Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Theology from a biblical approach. Topics posted should have a direct relationship to scripture.

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby DaveB » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:04 am

Even if that were true, Paul did choose (under the Spirit's guidance?) not to include the vb narrative in any of his writings. Again, I'm agnostic on the subject, but from a neutral standpoint I cannot see how the vb story had much if any effect on any subsequent writer of scripture. And the Mt and Luke accounts are quite different, as Enns explains, because the stories are tailored to the audience they are intended for - Mt presenting Jesus as a Moses type (though far greater of course) and Luke aiming for the King type, directly against the Caesar is Lord teaching extant at the time.
The fact that the stories are obviously 'tailored' should tell us a bit about what the gospel genre is like.
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Paidion » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:29 am

Yes Dave, Paul didn't specifically refer to the virgin birth of Jesus. However, he definitely taught His pre-existence as the Son of God, and His becoming a human being by being born as a human being. Here is one of Paul's most defining statements to that effect:

... though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. (Philippians 2:6 RSV)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 3911
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby steve7150 » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:03 am

Again, I'm agnostic on the subject, but from a neutral standpoint I cannot see how the vb story had much if any effect on any subsequent writer of scripture. And the Mt and Luke accounts are quite different, as Enns explains, because the stories are tailored to the audience they are intended for - Mt presenting Jesus as a Moses type (though far greater of course) and Luke aiming for the King type, directly against the Caesar is Lord teaching extant at the time.





I heard Enns on this but i have heard other reasons for the different accounts. My understanding is that Matthew was appealing to the Jewish audience gave Jesus connection to David through the father because being a "legal" father was considered legitimate and Luke gave the connection through Mary's descendants for a gentile audience.
Even though each had a reason to highlight the connection through the different parents doesn't mean they were not being honest. I understand you are agnostic and i'm not criticizing that , all i mean is these kind of things don't stand alone in a vacuum meaning the true Messiah had to be a descendant of David and the birth accounts are meant to prove this. So if the birth accounts were not true and the VB is not true , why would anything else be true? That's just my take.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:15 pm

Acutally, I found this article by CARM Calvinist Matt Slick interesting. Because he uses the analogy, of a courtroom drama - when describing the 4 Gospel accounts:


Perhaps if we follow the courtroom example (as presented by Matt),...then nobody will ask what Curly asked - in the courtroom: :lol: :lol:

Image
Last edited by Holy-Fool-P-Zombie on Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Charismatic / Eastern Anglo-Catholic/ Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / Theosis;
Franciscan Contemplation (i.e. Fox Golden Key, Mindfulness, Yoga); Healing (i.e. Homeopathy, Kampo / TCM, Ayurveda, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Gabe Grinstead » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:24 pm

steve7150 wrote:So if the birth accounts were not true and the VB is not true , why would anything else be true?


Because truth isn't an all or nothing concept in regards to entire published works. If a math book had a wrong solution to an equation, would we throw out the entire math book and declare the rest of the equations and solutions untrue? If a gold bar isn't 100% pure, do we assume the entire thing is junk and throw it away? If good man has a lapse of judgement and commits a sin, do we conclude the man is wicked? This all or nothing approach is toxic in almost every aspect of life.

Take David Wilkerson for example. Prophecies about things and is wrong. Does it follow that David Wilkerson was worthless and provided nothing of value? No, it doesn't. But if we apply the logic that we give to the Bible, then we might as well call anything with a fault to be of no value altogether. Hence, nothing is of value because everything has faults.
Gabe Grinstead
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby DaveB » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:47 pm

Just to clarify: I am a Christian (not agnostic) believer, but on the issue of the vb (as well as pre-existence, two natures, trinity) I am undecided (agnostic).

And I certainly don't accuse any of the biblical writers as being dishonest!! The point I am trying to drive home is that for those writers, at their time, they were trying to explain to their audience what the gospel is, ACCORDING TO Matthew, Mark etc., in a perfectly legitimate way; but it was not and was not intended to be 'history'; it was intended to persuade, and used the methods of the times to paint the picture the writer wanted to paint, for reasons known to him.

Just for perspective, Enns points out how old the Bible is: the amount of time between King David and us is about the same amount of time between us and someone in the year 5000 a.d. That's an eye-opener. This can lead to the thought that History is 'effective' :
quote
Gadamer claims that history or tradition is not simply the past, but is in a process of realization. History has effects in terms of conditioning our historical understanding . An interpreter is subject to the way in which an object has already been understood in the tradition to which the interpreter belongs. Any understanding is historically situated and is rooted in prejudice. Understanding is thus not the act of a subject, but rather an aspect of effective history. A pure “objective” understanding, free from any special vantage point, does not exist. History limits our knowledge , but also aids our development by means of determining what we can understand. Accordingly, no rejection of the tradition can be as completely radical as claimed by its proponents. The consciousness that is affected by history, through having a pre-history, and will in turn affect history, through having a post-history, is called effective historical consciousness. History is a unity of history with the understanding of it. “The true historical object is not an object at all, but the unity of the one and the other, a relationship in which exist both the reality of history and the reality of historical understanding - end quote Hans Georg-Gadamer
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby LLC » Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:43 am

Steve, you said:

[/quote] We each have brains that help us in our quest to find truth and everyone whether a brilliant theologian or layman is wired to believe what makes sense to each of us.[/quote]

I once read about storytelling and how it affects the brain. I thought it was pretty interesting. Our lives revolve around stories because our brains are wired this way. Who doesn't love a good book or a good movie? They're not just for entertainment purposes, but they contain truths of life that we see and connect with, and we remember them. I can recall my high school history class. I don't remember a thing about what was taught because I was asleep the whole time. The teacher bored the heck out of me with names, dates and facts that were forgotten long ago. People have been telling stories since the beginning of time for these reasons and the bible is not immune to it.
LLC
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:45 am

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:15 am

In order to learn...what this "new age" stuff Hermano mentioned - is all about...I have decided to attend, a couple local festivals.

    This weekend, I'm off the the veggie fest at http://www.veggiefestchicago.com/. If you go down to the second bar and click on live music (AKA Green horizaontal bar)...there's some good music - to chill out with.

I'll soon be "in the groove". :lol:

Image
Charismatic / Eastern Anglo-Catholic/ Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / Theosis;
Franciscan Contemplation (i.e. Fox Golden Key, Mindfulness, Yoga); Healing (i.e. Homeopathy, Kampo / TCM, Ayurveda, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby steve7150 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:18 am

People have been telling stories since the beginning of time for these reasons and the bible is not immune to it.








This is not really the point for me. Of course it's possible some things in the bible are wrong, i realize God didn't drop it from the sky and it is susceptible to human influences and agendas. However for me there are certain red lines and the VB is one of them for if you have two gospel writers who highlight it and weave around it the evidence that Jesus is a descendant of David which is a requirement of the Messiah, but you find this story unconvincing, then again on what basis would you believe anything in the bible?
As far as i can see ithe VB may not be a salvation issue but for me it's a red line but clearly others here have different red lines or none at all.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby DaveB » Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:34 am

I of course respect your right to draw a red line wherever it seems important to you. Not a problem.

I don't think the vb itself is necessary for the descendant of David stuff - which seems to point anyway toward Joseph being the father. The case could have been made without the vb, I think.

And this in Luke: Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at w about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) x the son of Joseph.

As was supposed? Where did that come from?

Onward and perhaps upward!
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby JamesAH81072 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:10 am

steve7150 wrote:This is not really the point for me. Of course it's possible some things in the bible are wrong


Since Scripture is God breathed it's impossible for the Bible to err. You either accept the Bible as Divine revelation or you throw out Christianity all together. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this situation.
JamesAH81072
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:07 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby steve7150 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:34 am

steve7150 wrote:
This is not really the point for me. Of course it's possible some things in the bible are wrong


Since Scripture is God breathed it's impossible for the Bible to err. You either accept the Bible as Divine revelation or you throw out Christianity all together. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this situation.
JamesAH81072

Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:07 pm






But humans wrote it and they can be mistaken and on occasion were. God didn't dictate the words to them. So i do think it's divine revelation but the writers could have gotten a geographic area wrong or the number of soldiers in an army.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby steve7150 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:37 am

As was supposed? Where did that come from?

Onward and perhaps upward!











I take it as an allusion to the dreaded :roll: VB, since the folks "supposed" Joseph to be the natural father.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby DaveB » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:46 am

AS to errors in numbers, etc. - Actually I think it more than that. There appear to be 2 histories recorded in scripture - the history according to 1,2 Kings and 1,2 Samuel are similar, but the same history 1,2 Chronicles is much different - not only in point of view but with factual differences as well.

Please don't impugn bad motives to me - I am far from wanting to tear down the bible or anything like that. I do want to have the tools to understand it for what it is so I can relate to it properly. To expect inerrancy is, I think, to think of the Bible incorrectly. Some OT writers are all about a God who is always angry, always on the point of the harshest judgment; other writers are more temperate and even reach the level of the Love of God. If we insist that each of them is inspired in the same way, we would end kind of schizophrenic.

I agree with Enns and others that the ARC of the OT is inspired - it is all leading up to Jesus. But for the Truth, the world had to wait for the FAther's full expression, the man Jesus Christ.

AS to 'as was supposed' - I understood that to be something added to the gospel at a later date. The parentheses and all. I'll check it out.
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:22 pm

There are two modern positions: Inerrant and infallible'. Let me give the Wiki definitions:

Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Protestant Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".

Biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice is wholly useful and true. It is the "belief that the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose.


See:
Charismatic / Eastern Anglo-Catholic/ Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / Theosis;
Franciscan Contemplation (i.e. Fox Golden Key, Mindfulness, Yoga); Healing (i.e. Homeopathy, Kampo / TCM, Ayurveda, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby steve7150 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:00 pm

Since Scripture is God breathed it's impossible for the Bible to err.









BTW just for the record, the gospels don't claim to be anything other then true. They don't make claims of "God breathed" or even "inspired" only that they claim to be true. The fact that they don't make claims of Godly inspiration or revelation and that the authors are mostly obscure IMO is in their favor.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby davo » Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:02 pm

JamesAH81072 wrote:You either accept the Bible as Divine revelation or you throw out Christianity all together. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this situation.

This scored-earth approach is rather unfortunate IMO in that the ‘take all or nothing’ aka ‘either or’ mindset pretty much says… unless you believe the bible as I dictate your faith is futile. None of us really have the right to judge another accordingly.

DaveB wrote:AS to errors in numbers, etc. - Actually I think it more than that. There appear to be 2 histories recorded in scripture - the history according to 1,2 Kings and 1,2 Samuel are similar, but the same history 1,2 Chronicles is much different - not only in point of view but with factual differences as well.

Here’s an interesting note from A.M. Hodgkin…
The Six Books of the Kings: [1&2 Samuel; 1&2Kings; 1&2Chronicles]
In the Hebrew, these six books are only three, each pair forming but one book.

Samuel and Kings form a consecutive history. The Key-note of both is Kingdom.

Chronicles is the story of 2Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings told over again from a different standpoint. Its Key-note is Theocracy. It deals only with the Kingdom of Judah, and relates to the history as it touches the Temple and the worship of God. It was possibly written by Ezra.

A.M. Hodgkin ‘Christ in All the Scriptures

I do take the gospels as ‘history’ but that doesn’t negate the possibility of how that history was interpreted and thus subsequently reported, e.g., 4 different race-callers can be calling the same horse race and yet vary somewhat between themselves how they are calling the race, as in, how they are seeing it. And what I mean by *history* is in this sense…
Lk 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Acts 1:1-3 The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby JamesAH81072 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:49 pm

steve7150 wrote:






BTW just for the record, the gospels don't claim to be anything other then true. They don't make claims of "God breathed" or even "inspired" only that they claim to be true. The fact that they don't make claims of Godly inspiration or revelation and that the authors are mostly obscure IMO is in their favor.


Um yes it does:

2 Timothy 3:16-Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness,
JamesAH81072
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:07 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby davo » Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:26 pm

JamesAH81072 wrote:
steve7150 wrote:






BTW just for the record, the gospels don't claim to be anything other then true. They don't make claims of "God breathed" or even "inspired" only that they claim to be true. The fact that they don't make claims of Godly inspiration or revelation and that the authors are mostly obscure IMO is in their favor.


Um yes it does:

2 Timothy 3:16-Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness,

It could be that “the Scriptures” refers to *the Hebrew Scriptures* i.e., the OT. Check this out HERE.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby LLC » Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:25 am

For those who believe in the virgin birth:
It is written that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus before He began His ministry. Why would this be necessary?
LLC
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:45 am

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:10 am

LLC wrote:For those who believe in the virgin birth:
It is written that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus before He began His ministry. Why would this be necessary?


This question raises two other questions:


And one Protestant site author, now believes Jesus is not Got - because of this. See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzarleyblog/2016/11/need-holy-spirit/

But we also have the Calvinist CARM take on this at https://carm.org/did-jesus-become-divine-when-he-received-the-holy-spirit

We can find a Lutheran Reformed answer at https://evangelicalcatholicmissionalfaithful.blogspot.com/2008/11/did-jesus-need-holy-spirit-prior-to-his.html

And another interesting reformed answer at http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2017/07/why-did-jesus-need-the-holy-sp.php

You know, this story reminds me of saints and holy people. From the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Native American, Eastern and Sufi perspectives. If they can do all these healings and miracles, then how come they get sick, have to eat, die, etc.? Because they are walking in both the human world and part of the divine world.

And they do certain common things. So people can follow by example. Much like Jesus did, along with the people following him - both now and then.
Charismatic / Eastern Anglo-Catholic/ Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / Theosis;
Franciscan Contemplation (i.e. Fox Golden Key, Mindfulness, Yoga); Healing (i.e. Homeopathy, Kampo / TCM, Ayurveda, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby steve7150 » Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:57 am

BTW just for the record, the gospels don't claim to be anything other then true. They don't make claims of "God breathed" or even "inspired" only that they claim to be true. The fact that they don't make claims of Godly inspiration or revelation and that the authors are mostly obscure IMO is in their favor.


Um yes it does:

2 Timothy 3:16-Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness,






But Paul likely was referring to the OT not the gospels for at the time of Paul's writing the only official scripture was the OT. Also i was referring to what the gospels claim about themselves.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Gabe Grinstead » Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:47 pm

Randy, curious... I may have asked this before, but do you ever have any formed opinions of your own? It seems to me you are a fence sitter just linking to other's opinions. This is not intended as an attack. In many ways, it is very wise to sit back and listen to others. But there is something to be said for coming out with an opinion of your own, however formed it may have been by those influences.

On another note: It is an assumption that "God Breathed" in Timothy is referencing itself on the grounds that

1) The Cannon had not been formed yet. In fact, even 80% of the cannon wasn't formed until the END of the 2nd Century. Nearly 150 years AFTER Christ had walked the earth.

2) It would be a bit presumptions to assume that a sermon/letter written to a group of people would have been assumed to be scripture. Authoritative? Certainly, but scripture? No, I doubt it.

The "Bible" isn't one book. It never was and it never will be. Neither does it self claim to the "Word of God". Neither does it mandate that each person swear an oath to it.

The Bible is a way for people to stop something that is so difficult for many, namely to stop thinking for yourself. It offers many a scapegoat to never ponder the difficult truths. Speaking for myself here, it is much harder to think for yourself and live by faith than it is to just believe some creed. Like "What do you think of so and so" and many like to say "Well, the Bible says this"... It basically shut downs critical thinking and devolves into "I don't are if it says God wanted them to commit genocide, he must have had a good reason" No, he didn't have a good reason, because he didn't command it. Well, my opinion. :-)
Gabe Grinstead
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby steve7150 » Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:47 pm

The Bible is a way for people to stop something that is so difficult for many, namely to stop thinking for yourself. It offers many a scapegoat to never ponder the difficult truths. Speaking for myself here, it is much harder to think for yourself and live by faith than it is to just believe some creed. Like "What do you think of so and so" and many like to say "Well, the Bible says this"... It basically shut downs critical thinking and devolves into "I don't are if it says God wanted them to commit genocide, he must have had a good reason" No, he didn't have a good reason, because he didn't command it. Well, my opinion. :-)
Gabe Grinstead

Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:55 pm




Well i've had the opposite experience with the bible, for me it does inspire critical thinking and is an amazing book or books. I don't find bible study reduced to believing some creed at all, just the opposite.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Gabe Grinstead » Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:10 pm

steve7150 wrote:Well i've had the opposite experience with the bible, for me it does inspire critical thinking and is an amazing book or books. I don't find bible study reduced to believing some creed at all, just the opposite.


I'll take your word for it. But mainly my point was that once you anchor yourself to a set of rules (Bible) you no longer have to think what is right or wrong, because you have aligned it with what the Bible says. Slavery, for example, is considered vile today, but the Bible seems to think it is just fine. You can argue different times, but all I am saying is that you are deviating from it should you condemn it. I guess in the spirit of "roll your own theology" that is just what people do, pick and chose. Some limit the picking and choosing to parts of the Bible. Some say, no, all literature is ripe for the picking and choosing.I guess I now subscribe to the latter. I can judge for myself what is right and wrong, and I might get it wrong sometimes, but I'd rather have it that way that support genocidal view of God, or one who is fine with slavery and women being silent in church, and just being the property of man. I think we have outgrown most of the Bible a a society, at least I hope we have.
Gabe Grinstead
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby LLC » Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:43 pm

Gabe, I hear you. Many today still believe that God commanded animal sacrifices. No He didn't. Try this today and you would be considered a member of a devil worshiping cult. Besides that, you would probably be arrested for animal cruelty, and rightly so. If you read the prophets, they all say that God despised such sacrifices. He even hated their festivals, and the smell of burning incense nauseated Him. But these people would not listen. If you notice what the people of Israel were doing at the time, they were taking what was said in the Bible according to it's literal sense and making it law. I would even say that some of what was in the Levitical law was not from God.
Cleaning your vessels means purifying the mind and heart, not dunking your pots and utensils in the mikvah.
Being washed clean with water means being washed by the Spirit and the word. Again, it does not mean dunking yourself in the mikvah.
Circumcision means humbling the heart not cutting the male organ.
The list goes on.
The leaders of Israel had no spiritual sense. They were blind leading the blind, and this is why we are warned about interpreters.
LLC
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:45 am

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Nicholas » Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:49 am

LLC wrote:Gabe, I hear you. Many today still believe that God commanded animal sacrifices. No He didn't. Try this today and you would be considered a member of a devil worshiping cult. Besides that, you would probably be arrested for animal cruelty, and rightly so. If you read the prophets, they all say that God despised such sacrifices. He even hated their festivals, and the smell of burning incense nauseated Him. But these people would not listen. If you notice what the people of Israel were doing at the time, they were taking what was said in the Bible according to it's literal sense and making it law. I would even say that some of what was in the Levitical law was not from God.
Cleaning your vessels means purifying the mind and heart, not dunking your pots and utensils in the mikvah.
Being washed clean with water means being washed by the Spirit and the word. Again, it does not mean dunking yourself in the mikvah.
Circumcision means humbling the heart not cutting the male organ.
The list goes on.
The leaders of Israel had no spiritual sense. They were blind leading the blind, and this is why we are warned about interpreters.


Hello LLC.

Could I contradict you a little and give an example of God requiring an animal sacrifice - the passover lamb.
(This quote below is KJV except with italics replaced with ordinary text.)

Exo:012:001 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of
Egypt saying,

Exo:012:002 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it
shall be the first month of the year to you.

Exo:012:003 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In
the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every
man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a
lamb for an house:

Exo:012:004 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him
and his neighbour next unto his house take it according
to the number of the souls; every man according to his
eating shall make your count for the lamb.

Exo:012:005 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first
year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the
goats:

Exo:012:006 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the
same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of
Israel shall kill it in the evening.

Exo:012:007 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the
two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses,
wherein they shall eat it.

Exo:012:008 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with
fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they
shall eat it.

Since Jesus' sacrifice, animal sacrifices are not required. The passover lamb looked forward to Jesus' sacrifice of himself.
I think that God hated sacrifices that were offered when people were disobedient to him. I agree with most of the rest
of what you said.

Best wishes,
Nick Hawthorn
Nicholas
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:05 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:09 am

Gabe Grinstead wrote:Randy, curious... I may have asked this before, but do you ever have any formed opinions of your own? It seems to me you are a fence sitter just linking to other's opinions. This is not intended as an attack. In many ways, it is very wise to sit back and listen to others. But there is something to be said for coming out with an opinion of your own, however formed it may have been by those influences.


Gabe. I classify myself in my signature, as an Eastern Anglo-Catholic. Which means I follow an "established" theologically position. I would answer you first - and foremost - as an Eastern Orthodox/ Eastern Catholic would answer. And secondly - if needed - as a Catholic would answer. And thirdly, as one of the Church fathers would answer.

I don't have either an RYO (AKA Roll Your Own) or PAC (AKA Pick and Choose) theology. Which this makes me, a dull and boring person. Except for my academic inclinations and my Holy Fool tradition imitations. ;)

I grew up in the Lutheran grade school system. And I am pretty familiar, at the end of grade school - with the entire Bible. And could tell you how a Missouri Synod Lutheran - would see things. Since then, I have expanded into Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox/ Eastern Catholic, Anglican and silent Quaker theology.

If I don't know something. And there isn't a theological answer, from the above traditions - I contemplate. Which is what I've learned - in silent Quakerism. These days, it's following in the Franciscan tradition and spirit, of Roman Catholic priest Richard Rohr. And it follows one, of two simple methods:

    The Golden Key method of Fox. Which is contemplation, in the spirit of Emmet Fox and Mary Baker Eddy
    The Buddhist silent traditions of Mindfulness and Zen

In other words, I also react to pain and suffering. Either by working on changing the circumstances (AKA Joel Osteen motivational methods and scientific prayer of Emmet Fox)...or change my reaction to it (AKA Mindfulness and Zen).

"If you can't control your peanut butter, you can't expect to control your life."-- Bill Watterson


Image
Last edited by Holy-Fool-P-Zombie on Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:52 am, edited 4 times in total.
Charismatic / Eastern Anglo-Catholic/ Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / Theosis;
Franciscan Contemplation (i.e. Fox Golden Key, Mindfulness, Yoga); Healing (i.e. Homeopathy, Kampo / TCM, Ayurveda, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby steve7150 » Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:44 am

Slavery, for example, is considered vile today, but the Bible seems to think it is just fine.










Well i'm sure you heard it but the slavery the bible said was just fine was in a very different culture and slavery was often a method of paying debts back.
As far as outgrown it as a society, i don't see the bible as something to outgrow. I recognize there are parts that are hard to reconcile with Jesus description of God but for now i'm content with not having explanations for everything.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby DaveB » Mon Aug 14, 2017 6:36 am

Just as a clarification - the terms 'ryo' or 'pick and choose' - as I use them, means:
- to study hard,
-listen to both sides,
-pray for wisdom and
-THEN DO WHAT EACH OF YOU DOES - AND SO DO I - ie.., make a prayerful and responsible decision based on your own best judgment.
It is not blindly following a PRE-PACKAGED set of rules that some ELSE has chosen as a way for you to live your life without taking personal responsibility.

I think it may be time to get over the illusion that a responsible and reflective faith is necessarily of less integrity than a blind obedience to a way someone else has cobbled together, and take responsibility for our choices, more so - recognize that they are choices and we EACH CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE - I.E., WE ROLL OUR OWN.

$.02

edit:
William Ellery Channing (1780-1842), "On Creeds," Works, Vol. I (London: Chapman, Brothers, 1844), pp. 280-285 (at 281):
I cannot but look on human creeds with feelings approaching contempt. When I bring them into contrast with the New Testament, into what insignificance do they sink! What are they? Skeletons, freezing abstractions, metaphysical expressions of unintelligible dogmas; and these I am to regard as the expositions of the fresh, living, infinite truth which came from Jesus! I might with equal propriety be required to hear and receive the lispings of infancy as the expressions of wisdom. Creeds are to the Scriptures, what rushlights are to the sun. The creed-maker defines Jesus in half-a-dozen lines, perhaps in metaphysical terms, and calls me to assent to this account of my Saviour. I learn less of Christ by this process, than I should learn of the sun, by being told that this glorious luminary is a circle about a foot in diameter.
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby LLC » Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:19 am

Nick, Again, there are spiritual meanings to the passages you quoted and Jesus gave us those meanings. As the New Testament writers say, the literal sacrifice of bulls and lambs never could and never will take away sin. When Jesus says to eat of His flesh and drink of His blood, we do not do this literally. Yes, there were those who understood the spiritual(ex. the prophets) and looked forward to the time when others would begin to understand the spiritual as well, and they would be freed from such foreign practices which had become law.
LLC
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:45 am

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:18 am

DaveB wrote:Just as a clarification - the terms 'ryo' or 'pick and choose' - as I use them, means:
- to study hard,
-listen to both sides,
-pray for wisdom and
-THEN DO WHAT EACH OF YOU DOES - AND SO DO I - ie.., make a prayerful and responsible decision based on your own best judgment.
It is not blindly following a PRE-PACKAGED set of rules that some ELSE has chosen as a way for you to live your life without taking personal responsibility.

I think it may be time to get over the illusion that a responsible and reflective faith is necessarily of less integrity than a blind obedience to a way someone else has cobbled together, and take responsibility for our choices, more so - recognize that they are choices and we EACH CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE - I.E., WE ROLL OUR OWN.

$.02

edit:
William Ellery Channing (1780-1842), "On Creeds," Works, Vol. I (London: Chapman, Brothers, 1844), pp. 280-285 (at 281):
I cannot but look on human creeds with feelings approaching contempt. When I bring them into contrast with the New Testament, into what insignificance do they sink! What are they? Skeletons, freezing abstractions, metaphysical expressions of unintelligible dogmas; and these I am to regard as the expositions of the fresh, living, infinite truth which came from Jesus! I might with equal propriety be required to hear and receive the lispings of infancy as the expressions of wisdom. Creeds are to the Scriptures, what rushlights are to the sun. The creed-maker defines Jesus in half-a-dozen lines, perhaps in metaphysical terms, and calls me to assent to this account of my Saviour. I learn less of Christ by this process, than I should learn of the sun, by being told that this glorious luminary is a circle about a foot in diameter.



If we don't have any guideposts, Dave (i.e historical creeds, ideas of reformers and church fathers, etc.), we can end up with ANYTHING GOES.

Which means that we can have same sex marriages, ordain robots or smoke pot, in a garden of Eden reinactment.

I once proved here - on this forum. If you agree anything goes. Then this solution is just as sound theologically - at P-Zombie Universalism. Same goes for the Devil, on equal footing with God... everything is ideas (Christian Science)... or the hard core, theological determinism - of AE Knoch.


Let me summary My theological position:

Now I might feel if universalism is true, it will really unfold, as a combination of the Left Behind, Christian book/video series, and the Walking Dead zombie series on AMC. Where God takes the saved immediately to heaven. Those who have some redeeming elements, remain on earth as humans - during the tribulation. The rest turn to zombies. And the humans have to battle both zombies and bad people - controlling things. Until Christ comes and rescues everyone - including the zombies. It's actually a combination of 3 theological positions: Left Behind Series, P-Zombie (becoming subhuman - N. T. Wright - seehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vggzqXzEvZ0), with univeralism as the end point. And the same scenario must occur in Hades - at the same time
.

Then EVERYTHING folks propose theologically - is EQUALLY sound and valid. As long as we can support it from Holy Scripture - right?

Which raises the question - which canon of scripture (RC, EO or Protestant)?

Or one can create, the best argument or arguments - right?

As an incluvisist, I prefer folks to have "bad theology" or "really, bad theology"...as opposed to being a Rastafarian, IRIS follower, Mormon, etc..., as long as they believe - in the redemptive power, of Jesus and the cross

Here's what you get, when you cross a Holy Fool with a P-Zombie :lol:

Image
Charismatic / Eastern Anglo-Catholic/ Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / Theosis;
Franciscan Contemplation (i.e. Fox Golden Key, Mindfulness, Yoga); Healing (i.e. Homeopathy, Kampo / TCM, Ayurveda, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby DaveB » Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:48 am

No, my friend Randy - did you miss the part where I said STUDY?

I'm referring to the practice of reading, especially the sources themselves as close as possible, comparing contrasting views, meditating on the strengths and weakness of each and, where possible, agreeing either wholeheadedly or with some reservations. Also listening to wise people, even when they are mistaken, to see how they arrived at their position.

A ryo person in my mind is one who is familiar with Calvin, Eusebius, the Stoics, Platonism, Hebrew wisdom literature, as well as modern biblical criticism (it has much to teach us) and Osteen, HF tradition, Tantric practice (!) and all sorts of sources.. Most of all, that person will prayerfully seek the meaning of scripture and the love of God.

I'm not talking about capriciousness.

quote
We indeed grant, that the use of reason in religion is accompanied with danger. But we ask any honest man to look back on the history of the church, and say, whether the renunciation of it be not still more dangerous. Besides, it is a plain fact, that men reason as erroneously on all subjects, as on religion. Who does not know the wild and groundless theories, which have been framed in physical and political science? But who ever supposed, that we must cease to exercise reason on nature and society, because men have erred for ages in explaining them? We grant, that the passions continually, and sometimes fatally, disturb the rational faculty in its inquiries into revelation. The ambitious contrive to find doctrines in the Bible, which favor their love of dominion. The timid and dejected discover there a gloomy system, and the mystical and fanatical, a visionary theology. The vicious can find examples or assertions on which to build the hope of a late repentance, or of acceptance on easy terms. The falsely refined contrive to light on doctrines which have not been soiled by vulgar handling. But the passions do not distract the reason in religious, any more than in other inquiries, which excite strong and general interest; and this faculty, of consequence, is not to be renounced in religion, unless we are prepared to discard it universally. The true inference from the almost endless errors, which have darkened theology, is, not that we are to neglect and disparage our powers, but to exert them more patiently, circumspectly, uprightly. The worst errors, after all, having sprung up in that church, which proscribes reason, and demands from its members implicit faith. The most pernicious doctrines have been the growth of the darkest times, when the general credulity encouraged bad men and enthusiasts to broach their dreams and inventions, and to stifle the faint remonstrances of reasons, by the menaces of everlasting perdition. Say what we may, God has given us a rational nature, and will call us to account for it. We may let it sleep, but we do so at our peril. Revelation is addressed to us as rational beings. We may wish, in our to sloth, that God had given us a system, demand of comparing, limiting, and inferring. But such a system would be at variance with the whole character of our present existence; and it is the part of wisdom to take revelation as it is given to us, and to interpret it by the help of the faculties, which it everywhere supposes, and on which founded. end of quote Wm. Channing
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby DaveB » Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:50 am

I might also remind the forum of this thread, that met with approval, mostly:

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=6637&hilit=+free+mind
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:52 am

DaveB wrote:No, my friend Randy - did you miss the part where I said STUDY?

I'm referring to the practice of reading, especially the sources themselves as close as possible, comparing contrasting views, meditating on the strengths and weakness of each and, where possible, agreeing either wholeheadedly or with some reservations. Also listening to wise people, even when they are mistaken, to see how they arrived at their position.

A ryo person in my mind is one who is familiar with Calvin, Eusebius, the Stoics, Platonism, Hebrew wisdom literature, as well as modern biblical criticism (it has much to teach us) and Osteen, HF tradition, Tantric practice (!) and all sorts of sources.. Most of all, that person will prayerfully seek the meaning of scripture and the love of God.



Yes, David. I have studied original authors and sources.

    Wheaton College is home to Billy Graham and has a hugh evangelical library of resources. Considering they award the Doctoral degrees in Biblical and Theological Studies and Psychology...They have to have an extensive library of resource material.
    And the Theosophical Society library in Wheaton..is one of the most extensive libraries...on religious and philosophical works...on the planet.
    And if I want the Catholic position, there's the library at Illinois Benedictine. Which is both a university and a Catholic monastery.

I have spent many passing hours - at these places.

And I do think there are some deep thinkers here. Like yourself. And Jason, Paidion and Davo - come to mind.

And I have also observed some "outlandish" theological and philosophical positions here. I usually try to see, how well the person presents and defends them.

And as crazy as it sounds. I have met a few Christian Scientist practitioners and teachers...who do an excellent job of defending it. No matter how strange and far out - it seems.


Shall we sum up this conversation, with a Holy Fool GIF :?: :lol:

Image
Charismatic / Eastern Anglo-Catholic/ Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / Theosis;
Franciscan Contemplation (i.e. Fox Golden Key, Mindfulness, Yoga); Healing (i.e. Homeopathy, Kampo / TCM, Ayurveda, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby DaveB » Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:05 pm

And what better way to sum up? Thanks Randy. :D
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Nicholas » Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:58 pm

LLC wrote:Nick, Again, there are spiritual meanings to the passages you quoted and Jesus gave us those meanings. As the New Testament writers say, the literal sacrifice of bulls and lambs never could and never will take away sin. When Jesus says to eat of His flesh and drink of His blood, we do not do this literally. Yes, there were those who understood the spiritual(ex. the prophets) and looked forward to the time when others would begin to understand the spiritual as well, and they would be freed from such foreign practices which had become law.


Was there a literal meaning? Didn't God expect a physical sacrifice? He no longer does -- Christ fulfilled all the animal sacrifices.

Best wishes,
Nick Hawthorn
Nicholas
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:05 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby LLC » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:58 pm

Nicholas wrote:Was there a literal meaning? Didn't God expect a physical sacrifice? He no longer does -- Christ fulfilled all the animal sacrifices.


Yes, God expected and still expects a physical sacrifice. Jesus did not offer an animal sacrifice. He gave his life for the truth of God, so that others would know the way and follow. These are the sacrifices that please God:
Romans 12:1 Therefore, I urge you bothers and sisters in the view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. This is your true and proper worship."
Isaiah 1:17 "Cease to do evil. Learn to do good, seek justice, reprove the oppressor, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow... though your sins are like scarlet they shall be as white as snow."
Psalm 4:5 "Offer the sacrifices of righteousness.'
Proverbs 21:3 "To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice."
Hosea 6:6 "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."
1 Peter 4:8 "Love covers a multitude of sins."

We are to give our lives, in whatever capacity that may be, to the service of God; that is the giving our own life for the life of another. In other words, a life for a life. This is a sinless sacrifice because it comes from a pure heart, not expecting anything in return. Producing the fruit of the Spirit is all that God ever wanted, as He says in Genesis, "Be fruitful and multiply." The leaders of Israel were the ones requiring animal sacrifices due to their lack knowledge and spiritual understanding. Instead of being stupid, cutting up animals and pouring blood all over the altar, they should have been using the gifts God gave us to do something productive like finding a cure for leprosy.
LLC
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:45 am

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby maintenanceman » Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:41 am

Here is a post that somewhat addresses this topic, though from more than the first 3 Gospels

http://www.postost.net/2017/08/did-god-die-cross
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby DaveB » Tue Aug 15, 2017 9:00 am

That was a well-done article, thanks Chad for posting. That site is new to me - is it a good one?
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby maintenanceman » Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:54 am

DaveB wrote:That was a well-done article, thanks Chad for posting. That site is new to me - is it a good one?


Not new but worth the time to explore! Definitely looks at the whole bible story through a different lens. :D
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:04 pm

maintenanceman wrote:Here is a post that somewhat addresses this topic, though from more than the first 3 Gospels

http://www.postost.net/2017/08/did-god-die-cross


Just a couple of footnotes. The author does offer 6 alternatives - to the traditional interpretation.

My only concern, is there is only 1 comment. And it appears it's the author - posting a link. If the article is so '"thought provoking" - then where are the comments? Why aren't folks posting objections and long discussions? Or words of praise? Just wondering ;)

I have seen Catholic blogger Douglas Ernst - get more comments. When he's talking about a comic book he read. :lol:

Image
Last edited by Holy-Fool-P-Zombie on Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Charismatic / Eastern Anglo-Catholic/ Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / Theosis;
Franciscan Contemplation (i.e. Fox Golden Key, Mindfulness, Yoga); Healing (i.e. Homeopathy, Kampo / TCM, Ayurveda, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby DaveB » Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:13 pm

Well, the comments are not much of a factor for me - unless it is highly technical with specialized vocabulary, I (and most of us here) can read and make our own judgments.
Though they are not a factor, I do like to see lively comments.
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:26 pm

DaveB wrote:Well, the comments are not much of a factor for me - unless it is highly technical with specialized vocabulary, I (and most of us here) can read and make our own judgments.
Though they are not a factor, I do like to see lively comments.


Actually, comments would be a good indicator - of readership. It gives folks some idea, that this blogger is popular. And promotes lively and thought provoking discussions.
Charismatic / Eastern Anglo-Catholic/ Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / Theosis;
Franciscan Contemplation (i.e. Fox Golden Key, Mindfulness, Yoga); Healing (i.e. Homeopathy, Kampo / TCM, Ayurveda, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby maintenanceman » Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:04 pm

Popularity is for lemmings. It is obviously a site that caters to people that think for themselves or, shall we say, out side the box. Come on Randy, you said:
The author does offer 6 alternatives - to the traditional interpretation.


So tell us what you think of those opinions :lol: :lol:
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Gabe Grinstead » Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:18 pm

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:Just a couple of footnotes. The author does offer 6 alternatives - to the traditional interpretation.

My only concern, is there is only 1 comment. And it appears it's the author - posting a link. If the article is so '"thought provoking" - then where are the comments? Why aren't folks posting objections and long discussions? Or words of praise? Just wondering ;)[/img]


Quite a fallacy, Randy. Want to know something far, far worse than only a few comments? People who write grandiose articles claiming things of God and DON'T allow comments at all. Gotta love boxing down that straw man, closing off comments or not having that feature so that no one can poke holes is the drivel that people post.

Just last night I was reading a Christian's perspective on Agnosticism. In fact, he called "Agnostic" people Prideful. Excuse me, Mr. I don't allow comments on my blog, but you are the arrogant one. The burden of proof does not rest upon people who claim they don't know, but the burden of proof is on those who command and declare that "X" is true. This whole idea that Christian's don't bare the burden of proof for their assertions is pretty much why normal people say "Huh? Yeah, no thanks".

It also seems like religious people have the answers for everything. I can't search for anything on the internet without some Christian organization declaring why people are 'depressed' why everyone is "idolaters" why this nation is failing and coming under judgement. It is pretty nauseating, to be honest. There is not one ounce of humility or understanding from most of the religious hits no the websites for various issues. It is basically the know-it-all condemnation of all people, what they are doing wrong, why God has to put up with us... How we are worthless, addicted chaps who just barely are loved by God, but not because he loves us, but because he loves someone else who died for us. The whole this is just... shall I say, disheartening.
Gabe Grinstead
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:27 pm

Gabe Grinstead wrote:
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:Just a couple of footnotes. The author does offer 6 alternatives - to the traditional interpretation.

My only concern, is there is only 1 comment. And it appears it's the author - posting a link. If the article is so '"thought provoking" - then where are the comments? Why aren't folks posting objections and long discussions? Or words of praise? Just wondering ;)[/img]

Quite a fallacy, Randy. Want to know something far, far worse than only a few comments? People who write grandiose articles claiming things of God and DON'T allow comments at all. Gotta love boxing down that straw man, closing off comments or not having that feature so that no one can poke holes is the drivel that people post.



I'm not talking from the perspective of logic, Gabe. I'm talking from the perspective of marketing and analytics. This blogger does allow comments. Since one was posted in his article. It's just a link.

Let's look at the site Patheos at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/. They are an active set of Protestant bloggers. They do allow comments. And they do have sponsors. So I sometimes see an advertisement, for a product from a sponsor. Which is how they make money. So active engagement is good for sponsors and selling products.

Or let's take Doug Ernest. He's a Roman Catholic, ex-army guy and Republican. He does occassionally publish articles, related to Catholic faith. And he gets comments. But he usually writes about the leftest stuff and comic books. But he doesn't sell products.

I have seen enough blogs. And have worked behind the scenes - of enough blogs. Building up readership - mind you. If I don't know what I'm doing, then how come I have about 34 K Twitter followers? And a couple of sizable LinkedIn groups? Comments keep people reading and coming back. But most importantly. You give a sizable audience - what they want or could use. Not just a few people.

It's all in PERCEPTION. You may be the greatest writer on earth. But if nobody THINKS you are - they won't take notice. Comments help build perception.

Gabe said:

Just last night I was reading a Christian's perspective on Agnosticism. In fact, he called "Agnostic" people Prideful. Excuse me, Mr. I don't allow comments on my blog, but you are the arrogant one. The burden of proof does not rest upon people who claim they don't know, but the burden of proof is on those who command and declare that "X" is true. This whole idea that Christian's don't bare the burden of proof for their assertions is pretty much why normal people say "Huh? Yeah, no thanks".

It also seems like religious people have the answers for everything. I can't search for anything on the internet without some Christian organization declaring why people are 'depressed' why everyone is "idolaters" why this nation is failing and coming under judgement. It is pretty nauseating, to be honest. There is not one ounce of humility or understanding from most of the religious hits no the websites for various issues. It is basically the know-it-all condemnation of all people, what they are doing wrong, why God has to put up with us... How we are worthless, addicted chaps who just barely are loved by God, but not because he loves us, but because he loves someone else who died for us. The whole this is just... shall I say, disheartening.


Anyway, let me comment on your other insights. Christians may or may not - be psychologists, psychiatrists, political scientists, medical doctors, etc. So they should refrain from commenting on what causes folks to be depressed. Unless they are a professional - like a psychologist, psychiatrist or medical doctor. Or why the country is falling apart. Unless they are a political scientist. Etc.

In brief, they suffer from an "open mouth - insert foot" syndrome.

I'm not hitting you on the head, Gabe. Just providing some honest feedback. I hope.
Charismatic / Eastern Anglo-Catholic/ Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / Theosis;
Franciscan Contemplation (i.e. Fox Golden Key, Mindfulness, Yoga); Healing (i.e. Homeopathy, Kampo / TCM, Ayurveda, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Gabe Grinstead » Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:13 pm

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:
Gabe Grinstead wrote:Anyway, let me comment on your other insights. Christians may or may not - be psychologists, psychiatrists, political scientists, medical doctors, etc. So they should refrain from commenting on what causes folks to be depressed. Unless they are a professional - like a psychologist, psychiatrist or medical doctor. Or why the country is falling apart. Unless they are a political scientist. Etc.

In brief, they suffer from an "open mouth - insert foot" syndrome.

I'm not hitting you on the head, Gabe. Just providing some honest feedback. I hope.


Ok, now I am really confused... Why would I feel you were hitting me on the head?
Gabe Grinstead
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby Gabe Grinstead » Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:19 pm

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:If I don't know what I'm doing, then how come I have about 34 K Twitter followers? And a couple of sizable LinkedIn groups? Comments keep people reading and coming back. But most importantly. You give a sizable audience - what they want or could use. Not just a few people.


Trump has plenty of twitter followers, but I want nothing to do with him and his ideas. Same for Hillary. Justin Beiber has like 80,000,000... Why do I care? I mean, why am I suppose to care about that? I don't even use twitter.
Gabe Grinstead
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Jesus' divinity from 3 synoptic texts

Postby St. Michael » Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:26 pm

Good point Gabe. John Piper has around 500,000 followers and he's the father of the new Calvinism. Look how many people think he doesn't know what he's talking about.
"A poor man is better than a liar” (Proverbs 19:22). No matter how rich, how clever, how successful, how handsome, how famous, how powerful. ~~ John Piper
User avatar
St. Michael
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:56 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Biblical Theology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests