Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Problem With Christ
The Table - Group Book Reads
>
The Problem With Christ
message 151:
by
Christopher
(new)
-
added it
Aug 21, 2013 07:19AM
Wow Phil! I think I'm going to like you. :-)
reply
|
flag
Christopher wrote: "So while the journey IS important, its ultimate purpose is to get some where. :-)"Be careful here, Chris. If God is infinitely wise and good, and we're learning to be more like Him, then in fact this journey has no end; it's infinite. And if that's true, and if we are timeless like God, then the journey, itself, is the goal.
And if THAT is true, then the best thing we can do at any point is to enjoy God right now, right where we are.
Just something to ponder.
(PS: I've just summarized Brother Lawrence. If you've never read "The Practice of the Presence of God," you ought to.)
I need to change my previous comment... I think I'm REALLY going to like you!I stand corrected, you are absolutely correct :-)
And PTPOG along with Andrew Murray's "Humility" is a book I try to read at least every couple of years. Not that either stick very well. :-(
Maybe I should rephrase by saying that there are certain expected way-points on the journey, that if we don't ever reach, we might consider we are on the wrong journey.
If God is infinitely wise and good, and we're learning to be more like Him, then in fact this journey has no end; it's infinite This reminds me of deification and I find Eastern Orthodox theology very compelling, so rock on.
Chris, you can bring up whatever topics you want, its your book. I am leaving the moderating to you. I do think it is funny being thrown in with Lee, I guess we're just a couple of liberals. I do find the word "inerrant" kind of useless, I tend to simply say the Bible is what it says it is in 1 Timothy 3:16.
David, this is the second time today I have been justly put in my place. I agree with you on the word inerrant. I probably have a knee-jerk emotional response to it conditioned by my childhood. Kind of like some people feel about the word Christ. Like others have done with christos, I have probably redefined it to the point the original usage is no longer recognizable.BTW--I take your "error" in citing 1st rather than 2nd Tim, as providential--it was indeed used to correct me.
As far as liberal goes, the word means generous, and I hope I share at least that characteristic with you and Lee, no matter what your theology. :-)
I do seem to have let this conversation go too much to my head and am over-reaching in several directions. Please forgive me. We should probably just stick to the book.
David = and when you don't have a Bible handy what word do you use?
I have the verse memorized, I just forget which Timothy it is. But for a word - the bible is our authority. It is uniquely inspired. God-breathed.
Robert - now why doesn't it surprise me that the fellow who only follows the part of the Bible that says to "do good works", and the other fellow who wants to strike words out of the Bible and replace them with those of his own choosing, find the word inerrant inadequate?
Is adding words to the bible better then taking them out? You use an invented word and I just quote scripture. Who's liberal now?
And what word did I add to the Bible?
Christopher - you seem to think I have nothing better to do than drop everything and immediately proceed to whatever Bible verse has you puzzled and commence discussion. Currently, I am DEEPLY involved in a spiritual and scientific exploration of Genesis up to the time of Abraham. To me Genesis screams for amplification and explanation and I'm scouring dozens of science-oriented books along with many noted Genesis explorations for clarification. Those are God's truths that I'm trying to unearth. Excuse me if I'm not able to shed much light on your Biblical conundrums, but I don't even bother asking your help with mine as I trust God will provide.
David - now that is the first time in my whole life I've been called a liberal. I'm not sure how to react - my whole life pattern is upset. Wow! I love the flower girl, book me a flight to San Francisco and quick find me a bong. Where's my copy of Utopia and where's Chairman Mao when you need him?
Robert, God is going to help you reconcile Genesis with science? How did you sweet talk him into that?I love your image of a liberal! In case anyone else is confused, "liberal" in the phrase "liberal Christian" is not referring to a political view at all. And bell bottoms are not part of the costume. Though I admit my political views are rather liberal as well.
Now that we have all been accused of being liberal, may I suggest we get back to the topic at hand. Instead of telling each other what their position is, (yes I am guilty) let us try to ask specific questions to understand each others positions, and/or try to communicate our own.I am admittedly guilty of wishing to change English Bibles to reflect the intention of the authors. Robert I would like to hear why you think this is disrespecting the Bible. I think I have heard David, Lee, and Robert all agree with the results of my research, yet each of the three of you seem to me, to find various ways to avoid my suggestion to speak like the authors would have spoken, had they spoke English.
Can we get a bit of a reset here and have a clarification of how each of you, and Peter, Phil, and the others think on this at this point in our conversation?
To be concise #1 Do you agree that Christos was used as a title by the N.T. authors, and that it is not being translated? #2 If so, is it legitimate to use Christ as a made up English word to refer to Jesus. #3 If not, what word should we use in its place.
Lee- God created all the laws of nature which physicists humbly redubbed the laws of physics. Science doesn't create anything just discovers God's treasures then tries to keep the booty all to themselves by unwisely trying to disprove Him. I know liberal Christians aren't necessarily political liberals - the temptation was just too great, and why didn't I take advantage of that free love thing, I could've always repented later.
Thank you Robert. This now brings me back to my questions concerning your views on inerrancy. I am honestly trying to understand and not put words in your mouth. Given your answers to #1 and #2, it sounds to me like you are suggesting that errors in translation found in English Bibles are not really errors, but part of God's plan, and that to attempt to correct those errors would be disrespecting His words. It seems to have the effect of placing modern translations in any Language in a position of higher authority than the autographs. Again, please explain if this is not your position, and what methodology you use to determine which translations are authoritative.
Christopher - I took 5 years of Latin and I'm not even Catholic. Perhaps I wanted to become a doctor at one time - at 66 years of age, what happened in my youth is a distant memory. But, I could, if I lived that long, conceivable read the Bible in Latin. I won't because Caesar's Gallic Wars, Cicero's Orations against Cataline, Virgil's Aeneid plus something about Romulus and Remus read entirely in Latin is enough torture for one lifetime. So I am going to read the Bible in English, period. What do you want me to say, it's nothing but junk and my time is wasted? No, I'm going to trust God that what I pick up and read will, through his Grace and Love, get translated (more than one translation going on here), into the His Word which I can use rather than going through the day under my own volition. Does that take Faith? you bet Is that miraculous? you bet Is it rational? probably not Am I going to do it anyway? yes, unequivocably. I read KJV because it was a gift from a departed Christian I loved so I read it in her memory. Sentimental schlock? probably Authoritaive? I don't know, seems to work for me Am I going to change? not until it falls apart
Chris, I'm not "avoiding your suggestion." I'd say #1 yes, and #2 no (though with the caveat that I haven't studied it deeply on my own and am hesitant to change everything based on one person's argument). Translate it as king and rock on.My point would be the same thing I've always said - king is still a word that needs defined. If it were translated king, then Jesus is a king alongside Agrippa, Herod and many others. We still need to explain what sort of king Jesus is.
Even in Acts, when they go into Greek world and say Jesus is king, what does that mean? It didn't matter to Greeks that he was the Jewish king, they didn't care. They looked down on the Jews. If I go up to a college student and say, "Jesus is king", that alone is not going to mean much.
So yeah, I am with you in translating it to king. I just don't see it (and I am not saying you do) as this change that is going to bring revival or something.
David, Thank you, it sounds to me like we are in basic agreement, and are ready to start looking at specific verses where this might have an impact, or answering specific questions people might have for me.I would like to add that I think the entire N.T. is quite specifically an explanation/defense of the KIND of king Jesus is. It is certainly recognized that His own people rejected Him because he did not meet their expectations in this regard. We should remember that the word christos carried the same potential negative connotations that king does in English. We certainly would not want to use the first christos of Israel, Saul, as our stereotype of Jesus.
... and no, this change will not produce revival any more than pQ4 wins chess games; it is just a solid opening to which there are many solid replies. It simply sets the tone of the game. :-)
So you caved, David. Now what's next, some Arabic scholar going to convince you that Allah is a better translation than God for our Creator? Aren't you a moderator on this board that's supposed to defend Christian faith? Some defender, you couldn't muster the backbone to throw dry oatmeal at Christopher.Christopher - I offered you an olive branch if you'd reconsider the wisdom of changing Christ to king in the Bible. I see you've rejected it and are plowing straight ahead. That removes you from Christianity and places you in the army of the coming Antichrist in my book. True, you're just a probe and bigger fish will follow, but as a little league imitator of the Great Deceiver you provide the faithful some warmup skirmishes before the real event. So you can cut the phony bonhommie, you're not my brother in Christ or David's either if he'll ever leave the love train long enough to realize the cosmic battle between good and evil is now everywhere. Anyway, thanks for showing up on this board, we need some practice in identifying and dealing with enemies to the Bible and the Faith.
welcome to the dark side, Chris.
Robert, read posts 1 and post 7. I have always agreed with Chris' point. Christ means king. It is not a change, it is a translation. 99.9 percent of the Bible words are translated into English. Why not translate this one word when you translate every other one?
Ok, God is now Allah in KJV: any other suggestions for a Bible that isn't so authoritative and is more nicey, nicey, David? How about Satan just be the known as the school monitor?
You're right Robert. But you don't go far enough. "God" is adding to the Bible and your use of it shows you are on the side of Antichrist. From now on I will only use "Theos" as, like "Christos" it is the original word in Greek. Praise Jesus the Christ, the Uios of Theos. Any use of non-biblical words, any changes, is clearly evil. Charis and shalom be with you.
Ha! Ha! Lee - at least I know what I'm dealing with when debating you. You don't hide your position even flaunt it and, while I don't agree with you one iota about anything, feel you do as good a job as is possible defending it given the impossibility of the hand you choose to play. Christopher CLAIMS to be concerned about protecting the authenticity and authority of the Bible when he's actually trying to undermine it's foundation. I'll join you and Rod at Starbuck's, but if Christopher is there, Adios.
David - Just checked 3 different Bibles I have lying around and mirabile dictu, there's "God" and "Christ"prominent in the text. Must be a printing error.
While you're looking up Hebrew words, David, why don't you look up the one for "strength." Your wife and children deserve a little bit more of that from you, and, are they getting tired of living in your mother's basement?
Maybe I could benefit from Peter's book, "How to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable", huh?
Robert, my understanding may ultimately be shown to be in error but your diatribe has convinced me that I am indeed kicking a hornets nest. I have taken your advice to pray, and encourage you to take it as well.Gentlemen, I submit that stumbling over a piece of long dormant trivia should not arouse the type of vehemence that we are witnessing here--I suggest something else is afoot.
I find encouragement in the following words: giving no cause for offense in anything, so that the ministry will not be discredited, but in everything commending ourselves as servants of God... in purity, in knowledge, in patience, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in genuine love, in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and the left, by glory and dishonor, by evil report and good report; regarded as deceivers and yet true; as unknown yet well-known, as dying yet behold, we live; as punished yet not put to death, as sorrowful yet always rejoicing, as poor yet making many rich, as having nothing yet possessing all things.
For the king--Chris
Lay it on good and thick, Christopher - it might mean something if you believed a word of it.
Wow Robert, I guess you can't handle sarcasm if you respond with personal insults. And you can't handle debate if you question people's motives (disagree with Robert, he'll assume you're not saved).May God our Father, Jesus our Lord and the Holy Spirit our strength bless and keep you.
Robert wrote: "Ha! Ha! Lee - at least I know what I'm dealing with when debating you. You don't hide your position even flaunt it and, while I don't agree with you one iota about anything, feel you do as good a j..."Having followed the debate, I certainly take Christopher at his word and believe he is "attempting to protect the authenticity and authority of the Bible."
Given all that I've read in this discussion,
"I'll join you and Rod at Starbuck's, but if Christopher is there, Adios. "
... seems pretty harsh to me.
Out of respect for Robert I will try to restrict my scripture quotes to the NKJV. 1 John 5:1 says "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,..." I deal with my take on this is chapter 5. Robert can you share what you believe it means to believe that Jesus "is the Christ?" Since the ambassador John predicates the new birth on this, it would seem to be quite important. According to my reading of English dictionaries, this means to believe that Jesus is the Jesus. What am I missing here? BTW--a friend once gave me a very succinct differentiation of Jesus and Christ that seems to work quite nicely in popular culture. He said Jesus is what I called Him when I was a kid, now that I am grown up I call Him Christ.
#179 Robert, were this comment addressed to me I would tend to let it pass. I am still tempted to do so, but I feel I should take seriously David's asking to me to moderate this discussion. While I recognize that the position is only honorary, I would ask that this be considered your warning to stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. I would ask that the real moderators use whatever power they have to remove parties who violate this policy after a warning. Voicing disagreement and even anger at a position is understandable, but I think most would agree that some lines have been crossed here, that ought not be crossed again.
People may socialize with whoever they wish at Starbucks, but we should be civil here.
I have completed the first two chapters of Phils book and so far am extremely impressed. I vote that we add it to the list of works to discuss. I might add that I find some of his thoughts very germane to this conversation. Here are a couple of quotes from chap. 1.If God did not help me, I was sunk, with or without the Bible! In reality, I trusted my brain, and that was idolatry. I needed to trust God.
There is actually, I believe, a demonic stronghold designed to prevent believers from ever encountering the living God or trusting Him fully. That stronghold ironically uses that most cherished and holy of Christian books, the Bible, as the means of shackling believers. For many believers, the scriptures, which ought to be the doorway into the Presence of God, are actually a substitute for Him.
This one in particular resonated with me:
For starters, I was not the honest man I thought I was.I discovered I was a very wicked man, capable of deep self-deception, self-justification, vindictiveness and self-gratification. I discovered that I was an addict to thingsthat were very unhealthy when done to excess (sex, games, debating), that I was incapable of meeting even the simplest requirements of the law of God myself, that if God did not help me personally, I was in deep trouble. I learned, and am still learning, to release myself into the Spirit’s care to deal with the wickedness of my flesh.
Phil thank you for sharing this with me!
Well, I'll just exit this topic and leave you to your wimpy iittle discussion. I'm sure Satan will be real impressed by your political correctness and naivete concerning sin and evil. However, maybe it's best you stay at the pulpit and in the library with your kid's glove on, none of you would be much good at the redemption of anyone tougher than an elderly grandmother anyway.
Chris, since Robert's comment you brought up was directed to me and I am the moderator, I figured I would leave it up. I will take down posts that personally insult others but in this case, since it was me, I chose to leave it up. If people's true nature comes through, let it up for the world to see.Robert, in my experience people who have talk about how tough they are and how weak other people are usually are more scared and weak themselves. True strong men (and women) don't need to remind everyone how tough they are all the time and how "wimpy" everyone else is.
The greatest man who ever lived, Jesus, allowed men who thought they were big and tough to execute him. Whose side would you have been on that day, the braggarts or the weak Jew?
Well, David, come with me some day when I go out on the mean streets of El Paso to try to harvest a soul or two amidst the drug dealers, their addicted hangers-on, mean drunks, and the other assorted con artists. This is the wild, wild West and 90% are armed and yes, dangerous, and no one is particularly receptive to the Word of God and wouldn't mind stomping the bearer just for the hell of it. Yet, I get some a meal, some to listen to my spiel, and a few to go to the Salvation Army or some other refuge. A few have tried to beat the tar out of me, but that's just an understood part of my missionary work.Am I afraid, you bet I am, only a fool wouldn't be, but this seems to be God's calling for me even though I COULD EASILY HOLE UP IN A CHURCH OR LIBRARY and pretend I was spreading the Good News.
That sounds like quite a calling Robert. I will pray for your safety and that many would come to know Jesus through the ministry.When I went into campus ministry they warned me that working on the university was probably not going to put my life in danger, but it might put my soul in danger. People don't literally kill you at the university, but many lose their faith. I try to represent Jesus as best I can where I am and it sounds like you do the same; and I suppose God has us where we need to be and where our gifts fit.
I can't leave this topic without thanking everyone who has communicated with me. You give me more food for ethereal thought than you will ever know. I personally, never learned anything of value until someone gave me a "real piece of their mind". Conversation in a mi amigo mode is so guarded as to be virtually worthless, and, who really cares about someone else's concept of Jesus - it's an individual ride anyway.So my insults are a poor attempt at the Socratic Method trying to reach deeper than my mon ami chit-chat would. I won't elucidate my purpose - that would obviate your need to ponder. Likewise, I might not appreciate your sarcasm and ripostes now, but give me time. Probably you won't gush forth with "thanks, Robert" immediately, but keep in mind that God works in weird ways (and through weird people). I love each and every one of you, but like any love dodecahedron would be, it's complicated!
#189 David, I agree.#190 Robert, I too commend and pray for you in this.
#188 Robert, I would hate to see you leave as you have added to this conversation, and I still don't feel like I understand your position. Should you decide to leave, know that your avoidance of me may not be as lengthy as you hope. I may yet get to wash your feet in the age to came. ;-)
Meanwhile back at the ranch, what do you all think of my exegesis of 1 John 1. I don't doubt my ability to defend what christos means here, but what do you think of the born of God phraseology relating to "sons of God" and the right to reign. This is admittedly speculative, but seems to me to sync very nicely with Carson's view of sonship. It also relates to the adoptionist view I avoided earlier. Whether or not Jesus was adopted we certainly are; and are destined to (if we do not already) reign with Him.While all these things have cropped up in Christianity over the centuries, I see them as one more aspect that has been obscured (not made invisible) by the confounding of christos.
Opinions?
Can you explain, or point to the post in the thread or elsewhere, what you are saying about 1 John 1?
To save time I will just cut and paste six paragraphs from the book. I will just add that I see in the new birth terminology, echoes of Psalm 2:7. See also D.A. Carson's, "Jesus Christ the Son of God."-----------------P.87:
In the introduction I said the church has been deceived—that she does not know what she has been saved from, or for. We emphasize salvation from sin, and salvation for eternal life. The enemy, while annoyed at these truths, would rather have us park here than realize the full truth: We have been delivered from the kingdom of darkness and have been transported into the kingdom of light in order to reign with our sovereign.
Listen again to John’s words: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the King is born of God…” What does that last part, “born of God,” actually mean? We are inclined to think that it means we will go to Heaven when we die. But the context doesn’t mention Heaven; instead, it speaks of obeying his commands and overcoming this world. This is kingdom talk—not religion—for this life, not merely the next.
Remember Nathanael’s confession from back in chapter one? “Teacher, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” Remember that his brother Philip had introduced Jesus as the son of Joseph? And remember that we discussed the fact that son of god was an ancient idiom for “divinely appointed ruler?” Well, here it is again.
If we unpack the words we find here and listen to them in a first century context, we find that John is saying ; “Whoever believes that Jesus is the King is a divinely appointed ruler… and His commandments are not burdensome. For whatever is born of God (divinely appointed to rule) overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our conviction that He is King and that we reign with Him.” Wow!
This is an amazing revelation! Being “born again” means being “born of God.” And being born of God means being His child; being His child means being a divinely appointed ruler!
You can almost hear the awe in the apostle’s words: “Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God!” Adam, our progenitor, was created to rule over creation and was called the son of God. In his fall he lost the right to rule. Jesus, our older brother, has restored that right by His obedience. This is what it means to be joint heirs with the King! Is it any wonder that the accuser and his minions quake at the thought of God’s people waking up to this truth and walking in it?
I like it. The obvious question many will ask is - what does it mean to reign? Should Christians control governments, kind of take over the world, a la a new Christendom?
Thanks, and yes, that is the obvious question. Here is what I think is the obvious answer. :-)http://radicalfish.net/servant-leaders/
I don't disagree with the article. But I do wonder if the sort of leadership you describe lends itself to a sacred/secular dichotomy.Let me explain.
Working with college students, I encourage them to apply their faith to their major and future career. I encourage them that God is calling them into their particular field. I have been reading lots of books on vocation and work (Work Matters; What is Vocation; How the Church Fails Businesspeople).
Your article seems to focus on the individual faith side of things. But if I am running a business or am a politician or a doctor or an engineer, then how do I "reign"?
I think both of us have a sympathy for Anabaptism, but I do think one of the failures of Anabaptism is a tendency to separate from the world. If God is the sovereign creator and through Jesus is restoring all of creation, if Jesus truly is king of the whole thing, then I think there is more to our life in the world then servant-leadership (though that is a big part of it).
Three examples:
*Toms Shoes - For every pair of shoes you buy, a pair of shoes is donated to a child in the third world who can't afford shoes. Here is a business that provides a quality item to consumers, while also helping the world.
*Grace Period in Pittsburgh, PA - Payday loans are simply evil, taking advantage of poor people. These guys, smart businessmen, started a company that offers payday loans at affordable rates while also offering job training and other such things. This is motivated by their faith.
*Chick-Fil-A - Closed on sundays, so all employees get a day off; I think it is usually seen as one of the best places to work in fast food; employees get paid decent wages.
We need Christians who do more than just work in a job to pass the time between church activities. And we need to show that being a Christian is about more than just not lying, or being a good neighbor, or being involved in church (though it is those things too). It is about bringing the sovereignty of God, the kingdom of God, to reign over your little area of the world...whatever that looks like.
Jeff, and David, both very insightful thoughts--thank you. I agree with you both.Jeff, you are right, we never "arrive." We are on an asymptotic journey to be conformed to the express image of our king. We move ever closer to the goal but will always be infinitely far away.
David, I do have Anabaptist sympathies, but like you think their descendents have often misconstrued "in but not of" and missed the "in" part.
We may be running into a bit of a semantic difference because I think the examples you give, are examples of servant leadership being modeled in the business world. It was not my intent to say that servant leaders cannot give instruction or provide vision. Servant leaders are still "leaders."
What differentiates them is their heart. They are not in it for the glory or power. They do not enforce their will by conquest. They entice followers with their example.
They are not above giving commands; "This one thing you lack, go sell all that you have, give it to the poor and follow me." The difference is that they will not stop or punish, or enforce their will on those who "depart sorrowfully," or arrogantly, for that matter. Departure carries its own consequences that needs no enhancement.
Again, thank you both.
