Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Problem With Christ
The Table - Group Book Reads
>
The Problem With Christ
Coupla thoughts:(1) Yes, Christians will eventually rule the world.
The messianic scriptures are clear:
(A) The Messiah will inherit the nations (Psalm 2:8 -- "I will give you the nations as your inheritance...")
(B) We share the Messiah's inheritance (Romans 8:16-17, "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ...")
I have no idea what that's going to look like or when it will occur. I see no imperative for Christian political action except where citizenship requires it (as in our republic in the US, which is supposed to be citizen-governed.) I am leaving this to God to bring to pass.
(2) What we're called to do in the meantime is precisely what Jesus did when He was here:
(A) Good works via the power of the Holy Spirit, that...
(B) Undo the destructive works of the evil one, so that...
(C) The kingdom of God becomes manifest on earth, as per Paul's description: righteousness, peace, joy in the Holy Spirit.
We're actually learning about this in church lately, and gearing up to pray for as many people as possible -- for healing, provision, deliverance, whatever they need. I'm expecting great things.
Yeah, the Evangelical church thinks salvation is all about forgiveness of sins and going to heaven. But we're going to see God set people free right here.
Christopher:I was struck in your article by your puzzlement over translating the word "ethnos," which means "nation," as "gentiles."
I believe the justification for that comes from the fact that all the NT authors were Jews. I don't doubt that your knowledge of Greek is sound, but you have to remember that Greek was not the native language of the men who wrote the gospels. In Hebrew, and in the Jewish mind, the words "nations" and "gentiles" are the same word: "goyim." There's no distinction for context, even; they literally mean the same thing in the Jewish mind. So when a 1st century Jew makes a reference to nations, it can almost always be taken as a reference to non-Jews.
Apply that knowledge to the end of Matthew 25 and it changes things a bit. :)
Excellent--carry on--please include me in your prayers!I hesitate to mention my difference with your take on citizenship because our agreement otherwise seems overwhelming. I will save that for another day. :-)
A side note:Robert exited the premises breathing out threats against those who dared to monkey with the words of scripture. Did anybody point out to him that "inerrant" is not a word that the Bible's authors use, in any form?
Jesus does say "the scriptures can't be broken," but I'm not convinced that that means exactly the same thing as "verbal and plenary inerrancy." And while I agree with Paul's assessment in II Tim 3:16 that the scriptures are "God-breathed," what he actually described in that passage is how the teaching of the Old Testament prepared Timothy to recognize the Messiah when He appeared.
So while I hold the scriptures in very high regard indeed, I'm inclined to regard anybody as inconsistent who (1) calls those who dare to dispute a translation "antichrist," but who also (2) uses the word "inerrant" to describe the New Testament. The doctrine of inerrancy is extra-biblical.
I agree that it is extra-biblical. In itself that does not make it a non-starter. So is the trinity. I hold them both loosely and will not be surprised if the king corrects me when we enter the fulness of His kingdom.Darn, does that make me a heretic as well as liberal and conservative? :-(
Christopher wrote: "I agree that it is extra-biblical. In itself that does not make it a non-starter."Correct. Of course, I did not say it wasn't true; I simply said that it was inconsistent with calling someone "antichrist" who changes a word in a common translation.
Phil quote:" The doctrine of inerrancy is extra-biblical."
Getting into dangerous territory there Phil. I believe the Bible was always created to be translated - but also guided to be trusted by God. We should not worship any ONE translation but we can trust them to be reliable from God's original intent.
Christopher do you NOT see the Trinity repeated 100's of times throughout scripture? Same as Jesus' divinity?
Rod, I see it implied, and I accept it as true. On the other hand I recognize that the early church had a number of different views on this and still recognized each other as brothers. This is quite different from the way they treated gnosticism, which was clearly contrary to scripture. I am also uncomfortable with the fact that it was not until Nicaea (323), a council presided over by Constantine and he broke the deadlock among the Christians, essentially deciding the issue, ordering the burning of any books defending a non-trinitarian view, and banishing and killing any advocates of it.
Given that I see no explicit statement of it in scripture, and the fact that it coexisted with other points of view within the church for 300 years, AND the fact that I see no moral or behavioral issues flowing from it I consider it a trivial doctrine. I consider the fact that it did not gain ascendancy in the church until politicians started killing those opposed to the idea as proof it is a weak doctrine.
I favor the trinitarian view to the same extent I reject the adoptionist view; which is to say not very much. I think God loves us enough to not leave room for doubt where He thinks it is important for us not to doubt. (Yes, I do see Jesus' divinity clearly stated.)
I hope this makes sense.
Rod, I should add that I don't see your quote of Phil, and your statement that the Bible can be trusted as being mutually exclusive. And while I can't speak for Phil, I don't get the impression he does either.I think he is saying that it is important that we distinguish between what the Bible actually says, and what we think it means. He is correct that the Bible never says it is inerrant. I can point to things which I THINK imply that. But I cannot put that or the trinity on the same level as "King Jesus died to save failures." (Robert if you are listening in "failure is modern English for the old English word "sinner." N.T. authors called it "amartia.")
Bringing things back to the book we are supposed to be discussing: What do you think of the claim that Jesus and his party had problems with Rome almost exclusively because of the claim that Jesus was king?
Rod wrote: "Phil quote:" The doctrine of inerrancy is extra-biblical."
Getting into dangerous territory there Phil... we can trust [translations] to be reliable from God's original intent."
Chris is exactly right about what I was saying.
Rod, please think through how you got from me saying "The doctrine of inerrancy is extrabiblical" to assuming that I have some difficulty accepting translations as reliable. That's not just a non-sequitur, it's a non-sequitur removed by steps that I'm having a hard time imagining. I'm hoping you can explain how you got from A to J.
When I say something is extrabiblical, I am not saying that it is wrong. Lots of true things are not in the Bible. And I don't have any objection to using a good English translation. I use several.
Mostly I was just tweaking Robert for getting so upset about someone altering a Bible word, when he's basing his faith on a word that's not even in the Bible. He was being inconsistent.
But now that we're here, I want to make a plea for Evangelical sanity. We all need to relax about the Bible. I am not in dangerous territory. I'm not taking even a small risk. God does not get mad and leave us if we say some wrong thing about the Bible. Demons don't rush in to sweep us away if we let our inerrancy guard down. Have some faith in God, people.
All I need to believe about the Bible is that the authors were telling the truth. I can treat it like any other written testimony and still be saved reliably. And, no, the doctrine of inerrancy is not the way we can tell if a person is really born again or not. I know most Evangelicals use that as their litmus test, but they shouldn't. There's nothing in the Bible that says they ought to use it that way. That's not what Jesus' apostles taught.
My faith rests on the Christ's power to redeem, and on the ability of God the Holy Spirit to reproduce in me the character of the Son. I don't need the Bible to be inerrant in order for that to happen; I need God to love me and to change me. I don't need the certainty of the written word; I need the certainty of God's commitment to my redemption. If the word of God is really that powerful, great; but my faith rests on "Lo, I am with you always," and "He will lead you into all the truth."
Yes, I know about God's reliability and Jesus' sacrifice because of what the apostles wrote in the Bible. But I don't have to believe it's inerrant. I just have to believe that it's honest.
As it happens, I think the Bible is a great deal more than merely honest. I get life when I read it. God plants His word in me and it bears fruit. The more I understand, the more remarkable that book seems. But my point is, no part of my redemption requires that I say exactly the right words about the Bible. God doesn't stop working in me if I say the wrong incantation. That's magical thinking, and it's not Christian. Relax. God's work is proceeding even if you get some detail of your systematic theology wrong. You've got the 3rd member of the trinity living inside you; trust Him, and you won't make any fatal mistake.
I'm in favor of getting back to Chris' book now. Yes, Chris, Jesus' problem with Rome was mostly about who was King. But Jesus' problem with the Sanhedrin was about a great deal more than that.
...and a little old man in the back raised his feeble voice and said AMEN!!!Phil, you said "Yes, Chris, Jesus' problem with Rome was mostly about who was King. But Jesus' problem with the Sanhedrin was about a great deal more than that."
I think you are absolutely correct (I need to stop saying that;-). The Sanhedrin clearly understood the kingly (messianic) claims Jesus was making, and for them the objection was the kind of king He was presenting Himself as. While we can never know what might have been, I suspect that had Jesus shown Himself a conquering king and deposed Rome, the issue of blasphemy would never have come up.
He started His ministry with the proclamation of Jubilee, the favorable year of the Lord, but one year latter the yolk of Rome was still heavy on their backs. Two years latter He is telling people to carry the bags of Roman solders. Three years later a sizable portion of the population was claiming He was king, and threatening the agreement with Rome that let them worship Yahweh. Clearly this was not the king they wanted, and the claim to be Yahweh in the flesh just added to the angst.
Michael Hieser does an excellent job of detailing the binitarian (as opposed to trinitarian) theology extant in 2nd Temple Israel. The way for a miracle working man to claim to be God in the flesh had been paved. The charge of blasphemy rose from the kind of man He was, not the claim itself. He ate and drank with failures, and seemed to give tacit approval to the Roman occupation. This man could not be the king, hence not God in flesh, hence He must be a blasphemer.
Rome didn't care about the theology, and Pilot saw the theological motivations of the charge and was willing to let the nutcase off the hook. But when the charge of "king" became loud he had no choice but crucifixion--the standard penalty for opposing Caesar.
Phil wrote: "All I need to believe about the Bible is that the authors were telling the truth."Is it ok to modify this to be "the truth as they understood it?" That way, we don't have to get all disturbed about the Bible's contradictions or historical inaccuracies.
Lee wrote: "Phil wrote: "All I need to believe about the Bible is that the authors were telling the truth."Is it ok to modify this to be "the truth as they understood it?" That way, we don't have to get all ..."
(1) Since we're off topic, I reserve the right to abandon the conversation at any moment.
(2) You are free to modify anything to anything. I meant what I said. However, I think we might be using different words to say the same thing. What I mean is, they were relaying the truth as accurately as they knew how, not trying to deceive or embellish.
(3) Small contradictions in details are common in eyewitness testimony, even among honest eyewitnesses. So to me, the tiny discrepancies actually add to the believability of the accounts, demonstrating exactly what we should expect if we were looking at separate, eyewitness descriptions of a single event.
(4) By "historical inaccuracies," I suppose you're talking Old Testament. I'm sticking to the gospel accounts for the moment. However, I think that one has done a foolish thing when one dismisses a contemporary account as "error" in favor of an interpretation of things dug out of the dirt some 3,000 years later. Those "errors" far too frequently turn out to be accurate statements that we just didn't understand because we lacked relevant detail. Archaeology and ancient history are not exact sciences.
Christopher wrote: "Michael Hieser does an excellent job of detailing the binitarian (as opposed to trinitarian) theology extant in 2nd Temple Israel. The way for a miracle working man to claim to be God in the flesh had been paved. "Hmm... I don't know Michael Heiser so I don't know the details you're talking about. The Wikipedia entry about him claims that he supposes that the God of Israel was actually viewed as a council sitting under the leadership of Yahweh. I don't see anything like that in the OT, frankly, so I'm skeptical.
"He started His ministry with the proclamation of Jubilee, the favorable year of the Lord..."
Oh, now, that's sweet. I had never associated "the favorably year" with the Jubilee. Thanks for that detail. Cool to the max...
"While we can never know what might have been, I suspect that had Jesus shown Himself a conquering king and deposed Rome, the issue of blasphemy would never have come up."
We can infer from what did come about. Israel launched into three, separate wars of independence against Rome in the 100 years following Jesus' ministry. All three rebellions featured the hope that "the kingdom will be restored to Israel." Simon Bar Kochba, leader of the 3rd rebellion, did declare himself Messiah.
I think the observations of the apostles in the gospels comport well with what we know of this history -- the Sanhedrin, in Jerusalem, would have been happy enough to embrace Jesus if He hadn't been so insulting to their character. However, there were also reactions from the locals in Galilee (as distinct from the national leaders in Jerusalem) that objected to his declaring Himself something special. There were serious concerns about His theology, particularly related to the Law. And to be candid, I don't think Jewish opinion was nearly so ready to accept a God-man as you think it was. The association between "Messiah" and "Yahveh" was tenuous in Jewish theology, and still is. Jews are never happy to call any man "God."
What a joy it is to discuss and even disagree with someone who you are certain only wants the truth! :-)Heiser is an Ancient Near Eastern (ANE)Language scholar who I have been familiar with for over five years. I admire him greatly for his clear and (IMHO) objective analysis of the text. I have not read the Wikipedia article,and suspect he is being misunderstood or slandered. I can say that I find his divine counsel understanding to be compelling. He is very orthodox in his view of the Godhead. I think you would enjoy and profit from him immensely. http://thedivinecouncil.com/
I would also recommend this paper (http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/ETSmo...)
I fear that your delight with the later may distract you from involvement here. Take your time. While it does relate heavily to the ideas that provoked my book, it is not directly related and I don't suggest we discuss it here.
You may be able to help me find a reference I have been seeking. I have heard that Jewish teachers postulated that the accuser rebelled when it was learned that the angelic cohorts were destined to serve the new creatures of mud--humanity. Have any of you heard this or know of a reference substantiating it? It would still be extra-biblical and non-authoritative, but interesting nonetheless.
Phil wrote: "By "historical inaccuracies," I suppose you're talking Old Testament."A well-known example of a N.T. historical inaccuracy is in the date of Jesus' birth. Most believers tend to favor Matthew's dating, back before Herod the Great died in 4 BC. Luke says it was after Quirinius arrived as governer from Syria in 6 AD. Obviously, one of them is wrong.
If, however, we insert "the truth as they understood it", we don't have to get our britches in a bunch about errors like this.
Given the number of times that well-known examples have ended up being overturned, I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the N.T. authors. But I see no need to get my britches in a bunch in any event. :-)And in other news... as a PS to my previous post I just found this:
http://www.twopowersinheaven.com/
Christopher wrote: "I have heard that Jewish teachers postulated that the accuser rebelled when it was learned that the angelic cohorts were destined to serve the new creatures of mud--humanity. Have any of you heard this or know of a reference substantiating it? "
How very interesting.
I don't know of any Jewish authority who makes this claim. OT theology (when not influenced by NT theology) makes satan an angel serving the purposes of God as a prosecutor and deceiver. Medieval Jewish scholars dismissed angels as separate entities, and opted instead for a "spirit of evil" in mankind. Modern Jews simply don't believe in such things.
Christian teachers emphasize the arrogance of the evil one without reference to any specific object of his arrogance, aside from God Himself, as though he were simply proud of himself. This is the tone of the passages in Ezekiel and Isaiah that have been taken as secondary references to satan.
However, the MUSLIM view of satan makes that claim -- Shaitan refused to bow down to Adam. It's in the Quran:
It is We Who created you and gave you shape; then We bade the angels prostrate to Adam, and they prostrate; not so Iblis (Lucifer); He refused to be of those who prostrate."
(Allah) said: "What prevented thee from prostrating when I commanded thee?" He said: "I am better than he: Thou didst create me from fire, and him from clay.
Qur'an 7:11–12
That disturbs me a little, 'cause that's actually pretty much what I have come to believe about this topic. However, I cannot give you any sources supporting it. I may have heard something like this from Derek Prince back in the old days, or perhaps from Terry Law -- teachers who had some influence in churches I attended when I was a young believer.
It makes sense to me, given:
* the satan's hostility toward humankind;
* his eagerness to ruin God's creation here;
* the fact that he's been sequestered here on earth and not someplace far away from us;
* the fact that he is our chief adversary and constant accuser;
* his persistent efforts to murder the Messiah, and to end His line before He came to be born (ever wonder why there were so many barren women in the Messianic line? or why the Jews were subject to so many genocidal assaults?)
* how consistent it is with God's character, to overthrow the arrogant by raising up the lowly;
* how Paul argues that one function of the Church is to manifest the wisdom of God to the "rulers and authorities in the heavenlies." (Eph 3:10)
But while that does suggest my interpretation, it does not prove it.
Hope that was helpful.
I've just browsed one of Derek Prince's books that was online, and found this:Satan, the already-fallen angel, the enemy of God and of man,retaliated. He had particular enmity against man for two reasons. First of all, he could attack God’s image in man. You see, man visibly represented God to the rest of creation. Satan could not touch God Himself, but he could make war against the very image of God within man. His delight was to defile that image, to destroy it, to humiliate it —and to that end he worked tirelessly.
The second reason Satan had such malice toward man was due to the fact that man was destined to take Satan’s place of dominion. From the moment of man’s creation, Satan saw him as a rival whom he needed to eliminate.
Derek Prince, "Lucifer Exposed: The Devil's Plan to Destroy Your Life," Whitaker House, New Kensington, PA, 1975/2006, p. 21, found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/98073913/Lu....
So Prince does not agree that Lucifer rebelled because he was jealous of Adam, but does agree that he hates mankind in part because mankind is created to replace him.
Thank you Phil, very helpful. We are very much tracking in the same direction. I wish we had the opportunity to sit around and chew the fat. Not to beat a dead horse but Heiser has added a lot since I last checked. I just started this video and it looks excellent: http://www.twopowersinheaven.com/mate...
BTW--I am in the Space Center area of FL, not far from Disney. If any of you ever head out this way, let me know. There are several Starbucks around. ;-)
Sorry but I've got to run.
Lee wrote: A well-known example of a N.T. historical inaccuracy is in the date of Jesus' birth. Most believers tend to favor Matthew's dating, back before Herod the Great died in 4 BC. Luke says it was after Quirinius arrived as governer from Syria in 6 AD. Obviously, one of them is wrong."
Ah, right, Quirinius. The guy at Christian Think Tank dismisses that one pretty readily. There are a number of plausible theories, but most of them note that there was certainly a Roman officer who served as governor in the region twice, once just before 0 AD, once just after.
http://christianthinktank.com/quirini...
And this illustrates my caution about calling something an "error" or "inaccuracy" based on stuff we dug out of the ground. Any time we're talking about antiquities, we simply don't have all the details. That's a given. Consequently, when a contemporary authority like Luke, who is accurate on literally hundreds of historical points throughout his writings, getting things right as obscure as the freakin' depth soundings in the harbor at Miletus, makes a claim that doesn't exactly match things we've dug up, one is foolish to dismiss him. Chances are he knew better than we do.
But, as you say, no sense getting our undergarments twisted. It's not the sort of thing that ought to lead anybody to disbelieve the gospel. It really only convinces those who are predisposed to disbelieve.
In reply to Chris (201) - Maybe it is a semantic difference. I am trying to say that as a Christian leader I owe it to my students to say more than "have a heart for Christ" or "be a servant leader". Such things are vague - what does it look like in each field?This makes me think of a comment Phil made about Christians not taking political action. I think Christians ought to take political action; we can't help but do it (all people bring their morals/faith/ethics to politics). Look at Dr. King, he called for change in politics. I am a huge fan of private groups like International Justice Mission that bring freedom to slaves, but we still need to work for just laws. I think all Christians ought to support groups like World Vision that feed the poor, but we also can call for policies in government that help reduce the causes for poverty.
I am also uncomfortable with the fact that it was not until Nicaea (323), a council presided over by Constantine and he broke the deadlock among the Christians, essentially deciding the issue, ordering the burning of any books defending a non-trinitarian view, and banishing and killing any advocates of it. There is some truth in this, but there is also a lot of historical non-truth. I recall that Constantine did order the burning of Arius' book Thalia. Constantine's son, and successor, was an Arian and was not banished or killed. In the years after Nicea, Arianism gained the support of emperors and nearly won out - this does not fit in with the idea that the only thing the orthodox had was political support.
Even after the east accepted Nicea, the West was mostly Arian through the 400s and beyond. Most of the Germanic tribes who conquered Rome were Arian.
Athanasius was banished from the East numerous times for supporting the orthodox view.
Given that I see no explicit statement of it in scripture, and the fact that it coexisted with other points of view within the church for 300 years, AND the fact that I see no moral or behavioral issues flowing from it I consider it a trivial doctrine. I consider the fact that it did not gain ascendancy in the church until politicians started killing those opposed to the idea as proof it is a weak doctrine. I actually think your thesis of Jesus as King directly points to the Trinity. In the Old Testament the Hebrews got in trouble for rejecting God as their king and asking for a human king like other nations. Much later the people went into exile and prophet Ezekiel had a vision of God literally leaving the temple. Exile ended with the return to Jerusalem, but Persian (then Greece, then Rome) still ruled so it did not seem like the exile ended. What the Jews were waiting for, in Jesus' day, was the return of God as King.
Many of Jesus' parables make much more sense in this light rather than any sort of second coming - in the ministry of Jesus, God is returning. In Luke 19 Jesus even speaks of how the people are missing the day of God's return.
I think your argument could almost go a step farther - in the ministry of Jesus, God has become king. (For further reading, check out NT Wright)
As for moral issues and such with the Trinity. The Trinity shows us that God is inherently relational - even before creating God existed as a plurality of love: God is love. Further, Jesus' identity as God in the flesh plays out in how you view salvation and holiness and all sorts of things. We are welcomed into this through Jesus; check out the Eastern Orthodox view of divinization, beautiful stuff.
What do you think of the claim that Jesus and his party had problems with Rome almost exclusively because of the claim that Jesus was king? Everything I have ever read points to the claim that Jesus was Lord as the one that got them in trouble. It was a very clear parallel to the oft-heard "Caesar is Lord". So I think there is much to the claim you mention, though I don't think it is related to the word "christ". I think they got in trouble simply because they claimed another king/sovereign/lord then Rome.
Also, a lot of Christians misunderstand what the persecution looked like. I recall getting the impression Christians were constantly hunted down by Roman authorities with nothing better to do. Fact is that there was no imperial wide targeting of Christians until 250 AD under Decius. Prior to this persecution did happen, but it was sporadic.
I don't mean to downplay it - my church history prof compared it to a guy who sporadically hits his wife - she still lives in fear all the time. It seemed that usually persecution would happen during patriotic celebrations - the populace was all fired up about Rome's greatness and decided to beat up Christians who were not also celebrating.
Phil, this isn't the thread to get into this Quirinius stuff, and we've spent countless hours in the past here discussing the bible's inconsistencies, but I confess it really does irk me when people simply latch on to any possible explanation of an inconsistency so as to keep their hope in inerrant scripture alive. That is just soooo dishonest, especially when the odds are piled up so high against inerrancy at any level. People claim to pursue truth, but then just shrug their shoulders at the inconsistencies, and say something like "I tend to give the N.T. writers the benefit of the doubt" (which really means, I couldn't care less about the truth, I know what I believe and I ain't changin').
It gives Christianity a bad name.
Lee wrote: "Phil, this isn't the thread to get into this Quirinius stuff, and we've spent countless hours in the past here discussing the bible's inconsistencies, but I confess it really does irk me when peopl..."I know exactly what you're talking about, and please take this seriously: THAT IS NOT WHAT I DO.
So stuff that crap back up in the orifice it came out of, ok, mookie boy?
I have a strong, RATIONAL, WELL-SUPPORTED, INTELLIGENT, EDUCATED preference for ancient sources over modern ones. You have a problem with that? Argue on the merits, not just by lumping me in with a bunch of idiots with whom I have nothing to do.
K?
David wrote: "This makes me think of a comment Phil made about Christians not taking political action. I think Christians ought to take political action; we can't help but do it..."
You misunderstood me.
I was talking about the Messiah inheriting the nations and the Church inheriting with Him. What I said was, bringing that to pass is God's job, not mine. My role in that process is to do what the Lord commanded us to do: heal the sick, cast out demons, raise the dead, proclaim the good news.
But I also said that Christians who are citizens in citizen-governed nations, like the US and the UK, should be involved in politics as a function of their citizenship. So I completely agree with you about Dr. King, International Justice Mission, Love 146, and the like.
Phil wrote: "The guy at Christian Think Tank dismisses that one pretty readily."Sorry if I misunderstood, Phil. Maybe you were arguing that Luke was right instead of Matthew. But it looked to me, particularly after you posted a link, that you were dismissing the inconsistency in as meaningless a fashion as that argument on the Christian Think Tank. "Oh, maybe you can translate the bible this way." "Oh, maybe there was another Quirinius." That is not rational thinking; that is digging desperately for a way to justify a belief in the Bible's inerrancy, by latching on to any wild explanation that comes to mind...and then doing so again and again for every other likely inconsistency in the bible.
You're the one who said inerrancy wasn't Biblical, so I hope I'm preaching to the choir. But just in case ... seriously, what are the odds that ALL the Bible's apparent contradictions and historical errors have a rational explanation? Should we say even-up odds, over 100 independent examples, meaning .5 to the 100th power? If you believe in inerrancy, just say so, and don't try to argue rationally for it, because that's mathematical suicide.
Believe in inerrancy if you like, but if you do, don't pretend it's RATIONAL, WELL-SUPPORTED, INTELLIGENT, OR EDUCATED. Anybody with a calculator can show otherwise.
Sorry if I derailed the conversation, Chris, but this type of nonsense really pushes my buttons.
Lee wrote: " That is not rational thinking; that is digging desperately for a way to justify a belief in the Bible's inerrancy, by latching on to any wild explanation that comes to mind..."If that's what you think, then you are not willing (or not able) to recognize good scholarship for some reason, and I may have to stop answering you. I worked honestly, diligently, and very hard for a long time acquiring the knowledge that I have, and I offer it only for those who take it seriously. I'm hoping this dispute won't come to that, though.
I'm not a strict inerrantist, but I do recognize good research when I see it.
What I see you doing, Lee, is the same thing all the reflexive skeptics do -- you assume that whatever calls the authenticity of the gospels into question must be "good scholarship," while you automatically dismiss any research that tends to confirm the gospels as "digging desperately." If you don't see the ridiculous bias in that approach, I can't help you.
I gave you the (short version of) the correct reply. Let me repeat and enhance so you don't miss it:
Luke is an amazing historian. Luke's scholarship is sound on a hundred, separate points. There have been a number of "errors" of his exposed over the years, only to have later archaeologists discover that Luke knew exactly what he was talking about and the modern historians were lacking detail. He has correct details about harbor soundings, seasonal weather patterns, titles of local officials, local customs, historical names and place details, and so on. Luke is a gold mine of accuracy.
So if there's ONE detail he supplies and it does not comport with something we think today (out of a hundred that we know to be sound), the most likely explanation is that the modern historians are lacking some knowledge that Luke had. He's that good.
Likewise, if there WERE a disagreement between Luke and Matthew, I'd trust Luke every time; Matthew's a sweet man, but he's not careful (which is weird for a businessman). But there is no disagreement in this case. Both of them say Jesus was conceived while Herod was King in Judea. Notice Luke 1:5, compare to Matthew 2:1. You should not have believed whoever it was that told you that Matthew and Luke disagreed.
What's confusing is that Luke ALSO identifies the events surrounding Jesus' birth with a census that we moderns have some reasons to think took place later. That's why Glenn Miller's sifting through historical sources looking for an explanation is not "desperate," but is in fact exactly the right thing to be doing, and is what any good historian would do. He's not trying to "defend inerrancy." He's trying to figure out what Luke knew that we don't.
Finally, this:
"You're the one who said inerrancy wasn't Biblical, so I hope I'm preaching to the choir."
This will be the third time I am pointing out the same, logical fallacy that people are making, and it's getting frustrating:
Just because I say that a thing is not BIBLICAL, does not mean that I don't think it is TRUE. Nor does it mean that I DO think that it's true. I mean exactly what I said, and nothing more: it's not in the NT. If I say "My keys are not in my pocket," does that necessarily mean that I think my keys are NOWHERE??? Glory Oskey Zero!!!
In your case, apply it this way: just because I note that inerrancy is not a bible doctrine, does not mean I make the asshat assumptions that the habitual skeptics make. I'm open to facts. In my humble opinion, most of what those guys produce have as much to do with facts as I have to do with zebras.
I'm not a strict inerrantist, and I'm open to recognizing discrepancies, but they have to be real ones. This is not one of those. This is a unique, unexplained detail of Luke's that we don't have a solid explanation for, yet. I trust Luke for good reasons.
Do we understand each other now?
Phil, there are at least a half-dozen easy-to-find discrepancies between Luke's birth story and Matthew's. They do not agree in the slightest. I agree with your stance, choosing Luke over Matthew as the more likely story ... but if Luke is saying Quirinius was governor while Herod the Great lived, he has almost surely erred. If you want to discuss further, let's get off this thread.
Phil - I figured we agreed! Nice.
Lee wrote: "there are at least a half-dozen easy-to-find discrepancies between Luke's birth story and Matthew's. "We were talking about the date of Jesus' birth. And yes, let's talk about this elsewhere.
I saw yesterday that you actually have a thread talking about Quirinius. I'll browse that and see if it's something I'm interested in.
Thanks for the joust. Sorry about the attitude; I flip out way too easily. I'm working on that.
Chris, I finally took the time to read your book. Permit me to comment:First of all, it's a marvelous little linguistic study, written very well, nicely edited and produced. Since I did that for my own book, I appreciate how difficult it is to do, and how easy to do badly. Well done!
Now to the point being made by the book:
I completely understand the sort of outrage one feels when one discovers that one's theological upbringing was dead wrong in some important areas. I felt that, too. The outrage lasts for decades. I get this.
However, as I discovered in my own version of this discovery, and as you read in ch 1 of my book, the fact that *I* was ignorant of certain things does not necessarily mean that *the* *Church* is ignorant of them. What I discovered was that the answers I was looking for were frequently the majority view in some corner of Christendom other than my own. So the revelations about which I thought, "Hey, am I the first to discover this in 2000 years?" (and then "Yeah, right. How likely is that?") turned out to be revelations only to me; they were well-known by the Eastern Orthodox, or by the Catholics, or by some medieval groups, etc.
I feel the same about your discovery that Christ is King. You may think it's been stolen from the Church, and you're right in part, but you're also wrong in part. It certainly has been stolen from those simpletons who believe that Christianity means "I'm going to heaven." However, the Kingdom is the dominant theme in the Vineyard churches, where I fellowship these days. It was the dominant theme in the Discipleship Movement within the Charismatic movement. It was a dominant theme in the Wesleyan revival, I think.
Eusebius, in the 4th century, first articulated the triple role of the Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King. That formulation remains in the core theology of many branches of Christendom. It's in the Catholic catechism, it's in the Westminster catechism, it's in all the Reformed denominations, it's in the Lutheran and Wesleyan theologies. They all recognize Jesus as King.
Moreover, any student of the Bible who is aware of Jewish theology underlying the Advent of the Christ, knows that He came to be made King. You correctly pointed to Psalm 2. We who study the OT know it well, it's one of the most frequently quoted OT images in the New Testament. The Mashiach is the King installed on Zion, God's holy mountain. He's the one who will ask, and receive the nations as his inheritance. And that's the inheritance the apostles tell us will be ours in Him, as well -- the one of which the Holy Spirit is an earnest or pledge of things to come.
(BTW, let me add to your knowledge here: according to a note in my study bible, the phrase, "You are my son, today I have begotten you," was used by oriental kings when they named a successor.)
You claim that demons have robbed us of Jesus' kingship by way of linguistic drift. As I say of the claim from the King James Only defenders when they say the modern translations undermine the Christ's deity, "If that was their goal, they failed pretty badly." The modern translations based on Westcott-Hort or Nestle contain more than enough data to prove Jesus' deity.
And by the same token, even those to whom "Christ" is only a name, have more than enough theological material from which to embrace Jesus' kingship. You say "The enemy, while annoyed at these truths [salvation from sin and eternal life], 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." Yet, anybody who has read Paul's epistle to the Colossians has heard the full truth word for word! You just quoted Col 1:13.
I have to agree that far too many in the Church have abandoned her role of overthrowing the domain of darkness, and establishing the kingdom of God's son. And even fewer are walking in anything remotely approaching the fulness of what that means. The Pentecostal and Charismatic movements moved in that direction, and the useful portions of them have been absorbed into the Church proper, setting the groundwork for general acceptance of a wave of power evangelism when it appears. But there's still a whole lot of healing the sick, raising the dead, casting out demons, and declaring the Lord's dominion that needs to take place. Be patient and obedient. I think we're all heading there pretty soon.
I think you make too much of the linguistic drift. It's not just a linguistic shift, it's a theological one, and it won't be cured by better translations. It must be cured by better teaching. I don't need a new translation to teach believers that "going to heaven" is nothing but a by-product, and that our job as Christians is to carry the powerful Kingdom of God into every place where we put our feet. All I need is the pulpit from which to proclaim it. And I won't be the only one saying so when I do.
It has always been the case in Christianity that we hear the words early, but grow only slowly into understanding what they mean. The vast bulk of Christians hear "kingdom of God" and think "heaven," not because that's any denomination's lousy theology, but because that's as far as they have progressed. Some will never go further; they'll die in the wilderness, which is sad but also expected. But the truth has always been available in the Church.
So, welcome to the fellowship of the subjects and brothers of King Jesus. You've just made a journey like the one GK Chesterton wrote of in his introduction to his book, "Orthodoxy." He wrote of himself as an adventurer who set out across the ocean and washed ashore thinking he had discovered New Brighton -- only to discover that it was actually Old Brighton, and instead of having to scrounge the bushes for food, he could stroll to the dockside pub to have a pint. I hope you don't mind if I join you there. This was thirsty work.
It's fun reading all your babble guys. But don't think for a minute that I applaud it. I do enjoy it though.It's rather comical that people in every area of religious knowledge assume they are masters of theology and placed here to straighten out the masses. And by this I mean scholars from Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism, Charismatic foolishness just this side of Mormonism. Even the Mormon's have a university (as we all know) that thinks itself highly intellectual and beyond error.
So where does this leave us? Just the Bible. I could imagine you guys arguing with John, Paul, Peter...and eventually Jesus.
I get the sense that you all see the Bible as mostly a manmade collection. (Maybe not?!)
But when we talk about whether luke was a great historian - I have yet to see anyone claim that Luke, working with God "the Holy Spirit", was a great historian.
IF the Bible is just a book written by man: then i'm not that impressed. But if it was written by God - now that's amazing.
Rod, I think you're exemplifying the very thing you're criticizing.And you are very, very wrong about how we see the Bible. But it's so much easier to judge than to ask, isn't it?
Sheesh.
Yep, it's tricky business this religious stuff! I'm criticizing people who play with the Word of God - rather than embrace what is there. Embrace is a huge word (don't take it lightly.)The real challenge is to make sure someone (or themselves) isn't just another Bart Ehrman. Everyone claims to have an academic edge to their opinion.
I judge myself way more than I judge anyone else. :D
This wasn't really an insult - it's a caution. Everyone here has a different flavor to their Bible understanding. But if everyone's ultimate goal is God's truth then we need to be careful.
Phil quote:"And you are very, very wrong about how we see the Bible."
I'm still not fully sure how some of you see the Bible Phil. And it's not that simple. Everyone here has a few areas correct (according to me!) and a few possibly dangerous areas (according to me!).
But my main thought was the danger of academics and endless research. I love a scholarly thought - but I prefer God's enlightenment even more.
What is YOUR view of God's enlightenment Phil?
Well my brothers, once again in my absence much water (and funky brown stuff in the water) has flown under the bridge in my absence. I would submit that demonstrates that as subjects of our king we have a long way to go in being conformed to His character. I will try to limit my comments to those above which directly address my previous comments, or the book.
#227 David, agreed, sound bites don't make good theology or sound ethical instruction. I was hoping that terms such as "servant king" would be sufficient to demonstrate that the nature of our king is indeed different. Again, the entire N.T. is a treatise on the nature, and work of our king, and how we are to emulate Him. The fact that many O.T. christoi were unjust selfish tyrants, did not stop our king's ambassadors from repeatedly using the term as His primary designation.
#228 Good history lesson thanks, I need to spend more time studying this to avoid looking like a fool. (Hmm--maybe not being one would be a good step in that direction.)
#229 David, please understand that I am indeed trinitarian. Your post supports my statement that "I see no explicit statements..." I agree with the evidence you cite, but they are all inferences. Strong inferences yes, but not so clear that I believe I can make them a test of fellowship.
#230 Agreed, accounts of persecution are often over generalized.
#239 Phil, Thank you, your lengthy post deserves a separate one in response. I shall compose it shortly :-)
Rod wrote:But my main thought was the danger of academics and endless research. I love a scholarly thought - but I prefer God's enlightenment even more.
Rod, are you serious here? Why not start a separate thread, then, where we can discuss it? I think it might be a worthwhile discussion.
If you'll allow me a further suggestion, try to start the thread without simply accusing all who approach life differently from you of being less than serious about obeying God. Rather, if that's what you think, explain why you think so. Supply the evidence that folks who pursue scholarship necessarily risk missing God's enlightenment, more than those who do not. Supplying the argument and support is your responsibility, if that's what you really think.
#239 Phil, thank you for your kind words. I am only about half done with your book and am enjoying it immensely. I am almost in total agreement and see nothing worth nit-picking over (yet;-).I would like to clarify a couple of points that seem to be rather consistently misunderstood. I would like to invite your response as to how I can make these more clear in the book. If the environment here is too raucous please feel free to email me.
You say,"I feel the same about your discovery that Christ is King." This is not my discovery, or what the book is about. This troubles me because I have tried to make clear in the book and here, that all true followers of the christos have always acknowledged Him as their sovereign. In fact, 1 John 5:1 says in essence that you cannot be a Christian unless you believe this. Clearly there are many true Christians in the world today, and have been throughout history. Each person on their own discovers that Jesus is their king when they are enlightened by the Holy Spirit, convicted of their failure, and turn to Him as their sovereign. It matters not what terminology or language they use.
As a result I affirm the bulk of your post, but it misses the point of what I was trying to express. I am open to suggestion as to how I can express myself more clearly.
What I claim to have found is an open secret that anyone can confirm on their own. #1, Christos is not being translated, it is being transliterated. #2, Christ is an English name for Jesus and has no more meaning than any other personal designator. (The pronouns He and Him, work just fine.) #3, (And personally most disturbing.) Greek scholars and Bible translators are taught (and then teach) that the use the name Christ in place of the title christos, is justified by apostolic practice.
Yes, "You are my son, today I have produced you." is a common ANE idiom used in the assumption of authority. The fact that we have been placed in that position is a promise of our inheritance in Him--as you correctly point out.
Those few who have accepted my suggestion to, for one month abandon the English name "Christ" and use king instead, have reported tremendous blessing, and behavioral change.
I continue to find it interesting that such a simple suggestion engenders such hostile opposition. Not just from those like Robert who reject my thesis, but even from those like Lee and David (and yourself?) who seem to accept it.
I suggested using "the christ" as a stop-gap measure to at-least respect the title aspect of christos. It does nothing to respect the meaning vested in their writings when christos is used by the N.T. authors.
Yes you pegged my allusion to Col.1:13. At some point I might post the translation of Col. that I have done for my next book. I think you would enjoy it.
Finally, to emphasize that there is much more gold in them thar hills, I would like to share a quote that someone sent me this week. It is from a pastor who had just read my book and shared how it had transformed his Bible reading.
I had never seen this quote before, but it's date suggests that we are not looking at "semantic evolution" but at a semantic revolution. I have already shared my suspicions about this, and how whenever the change occurred it had to have happened in the 100 years between the peshita and coptic translations. This quote compresses the duration of the shift.
"But although His name, which the supreme Father gave Him from the beginning, is known to none but Himself, nevertheless He has one name among the angels, and another among men, since He is called Jesus among men: for Christ is not a proper name, but a title of power and dominion; for by this the Jews were accustomed to call their kings." --Lactantius, The Divine Institutes; Book 4, Chapter 7
Christopher wrote: "You say,"I feel the same about your discovery that Christ is King." This is not my discovery, or what the book is about. This troubles me because I have tried to make clear in the book and here, that all true followers of the christos have always acknowledged Him as their sovereign."
I think this points to a defect in your book's structure. I think your real object is to alter the practice of Christianity to a form that recognizes the Christ's dominion and puts adherents to work establishing that dominion wherever they go and whatever they do. Am I right?
But the book, itself, is about a word. Even if the sole object of the book is to adjust how we use that word, it's relevant only in the wider context of establishing the dominion of King Jesus. So you need to start your book with that context-setting explanation, and end it there as well. That's what's missing, and that's why I missed your object.
Which brings me to my second comment this morning:
Chris wrote: Those few who have accepted my suggestion to, for one month abandon the English name "Christ" and use king instead, have reported tremendous blessing, and behavioral change.
And you don't have examples in the book? Why not?
Seriously, man, if this is the change you want to effect, you need to add your evidence illustrating the behavioral impact of making the change. It's, like, the point of the book. And let me tell you, I really do want to read about this; the rest of the book kinda leaves the reader saying "Alright, sure, you've got a point, but so what?" What you've alluded to here is "so what." Add it. Today. Right now. :)
Finally, I wonder if you really know that you're pushing yourself into the mainstream of Pentecostalism? Kingdom theology is alive and well in all the neo-Pentecostal churches. If you're not familiar, take a gander at this book by Derek Prince, as just one example of where past ministers have hammered Kingdom theology. http://www.derekprince.org/Publisher/....
I know this is the second time I've brought up Derek Prince. No, I'm not a Prince sycophant, but he was influential among the ministers who led the churches where I found fellowship when I was a young believer, and he wrote the most about the Kingdom approach they taught. You can also find this approach in the writings of John Wimber, or of Dallas Willard, the well-known theologian who just died a few months ago. You would like Willard (assuming you don't already). Pick up a copy of The Divine Conspiracy and see if you don't find an ally there.
Got stuff to do, but thanks for taking the time.
Phil quote:"...try to start the thread without simply accusing all who approach life differently from you of being less than serious about obeying God...explain why you think so. Supply the evidence that folks who pursue scholarship necessarily risk missing God's enlightenment, more than those who do not. Supplying the argument and support is your responsibility, if that's what you really think."
Thanks Phil. That is rather logical and may produce good results. (did Jesus always do this? I don't think so.)
Just like arguing with Satan: Sometimes you simply say NO. Logic is useless and thrown out the window. You don't argue with atheists or people from other religions do you Phil? (maybe...) Don't argue to win - but to present truth. :D
#247 Phil, good suggestions, thank you.As something of an apology (in the apologetic sense) let me say that personally I am suspect of arguments that depend on a subjective effect/blessing for their proof. Uncounted new-agers can testify to the blessing they received when they cast off the straight-jacket of scripture, and learned to give freedom to their passions. Their god does indeed bless them richly.
In the introduction I go to lengths to point out that I may be deceived and deceiving. Chapter one chronicles my discovery in such a way that I hope the reader can follow in my footsteps. Chapters two and three provide scriptural evidence that I think is conclusive. Chapter four introduces a hint of the blessings to be found across the N.T. by applying this supposed truth. Chapter five gives in-depth examples of truth which is difficult to see without reading christos as king.
I am familiar with all the authors you mention and for the most part agree with them all. I was particularly influenced in my youth by D.P's Shaping History Through Prayer and Fasting. I would like to think that they would all rejoice in the revelation that "christos means king." They and the rest of His followers already know that He is!.
Brother Rod, I would like to be bold and offer a word of encouragement. Faith, confidence, trust, belief and conviction are all words that convey the meaning of what we must have toward our king Jesus. When I sit in a chair, it is not my faith that supports me--it is the chair. My faith in the chair only lets me sit in it. What Phil is asking is eminently reasonable and biblical. "Be ready to give a defense to everyone for the hope that is in you." Be careful that your faith is not in "faith" rather than Him who is worthy to be its object.
Hang in there my friend and brother. :-)
Rod wrote:Just like arguing with Satan: Sometimes you simply say NO.
I've used that analogy myself at times. What I mean by it is that there is no possible outcome of an argument with a demon that will be good. The demon is not going to be persuaded, but there's a chance that he'll persuade you of something, or plant a destructive seed of doubt, or something like that. So you're better off not engaging at all. We cast demons out, we don't converse with them.
I've found that that's the character of discussions with political leftists who have planned tactics for discussions. They're not interested in truth, they're in it for the strategic advantage, hoping you'll shift just a little, knowing that they're not going to shift at all. There's no win in a conversation like that. I avoid them, except to expose the tactic.
Are you saying that you don't think a conversation about the usefulness of study can possibly help anything, because you don't think I'm open? Do you think I'm demonic?
I'll give you a clue to where I would go in that discussion: I don't see any necessary conflict between "scholarly thought" and "God's enlightenment." They can be the same thing, though they are not necessarily the same thing. And I don't see that avoiding scholarly thought increases the likelihood of finding God's enlightenment, though in a lot of cases it can decrease that likelihood. There are simple truths (I think of Brother Lawrence here) and complex truths (I think of Dallas Willard here.) We need to be open to both.
David, I just saw you posted your review to Amazon--Thank you!
Let me explain.
Working with college students, I encourage t..."
Well said David. Excellence in all that we do, including our paid work, should be a hallmark of Christ-followers.