MDB Bible Study

[_Ceeboo]

Honor

That's the 36 pages of thread I was talking about. :)

I understand and recognize many of these positions. I do not dismiss these positions and I find some of them to be rather significant and worthy of consideration/thought (No matter what personal beliefs one holds) - I am simply not interested in getting involved with an extremely lengthy discussion about them.
I post this response for the sole purpose of letting yo know that I read your post and that I did not ignore it.

[_honorentheos]

It's an interesting contrast that the above is what I would call studying the Bible while the exposition on how this or that story carefully chosen out of the Old Testament to paint a comparison with modern beliefs about Jesus are, in my opinion, a form of selective reading that largely ignores the Bible as a whole.

But to each their own. Thank you for considering it and letting me know you did read it. :)

[_huckelberry]

Hey huckelberry

Because I understand Christianity to be about how we treat others and ourselves. I understand the punishment of sin to be first and foremost the destruction of human and internal relationships that is sin. Of course to degrade the value of that primary value, the beauty of life,by sin is an affront to ourselves, neighbors and God. When John speaks of salvation it is from all of those destructive forces not just an arbitrary and grumpy god.

I'm having a really hard time tracking with you. Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? At least the parts I bolded?

Thanks in advance.

Ceeboo, I was a bit puzzled as to your question but I can try to clarify.

The conversation was about john 3;16,17. the world should be saved by the Son of God. People have posed the objection to this annoucement that what we are to be saved from are bureaucratic administrative errors which are to be solved by a bureaucratic bookkeeping maneuver.

I think on the contrary that sin is a disease which results in human and social death, not by arbitrary punishment but by the destructive impact of the disease. The atonement is not just a legal maneuver but medicine by which we are healed.

[_Ceeboo]

But to each their own.

Indeed.

Thank you for considering it and letting me know you did read it. :)

And I thank you for the last several exchanges. :)

[_Ceeboo]

Hey huck

Ceeboo, I was a bit puzzled as to your question but I can try to clarify.

The conversation was about john 3;16,17. the world should be saved by the Son of God. People have posed the objection to this annoucement that what we are to be saved from are bureaucratic administrative errors which are to be solved by a bureaucratic bookkeeping maneuver.

I think on the contrary that sin is a disease which results in human and social death, not by arbitrary punishment but by the destructive impact of the disease. The atonement is not just a legal maneuver but medicine by which we are healed.

Got it.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Other than the bizarre fascination with CS Lewis’ faith that some Christians seem to hold dear, I find it interesting that as much as he’s trotted out Christians that do so know very little about him or his theology, which would probably give them pause. Additionally, the argument that Jesus has to be Lord, liar, or lunatic also ignores the possibility that the story about Jesus may be a fabrication by another author, which one might expect a writer of fantasy to be aware of. Guess that was just a small oversight by Mr. Lewis...

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

People have posed the objection to this annoucement that what we are to be saved from are bureaucratic administrative errors which are to be solved by a bureaucratic bookkeeping maneuver.

I wouldn't characterize it as a bureaucratic issue. It's a condition of one's worldview introducing an explanation or cause for the circumstances one observes, and then postulating a solution to this interpretation whose effect is largely limited to influencing how one approaches or reacts to the circumstances we observe. It's claiming a framing device, not explaining the world in a way that is otherwise inexplicable. I think Christianity only makes sense if one first accepts the preconditions it offers rather than being a compelling explanation for the world as we observe it that makes it necessary for navigating reality. Quite the opposite, actually.

Let's compare:

What we all apparently observe is a world where good and bad things happen.

The universe includes numerous mundane operations that are insignificant at the scale of the universe but could end the existence of humanity in the blink of an eye leaving no trace of our history. The earth we live on includes what are mundane at the scale of planetary operations and insignificant to the regular course of it's existence as is breathing to us; yet many of these mundane world operations can be seen as large scale catastrophes at the scale of humanity resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. More rare planetary events could even threaten to extinguish us entirely. At the human scale, we can observe lying, cheating, violence, hate, fear, self-doubt and self-loathing, abuse, despair, and any other number of human and other natural behaviors and emotions that have negative impacts on ones self and/or other beings. And these happen all the time, everywhere. People get sick, a pet gets taken by a coyote, someone's child dies of cancer, a friend is lost to a freak accident, dozens of people one never heard of are killed by a lone person who took their own emotions and converted them into pain and then set that pain bomb off for maximum effect. Someone ends their own life to try and end their pain without realizing doing so will result in intense pain felt by those who were close to them. There are a lot of bad things that affect people. And a fair percentage of it actually happens outside of our own minds.

On the other hand, the universe is simply breathtaking and wonder inducing. We, as a species, have the ability to gaze out into it through our eyes and instruments and find ways to both understand it and new reasons to marvel at it. The Earth is simply gorgeous and nature is amazing. Above all else, we are suited for living on it, and it is suited for us living on it as well. People can be the subjects arousing our more noble instincts such as love, kindness, admiration, courage, selflessness, appreciation, awe, and inspiration. We accept the good, beautiful and true found in the world naturally and take it to 11 creating art, establishing institutions that serve as buttresses against the bad out there, and discovering new paths and ways of understanding that are simply not available without human intervention in the universe. There are a lot of good things that affect people, and sometimes we let that be the most important influences on our own behaviors and paths.

So, in that light we could say the world is broken and God is the solution to fix it and us. We could say that the universe is what it is (100%!!!! :) ), it's all heading to a frozen end some billions of years in the future long after humanity is gone and there's nothing we can do about it so it's all pointless. Or we can look for the good, the beautiful and the true in what is around us and choose to contribute to it, knowing full well that it's only meaning is for those of us in the moment experiencing it but finding that sufficient for the day.

To my mind, the latter option includes looking at the world we live on, seeing how we are suited to it and it to us, and recognizing our having evolved here means it goes beyond being a mere home one occupies and is more like it being a mother to our being. We are formed by this environment we evolved in called Earth and have an obligation to view it as a relationship where we depend on it rather than an object to be subdued or conquered, or even a stewardship given to a favored offspring by some divine Father figure.

Personally, it makes no sense to view the world as broken. It wasn't made for us and will go on after we have ran our course whether that is a hundred more years, a thousand, we find a way to populate the galaxy, or whathaveyou. Someday humanity's run will end and the universe will go on. And it probably won't have mattered at the scale of the universe as a whole. There is a lot of awesomeness as well as pain, and as an individual I have the capacity to contribute to whether those around me feel pain or something positive. And that's about it. We are not inherently special in some way that means the universe revolves around us, but we DO have a unique capacity to do godly things if we keep letting the nudges in that direction influence the course of our lives and our daily actions. We have our own gravity that is interacting with the gravity of everyone else, pushing and pulling. And we have some form of ability to focus on the types of gravity that we let pull on us that ultimately forms what will be our life story as long as there is someone who remembers us.

The world only appears broken because people have an inherent sense that we matter in ways that transcend our mortality and want to make us out to be central to any other story than the one that is our own life. There HAS to be a divine being who made it all for us. There HAS to be a reason for treating people nicely beside it making the world a bit better for everyone living in it when we do so because it needs to directly benefit ME. When I'm feeling down, there has to be a hand to lift me up and that hand can't just come from other people or from myself or just from the passing of time. I can't creating meaning in life without it being offered in a deal where I praise and confess that some guy who we have no idea about in reality but has been morphed into so many different versions of being a God one can't keep track of them all is the LORD of all creation and loves me, but if I don't confess He is the LORD then I will suffer FOR. EV. ER. And that suffering is deserved because of sin which is something that we will now define as all the things that are broken in the world when we define the world as broken.

When said worldview acts on a person to let the good, beautiful and true influence them, I don't see a problem with it. My worldview is highly subjective and composed of a few bits and pieces picked up from mythologies and philosophies, codes of honour and duty, and a hodgepodge of moral leanings as well so who am I to judge the foundations on which one's worldview sits? But when said worldview runs into conflict with where I see the good, beautiful and true, it's a matter for discussion and debate because it's only through discussion and debate that we past feeling a hose or a tree trunk to make out the full elephant behind it all.

In that regard, I find Bible study that focuses on reinforcing the worldview of the broken world to be a subject worthy of debate itself rather than worth engaging in on it's own terms. American Christianity, including Mormonism, that attempts to impose itself on our pluralistic society in ways I view to be irrationally egoistic and assured of it's own rightness without willingness to debate the foundations for that view is especially in my crosshairs for the obvious reasons. That's not to say I'm right and they are wrong. It's to say if you think you're that right then you shouldn't have to protect it or avoid defending the questions that get raised against. When someone does that, it seems to me they are protecting the worldview because it helps them which is fine. But it should be kept to themselves and not imposed on the world around them if that is the case.

[_huckelberry]

.. how trustworthy were the gospels of the New Testament in declaring the core message of Christianity. ....

Many modern scholars agree those who built a church up around Jesus after his death believed he was the Jewish Messiah. This would mean they believed Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah descendant of King David, being born in Bethlehem, and that he would come to the people riding a donkey or ass. And, he'll be raised from the dead.

To make a case for why the New Testament is a poor witness for Jesus' resurrection, let's first look at how the New Testament describes another event in Jesus' life that would require fulfilling Messianic prophecy - his birth.

.... suggests the earliest sources about Christ's life in circulation did not include a birth narrative. The scholarly suggestion is that there wasn't a codified version of the Nativity at the time of their writing. But the Messiah has to fulfill certain prophecies at his birth. What to do? Most likely, both authors took from legends being shared and fit them together as best they could. They may also have invented pieces of the story from whole cloth.

I if there is a commonly understood event in Jesus’ life and it has been recorded in one of the source gospels, it is likely to show up as common to Matthew and Luke. But absent such an account, they will fill in the gaps with an eye to ensuring the narrative fulfills Messianic prophecy.

Since the Messiah has to be raised from the dead, and Jesus was the Messiah, it is only natural that both accounts tell us this is so. Both Matthew and Luke had Mark as a source, so we should expect to see Mark’s narrative in the account of the passion leading to the resurrection.
......

Honorentheos, I did have a couple of small thoughts about this portion of your essay. I think your comments about the birth stories make sense. I am puzzled about the messiah having to be raised from the dead. I cannot back up or find evidence of the existence of any such belief. The beliefs about Messiah were not codified and uniform so perhaps some people thought such a thing, (a handful of desciples of Jesus?) If it existed elsewhere why were other messiahs not reported as raised?

[_Bret Ripley]

I am puzzled about the messiah having to be raised from the dead. I cannot back up or find evidence of the existence of any such belief.

It's not much, lacks provenance, and may or may not pre-date Christianity, and ... well, you get the idea ... but there is 'Gabriel's Revelation' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_Revelation).

[_honorentheos]

.. how trustworthy were the gospels of the New Testament in declaring the core message of Christianity. ....

Many modern scholars agree those who built a church up around Jesus after his death believed he was the Jewish Messiah. This would mean they believed Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah descendant of King David, being born in Bethlehem, and that he would come to the people riding a donkey or ass. And, he'll be raised from the dead.

To make a case for why the New Testament is a poor witness for Jesus' resurrection, let's first look at how the New Testament describes another event in Jesus' life that would require fulfilling Messianic prophecy - his birth.

.... suggests the earliest sources about Christ's life in circulation did not include a birth narrative. The scholarly suggestion is that there wasn't a codified version of the Nativity at the time of their writing. But the Messiah has to fulfill certain prophecies at his birth. What to do? Most likely, both authors took from legends being shared and fit them together as best they could. They may also have invented pieces of the story from whole cloth.

I if there is a commonly understood event in Jesus’ life and it has been recorded in one of the source gospels, it is likely to show up as common to Matthew and Luke. But absent such an account, they will fill in the gaps with an eye to ensuring the narrative fulfills Messianic prophecy.

Since the Messiah has to be raised from the dead, and Jesus was the Messiah, it is only natural that both accounts tell us this is so. Both Matthew and Luke had Mark as a source, so we should expect to see Mark’s narrative in the account of the passion leading to the resurrection.
......

Honorentheos, I did have a couple of small thoughts about this portion of your essay. I think your comments about the birth stories make sense. I am puzzled about the messiah having to be raised from the dead. I cannot back up or find evidence of the existence of any such belief. The beliefs about Messiah were not codified and uniform so perhaps some people thought such a thing, (a handful of desciples of Jesus?) If it existed elsewhere why were other messiahs not reported as raised?

Hi huckelberry,

I think you and I had this same discussion last time where I pointed to Acts as evidence that the Apostle Peter used the claim Jesus was raised from the dead as evidence for his being the Messiah. Here it is again -

Acts 2:

14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.
...

22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
25 David said about him:

“‘I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.

26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest in hope,

27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.

28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’[e]

29 “Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.
30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.
31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay.
32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.
33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”’[f]
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”