alternative is one of condemnation to a pre-designed eternal torture. Those he does not save are doomed to damnation in hell, as you point out.
I think I have a moral responsibility to rebel against that. The god you describe isn't worthy of my worship or submission. I take him to be my enemy and even were I flawless and without sin I'd reject him on exactly the same grounds. Either creation was a gift or it was an uninvited loan with a demand for repayment with interest and he can go whistle for his investment. I shall live my life as justly and as compassionately as I'm capable of living it but he gets no part of me if he rejects any of his clay as the bible insists he does.
I think I have a moral responsibility to rebel against that. The god you describe isn't worthy of my worship or submission. I take him to be my enemy and even were I flawless and without sin I'd reject him on exactly the same grounds. Either creation was a gift or it was an uninvited loan with a demand for repayment with interest and he can go whistle for his investment. I shall live my life as justly and as compassionately as I'm capable of living it but he gets no part of me if he rejects any of his clay as the bible insists he does.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Predestination
Ted;740975 wrote: bepps:-6
I would love to discuss this further as well. I've been a biblical and theological student both formally and informally for the past 40+ years. In fact I still take courses at the Vancouver School of Theology.
"wide is the path to destruction." Did Jesus say this or are they the words of the evangelist placed in Jesus' mouth?
Shalom
Ted:-6
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who leads through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matthew 7:13-14. (Colored red in the KJV. Attributed to Jesus Christ)
I would love to discuss this further as well. I've been a biblical and theological student both formally and informally for the past 40+ years. In fact I still take courses at the Vancouver School of Theology.
"wide is the path to destruction." Did Jesus say this or are they the words of the evangelist placed in Jesus' mouth?
Shalom
Ted:-6
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who leads through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matthew 7:13-14. (Colored red in the KJV. Attributed to Jesus Christ)
Predestination
bepps:-6
The absolute and inerrancy theory of the Bible is a creation of the reformation. The majority of Christians prior to that did not in general believe this.
The Bible is not the word of God by virtue of its authorship but by virtue of the fact that God speaks to us through the very human words of the Bible.
The words you quoted above from Matt. cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are the words of the early church as expressed through whomever wrote the gospel of Matthew.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The absolute and inerrancy theory of the Bible is a creation of the reformation. The majority of Christians prior to that did not in general believe this.
The Bible is not the word of God by virtue of its authorship but by virtue of the fact that God speaks to us through the very human words of the Bible.
The words you quoted above from Matt. cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are the words of the early church as expressed through whomever wrote the gospel of Matthew.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Predestination
bepps:-6
In answer to the original question I do not believe in predestination. If we have predestination than we do not live as free people. Either we are free or we are not. If the attitude is one of do as I say or you gonna burn baby then we do not have freedom and that is out and out coercion. This is not the God that I see revealed in one Jesus of Nazareth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
In answer to the original question I do not believe in predestination. If we have predestination than we do not live as free people. Either we are free or we are not. If the attitude is one of do as I say or you gonna burn baby then we do not have freedom and that is out and out coercion. This is not the God that I see revealed in one Jesus of Nazareth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Predestination
Ted;741045 wrote: In answer to the original question I do not believe in predestination. If we have predestination than we do not live as free people. Either we are free or we are not. If the attitude is one of do as I say or you gonna burn baby then we do not have freedom and that is out and out coercion. This is not the God that I see revealed in one Jesus of Nazareth.Neither is it mine, Ted, but you have to take the belief system of the questioner as it comes. I'm sure bepp would feel uncomfortable if I described his god as satanic so I won't do that. He has as good a reason for his view, from his perspective of belief, as either you or I.
I'm sure he has no trouble with the fact that he and I agree I'm hell-bound, I'm quite sure he thinks the vast majority of humankind is hell-bound along with me. I regret that he was afflicted with his view, whether it was offered to him by his upbringing or by some wretch of an evangelist later on. I have no doubt, though, that he denies me any right to call myself Christian. Given his view I refuse to describe myself as one or we'd have yet more to disagree over. I'm entirely convinced, though, that Jesus wouldn't qualify as a Christian from his perspective either were he to show up tomorrow and start posting.
I'm sure he has no trouble with the fact that he and I agree I'm hell-bound, I'm quite sure he thinks the vast majority of humankind is hell-bound along with me. I regret that he was afflicted with his view, whether it was offered to him by his upbringing or by some wretch of an evangelist later on. I have no doubt, though, that he denies me any right to call myself Christian. Given his view I refuse to describe myself as one or we'd have yet more to disagree over. I'm entirely convinced, though, that Jesus wouldn't qualify as a Christian from his perspective either were he to show up tomorrow and start posting.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Predestination
spot:-6
LOL
Shalom
Ted:-6
LOL
Shalom
Ted:-6
Predestination
Jester;741080 wrote: Welp for me ya'll passed the common usage of scripture enjoy your conversation!
You disagree that the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh so that he wouldn't respond favourably, and that He did this in order to magnify further His own glory? I thought that was a given.
You disagree that the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh so that he wouldn't respond favourably, and that He did this in order to magnify further His own glory? I thought that was a given.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Predestination
Ted;741043 wrote: bepps:-6
The absolute and inerrancy theory of the Bible is a creation of the reformation. The majority of Christians prior to that did not in general believe this.
The Bible is not the word of God by virtue of its authorship but by virtue of the fact that God speaks to us through the very human words of the Bible.
The words you quoted above from Matt. cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are the words of the early church as expressed through whomever wrote the gospel of Matthew.
Shalom
Ted:-6
If you do not believe in the inerrancy of the bible, then you have no basis to believe any part of it. If you do not believe in the inerrancy of it, then any book has as much validity as it does. Mere men wrote the words, however believers believe that it was inspired by God. Obviously the majority of people on this planet do not believe that it is the inspired word of God. That comes as no surprise to me.
The absolute and inerrancy theory of the Bible is a creation of the reformation. The majority of Christians prior to that did not in general believe this.
The Bible is not the word of God by virtue of its authorship but by virtue of the fact that God speaks to us through the very human words of the Bible.
The words you quoted above from Matt. cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are the words of the early church as expressed through whomever wrote the gospel of Matthew.
Shalom
Ted:-6
If you do not believe in the inerrancy of the bible, then you have no basis to believe any part of it. If you do not believe in the inerrancy of it, then any book has as much validity as it does. Mere men wrote the words, however believers believe that it was inspired by God. Obviously the majority of people on this planet do not believe that it is the inspired word of God. That comes as no surprise to me.
Predestination
spot;741049 wrote: Neither is it mine, Ted, but you have to take the belief system of the questioner as it comes. I'm sure bepp would feel uncomfortable if I described his god as satanic so I won't do that. He has as good a reason for his view, from his perspective of belief, as either you or I.
I'm sure he has no trouble with the fact that he and I agree I'm hell-bound, I'm quite sure he thinks the vast majority of humankind is hell-bound along with me. I regret that he was afflicted with his view, whether it was offered to him by his upbringing or by some wretch of an evangelist later on. I have no doubt, though, that he denies me any right to call myself Christian. Given his view I refuse to describe myself as one or we'd have yet more to disagree over. I'm entirely convinced, though, that Jesus wouldn't qualify as a Christian from his perspective either were he to show up tomorrow and start posting.
Here is my question to you spot. And I do not question your salvation by the way. Only God and you can determine your salvation, not me. I have quoted the scriptures and encouraged you to read it in any bible that you may own. Where have I misquoted the scripture? You have your "belief structure" and it very well may be in opposition to what was quoted, but how was I wrong in what it said? You say you do not believe my point of view, which is fine and dandy, but how do you ignore the very words that I quote. All you say is that you choose to ignore it which is fine. But once again, where was I wrong in what the scripture says?
I'm sure he has no trouble with the fact that he and I agree I'm hell-bound, I'm quite sure he thinks the vast majority of humankind is hell-bound along with me. I regret that he was afflicted with his view, whether it was offered to him by his upbringing or by some wretch of an evangelist later on. I have no doubt, though, that he denies me any right to call myself Christian. Given his view I refuse to describe myself as one or we'd have yet more to disagree over. I'm entirely convinced, though, that Jesus wouldn't qualify as a Christian from his perspective either were he to show up tomorrow and start posting.
Here is my question to you spot. And I do not question your salvation by the way. Only God and you can determine your salvation, not me. I have quoted the scriptures and encouraged you to read it in any bible that you may own. Where have I misquoted the scripture? You have your "belief structure" and it very well may be in opposition to what was quoted, but how was I wrong in what it said? You say you do not believe my point of view, which is fine and dandy, but how do you ignore the very words that I quote. All you say is that you choose to ignore it which is fine. But once again, where was I wrong in what the scripture says?
Predestination
Ted;741045 wrote: bepps:-6
In answer to the original question I do not believe in predestination. If we have predestination than we do not live as free people. Either we are free or we are not. If the attitude is one of do as I say or you gonna burn baby then we do not have freedom and that is out and out coercion. This is not the God that I see revealed in one Jesus of Nazareth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
But Jesus did not do his will, but the will of the Father.
And He withdrew from them about a stone's throw and began to pray, saying "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me, yet not My will, but Yours be done." Matthew 22:41-42
What you see in Jesus is His submission in His role as God the Son to God the Father.
In answer to the original question I do not believe in predestination. If we have predestination than we do not live as free people. Either we are free or we are not. If the attitude is one of do as I say or you gonna burn baby then we do not have freedom and that is out and out coercion. This is not the God that I see revealed in one Jesus of Nazareth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
But Jesus did not do his will, but the will of the Father.
And He withdrew from them about a stone's throw and began to pray, saying "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me, yet not My will, but Yours be done." Matthew 22:41-42
What you see in Jesus is His submission in His role as God the Son to God the Father.
Predestination
bepps:-6
Within the church there are three main sources of authority; the Bible, The Counsels, and Tradition. There are of course a few others one being common sense. The idea of inerrancy was and is the creation of the reformation some 400 years ago. Such a view was not from the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That is the church created by Jesus.
The basis of my faith is not a book but the experience of the risen Lord to which that book testifies. Inerrancy is a doctrine resulting from the reformation and is in no way a biblically based doctrine. It is purely a human construct.
The Bible is a book composed of myth, legend, folk tale, poetry, short story, fiction, some philosophy, some theology. It is a book written in an ancient style called midrash which makes great use of metaphor and parable. It contains a few kernels of history spread throughout.
This book was finally compiled from dozens of ancient manuscripts, none being the original. They were copies of copies of copies etc. There were multiple copies of each book. Among all of those copies there were some 400 000 variants. It was a horrendous not only translating them but then trying to get as close to the original as was scholarly possible.
Not only that but the documents had been added to by editors and subtracted from. Some things were changed to fit the culture of the day. The early church also made additions and deletions some for political reasons and some for theological reasons. "Misquoting Jesus", Bart Ehrman. Dom. Crossan, Marcus Borg.
The term the "Word of God" rightly belongs to one only, the crucified one and not to a book as such. For Christians it becomes the word of God because God does speak to us through that book. To treat the Bible as inerrant leads to idolatry.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Within the church there are three main sources of authority; the Bible, The Counsels, and Tradition. There are of course a few others one being common sense. The idea of inerrancy was and is the creation of the reformation some 400 years ago. Such a view was not from the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That is the church created by Jesus.
The basis of my faith is not a book but the experience of the risen Lord to which that book testifies. Inerrancy is a doctrine resulting from the reformation and is in no way a biblically based doctrine. It is purely a human construct.
The Bible is a book composed of myth, legend, folk tale, poetry, short story, fiction, some philosophy, some theology. It is a book written in an ancient style called midrash which makes great use of metaphor and parable. It contains a few kernels of history spread throughout.
This book was finally compiled from dozens of ancient manuscripts, none being the original. They were copies of copies of copies etc. There were multiple copies of each book. Among all of those copies there were some 400 000 variants. It was a horrendous not only translating them but then trying to get as close to the original as was scholarly possible.
Not only that but the documents had been added to by editors and subtracted from. Some things were changed to fit the culture of the day. The early church also made additions and deletions some for political reasons and some for theological reasons. "Misquoting Jesus", Bart Ehrman. Dom. Crossan, Marcus Borg.
The term the "Word of God" rightly belongs to one only, the crucified one and not to a book as such. For Christians it becomes the word of God because God does speak to us through that book. To treat the Bible as inerrant leads to idolatry.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Predestination
bepps:-6
Yes Jesus submitted to the will of God. That is the God who said through Jesus that the greatest commandment was love of God and neighbour as well as self. Now you are getting into the theology of the atonement and that is an whole other discussion.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Yes Jesus submitted to the will of God. That is the God who said through Jesus that the greatest commandment was love of God and neighbour as well as self. Now you are getting into the theology of the atonement and that is an whole other discussion.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Predestination
bepps;741092 wrote: Here is my question to you spot. And I do not question your salvation by the way. Only God and you can determine your salvation, not me. I have quoted the scriptures and encouraged you to read it in any bible that you may own. Where have I misquoted the scripture? You have your "belief structure" and it very well may be in opposition to what was quoted, but how was I wrong in what it said? You say you do not believe my point of view, which is fine and dandy, but how do you ignore the very words that I quote. All you say is that you choose to ignore it which is fine. But once again, where was I wrong in what the scripture says?
I wouldn't dream of ignoring the words you quote and you're not misquoting scripture at all. I'm more concerned with what you do with your quotes.
Perhaps if we go a little further into Romans 9 we can consider the rest of Paul's argument?What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."I would contend that the bible is Christianity's stumbling stone in the 21st century. Treating it smugly as the source of ammunition in any discussion of God is a pursuit of righteousness, a path of glory which leads but to the grave. The exercise of faith is a journey of exploration into God and a response to that dialogue. Judgemental criticism of the world by applying appropriate texts from scripture is the very thing Jesus castigated the law-particularists for in his day. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are".
The bible is an interpretive record of the legends of several tribes. It's great that the record has survived. It shows a gradual transition from understanding God as the Saddam Hussein of his times, slaughtering his own people even more than goading them into slaughtering their neighbours, to a deity focused on salvation through faith.
Christianity is the repository of those insights. Within its practice members of the body of Christ can explore the consequences of faith with their fellow members past and present and apply those consequences to the world. The bible is one part of that tradition. Knowledge of it is necessary in interpreting the experience of the large numbers of other explorers of faith who have described their experience. It's a vital tool in providing a common vocabulary.
It makes no difference to me, as a Christian, whether Jesus existed or not. The insights of the words and acts attributed to him are important. Do I believe that in the time of Caesar Augustus or thereabouts God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David? Not even slightly. I think that's a legend that had been around the Middle East for centuries beforehand and got appropriated by the Gospel writers because it was wonderfully convenient for their purposes. Does that appropriation make it irrelevant to exploring faith? Not in the least and nor does the historical accuracy of any of the rest of what the Gospel writers wrote. Maybe historicity exists in their record and maybe it doesn't, neither position affects the use the texts have been put to since.
Insights into faith aren't immutable or cast in stone, they develop and expand. The idea that Christianity comprises a chosen people who exclusively please this tribal monster-God while those who reject conversion and rebirth wail in lakes of everlasting fire is an ugly perversion of reality, it's a satanic abuse of the biblical inheritance. If that sort of view is a necessary consequence of saying the bible is God's word then the answer's simple - stop pursuing laws of righteousness, stop stumbling over this notion that God's will is manifest in the bible. What's manifest in the bible is the way people regarded God at the time the texts were constructed. Christian ethics and practices aren't frozen in those moments in time, they're built, polished, sorted, replaced and re-ordered by everyone who's explored faith in a Christian context ever since.
I wouldn't dream of ignoring the words you quote and you're not misquoting scripture at all. I'm more concerned with what you do with your quotes.
Perhaps if we go a little further into Romans 9 we can consider the rest of Paul's argument?What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."I would contend that the bible is Christianity's stumbling stone in the 21st century. Treating it smugly as the source of ammunition in any discussion of God is a pursuit of righteousness, a path of glory which leads but to the grave. The exercise of faith is a journey of exploration into God and a response to that dialogue. Judgemental criticism of the world by applying appropriate texts from scripture is the very thing Jesus castigated the law-particularists for in his day. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are".
The bible is an interpretive record of the legends of several tribes. It's great that the record has survived. It shows a gradual transition from understanding God as the Saddam Hussein of his times, slaughtering his own people even more than goading them into slaughtering their neighbours, to a deity focused on salvation through faith.
Christianity is the repository of those insights. Within its practice members of the body of Christ can explore the consequences of faith with their fellow members past and present and apply those consequences to the world. The bible is one part of that tradition. Knowledge of it is necessary in interpreting the experience of the large numbers of other explorers of faith who have described their experience. It's a vital tool in providing a common vocabulary.
It makes no difference to me, as a Christian, whether Jesus existed or not. The insights of the words and acts attributed to him are important. Do I believe that in the time of Caesar Augustus or thereabouts God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David? Not even slightly. I think that's a legend that had been around the Middle East for centuries beforehand and got appropriated by the Gospel writers because it was wonderfully convenient for their purposes. Does that appropriation make it irrelevant to exploring faith? Not in the least and nor does the historical accuracy of any of the rest of what the Gospel writers wrote. Maybe historicity exists in their record and maybe it doesn't, neither position affects the use the texts have been put to since.
Insights into faith aren't immutable or cast in stone, they develop and expand. The idea that Christianity comprises a chosen people who exclusively please this tribal monster-God while those who reject conversion and rebirth wail in lakes of everlasting fire is an ugly perversion of reality, it's a satanic abuse of the biblical inheritance. If that sort of view is a necessary consequence of saying the bible is God's word then the answer's simple - stop pursuing laws of righteousness, stop stumbling over this notion that God's will is manifest in the bible. What's manifest in the bible is the way people regarded God at the time the texts were constructed. Christian ethics and practices aren't frozen in those moments in time, they're built, polished, sorted, replaced and re-ordered by everyone who's explored faith in a Christian context ever since.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Predestination
I thank you for your response. I could not have asked for a better example of post-modernism thought in the modern day church. There is no need to respond as I will let your post speak for itself.
Predestination
spot:-6
An excellent post. I couldn't have said it any better. If I am so inclined may I borrow that for elsewhere with due credit to you.
Shalom
Ted:-6
An excellent post. I couldn't have said it any better. If I am so inclined may I borrow that for elsewhere with due credit to you.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Predestination
I think it important here to comment on part of what spot said.
The Christmas stories as recorded in both Matthew and Luke are decidedly different. They are not historical accounts. They are parables about Jesus of Nazareth. Most biblical scholars and theologians do not doubt the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth but they accept that the Christmas stories are parables. The star etc. are things from the old testament used to make the point that Jesus was perceived as the Messiah.
As parable it is a story that is designed to present or teach a truth. The truth they are designed to present it what the church had come to believe about this Jesus at the time of the writing; Mark probably in the 70"s; Matthew in the 80's; Luke in the late 80's or early 90.s; and John in the late 90's or early in the second century up to somewhere around 110.
These are not eyewitness accounts. They are history remembered and history metaporized. Even the authors remain unknown. The early church gave them titles to make it easier to distinguish between them.
Fairy tales? Absolutely not. They are stories presenting truth. Things to not have to be historically accurate to be true. That approach is one of the negatives of the enlightenment just as an inerrant Bible is the product of the Reformation.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Christmas stories as recorded in both Matthew and Luke are decidedly different. They are not historical accounts. They are parables about Jesus of Nazareth. Most biblical scholars and theologians do not doubt the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth but they accept that the Christmas stories are parables. The star etc. are things from the old testament used to make the point that Jesus was perceived as the Messiah.
As parable it is a story that is designed to present or teach a truth. The truth they are designed to present it what the church had come to believe about this Jesus at the time of the writing; Mark probably in the 70"s; Matthew in the 80's; Luke in the late 80's or early 90.s; and John in the late 90's or early in the second century up to somewhere around 110.
These are not eyewitness accounts. They are history remembered and history metaporized. Even the authors remain unknown. The early church gave them titles to make it easier to distinguish between them.
Fairy tales? Absolutely not. They are stories presenting truth. Things to not have to be historically accurate to be true. That approach is one of the negatives of the enlightenment just as an inerrant Bible is the product of the Reformation.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Predestination
As with the Christmas story so it is with the Easter story. Jesus was crucified but the remainder of the story is parable except for Easter morning. Whatever the Easter event was it was so profound that it has affected the world and history for the past 2000 years. We call it the resurrection and I can accept that because whatever happened was so profound as to be beyond human comprehension.
In some way Christians still feel that Jesus is with them. Many have experienced the reality of the the risen Lord. It cannot be explained in human language beyond resurrection.
Shalom
Ted:-6
In some way Christians still feel that Jesus is with them. Many have experienced the reality of the the risen Lord. It cannot be explained in human language beyond resurrection.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Predestination
Ted;741462 wrote: I think it important here to comment on part of what spot said.
The Christmas stories as recorded in both Matthew and Luke are decidedly different. They are not historical accounts. They are parables about Jesus of Nazareth. Most biblical scholars and theologians do not doubt the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth but they accept that the Christmas stories are parables. The star etc. are things from the old testament used to make the point that Jesus was perceived as the Messiah.
As parable it is a story that is designed to present or teach a truth. The truth they are designed to present it what the church had come to believe about this Jesus at the time of the writing; Mark probably in the 70"s; Matthew in the 80's; Luke in the late 80's or early 90.s; and John in the late 90's or early in the second century up to somewhere around 110.
These are not eyewitness accounts. They are history remembered and history metaporized. Even the authors remain unknown. The early church gave them titles to make it easier to distinguish between them.
Fairy tales? Absolutely not. They are stories presenting truth. Things to not have to be historically accurate to be true. That approach is one of the negatives of the enlightenment just as an inerrant Bible is the product of the Reformation.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted (or indeed others on this thread), what are your thoughts on the Virgin Birth?
The Christmas stories as recorded in both Matthew and Luke are decidedly different. They are not historical accounts. They are parables about Jesus of Nazareth. Most biblical scholars and theologians do not doubt the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth but they accept that the Christmas stories are parables. The star etc. are things from the old testament used to make the point that Jesus was perceived as the Messiah.
As parable it is a story that is designed to present or teach a truth. The truth they are designed to present it what the church had come to believe about this Jesus at the time of the writing; Mark probably in the 70"s; Matthew in the 80's; Luke in the late 80's or early 90.s; and John in the late 90's or early in the second century up to somewhere around 110.
These are not eyewitness accounts. They are history remembered and history metaporized. Even the authors remain unknown. The early church gave them titles to make it easier to distinguish between them.
Fairy tales? Absolutely not. They are stories presenting truth. Things to not have to be historically accurate to be true. That approach is one of the negatives of the enlightenment just as an inerrant Bible is the product of the Reformation.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted (or indeed others on this thread), what are your thoughts on the Virgin Birth?
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
Predestination
theia:-6
In ancient times anyone who was seen to be special, such as Caesar, Buddha, Pharaoh etc., were said to have come from a virgin birth. It was a way of saying that this individual is and was special. Did the virgin birth of Jesus actually happen. No, we know who was involved, probably, and the how. Nothing has changed in that respect in human history.
To make Jesus even more special we have the angels, the heavenly host announcing his birth. This was a oneupmanship over over Caesar who was Lord, God, God from God, Savior of the world, son of God etc. But Caesar didn't have angels at his birth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
In ancient times anyone who was seen to be special, such as Caesar, Buddha, Pharaoh etc., were said to have come from a virgin birth. It was a way of saying that this individual is and was special. Did the virgin birth of Jesus actually happen. No, we know who was involved, probably, and the how. Nothing has changed in that respect in human history.
To make Jesus even more special we have the angels, the heavenly host announcing his birth. This was a oneupmanship over over Caesar who was Lord, God, God from God, Savior of the world, son of God etc. But Caesar didn't have angels at his birth.
Shalom
Ted:-6