Religious Readings [split]

[jefhatfield]

Has anyone read the book in my signature yet?

no, but that sounds like a fun book to read...i often wondered what happened during those "missing" years ;)

nobody knows for sure, but a trip to asia minor, or even india is not completely impossible judging from the fact that alexander the great paved well known trade routes centuries earlier

[iSaint]

no, but that sounds like a fun book to read...i often wondered what happened during those "missing" years ;)

nobody knows for sure, but a trip to asia minor, or even india is not completely impossible judging from the fact that alexander the great paved well known trade routes centuries earlier

The trips across Asia Minor and India are mostly what the book is about. Joshua and Biff go out looking for the three wise men to came to visit Josh at his birth. It's really creative, and hilarious!

ME!!!!!!!!!! One of my favorites!!! I recommend it to people all the time...I even got my book club to read it. I love Chris Moore's other stuff too, but Lamb is just phenomenal.

Yay! Yeah, I recommend it constantly. I bought a copy for my professor, and actually have bought several copies over the years to give to people, as long as they pass it along. Love his other stuff, but Lamb is fantastic.

[jefhatfield]

The trips across Asia Minor and India are mostly what the book is about. Joshua and Biff go out looking for the three wise men to came to visit Josh at his birth. It's really creative, and hilarious!



sounds like a good read, and very funny, and probably is more factual than many american christians' deep seated belief that he was somehow a fair skinned, western european man as depicted by many artists throughout history

i once had a friend in high school, american citizen, born here who is jewish, and he went to visit israel for the first time and was amazed and fascinated in meeting real israelis...and america's incredible misunderstanding of israelites in general...i thought maybe mel gibson would, in his quest for truth, cast an isreali actor in the role of jesus (how novel, a jewish jesus ;) )...but he took the safe hollywood route and picked the latest american looking actor of the month for the role

heck, mel gibson should have cast brad pitt or jude law in the role :) :)

...but nothing was as crude, hollywood style, as putting john wayne in the role of ghengis kahn

[iSaint]

sounds like a good read, and very funny, and probably is more factual than many american christians' deep seated belief that he was somehow a fair skinned, western european man as depicted by many artists throughout history

i once had a friend in high school, american citizen, born here who is jewish, and he went to visit israel for the first time and was amazed and fascinated in meeting real israelis...and america's incredible misunderstanding of israelites in general...i thought maybe mel gibson would, in his quest for truth, cast an isreali actor in the role of jesus (how novel, a jewish jesus ;) )...but he took the safe hollywood route and picked the latest american looking actor of the month for the role

heck, mel gibson should have cast brad pitt or jude law in the role :) :)

...but nothing was as crude, hollywood style, as putting john wayne in the role of ghengis kahn

I like you're style of thinking! My two basic truths that most Christians ignore:

1) Jesus wasn't a white anglo-saxon protestant, as much as most would like to believe
2) There were no refrigerators in Jesus' time, so they HAD to drink wine (not grape juice).

Lamb is very funny, and I'm sure you would appreciate the far-reaching possibilities presented in the book.

[Josh]

I like you're style of thinking! My two basic truths that most Christians ignore:

1) Jesus wasn't a white anglo-saxon protestant, as much as most would like to believe
2) There were no refrigerators in Jesus' time, so they HAD to drink wine (not grape juice).


Lies. All of it...lies!!!

Are you telling me Jesus did not have long, flowing blonde hair and bright blue eyes, just like my church depicts him? :p

I kid...I kid.

Not to derail this fine thread, but I'd also have to add this to your list:

3) Jesus never once said he was God; the only things he said about being of God, he said was true of us also.

*ducks for cover and watches for flying stones*

[jefhatfield]

I like you're style of thinking! My two basic truths that most Christians ignore:

1) Jesus wasn't a white anglo-saxon protestant, as much as most would like to believe
2) There were no refrigerators in Jesus' time, so they HAD to drink wine (not grape juice).

Lamb is very funny, and I'm sure you would appreciate the far-reaching possibilities presented in the book.

i am a democrat, liberal, and a christian...and my long time employee and good friend is a jehovah witness...think right wing christian and then double it

he tells me that he, as a minister/brother/saint/fill in the blank of his denomination, is not allowed to have a beard...it's against church policy in the united states (but oddly enough, not in ireland for his denomination)

so i guess jesus christ would not be allowed to hold a position in his church or even become just a dues paying member ;) oh, and he has this rare shaving/staph problem with ingrown hairs on his face and a severe shaving infection can actually kill him, but he holds true to his very conservative views on christianity and "basic living" and he is willing to uphold his, in his case, dangerous practice of shaving every day

but like most of his flock, the local mormon churches, some atypical conservative mainline protestants and catholics, and the almost exclusively white evangelicals in this area, the people in the above mentioned groups where i live are white and tend to be anti-semitic (my wife is part jewish) and i am convinced if jesus came to america and do his ministry, or at least to northern cal or the OC, the basic anti-semitism and unacceptance of long hair, and often facial hair, would make jesus christ's ministry go nowhere

i think it could make for a great comedy...jesus coming to america for a time and hanging out with all the "religious" people from various sects and demominations ;)

[jefhatfield]

3) Jesus never once said he was God; the only things he said about being of God, he said was true of us also.

*ducks for cover and watches for flying stones*

he he, :)

but he did claim he could "work" on the sabbath and forgive people of their sins...something in jewish religious practice that only g-d can do, so jesus was basically executed for blasphemy...in other words, claiming to be g-d and the political and social unrest that can come from a divine godly visit in such a politically (jewish, arab, greek, roman) atmosphere in a cosmopolitan city like jerusalem

but i will concede jesus never claimed to be a right wing, george w bush loving, tax cutting (for the rich) republican ;)

[floriflee]

but like most of his flock, the local mormon churches, some atypical conservative mainline protestants and catholics, and the almost exclusively white evangelicals in this area, the people in the above mentioned groups where i live are white and tend to be anti-semitic (my wife is part jewish) and i am convinced if jesus came to america and do his ministry, or at least to northern cal or the OC, the basic anti-semitism and unacceptance of long hair, and often facial hair, would make jesus christ's ministry go nowhere

As a practicing Mormon, I would like to note that anti-semetism is not a doctrine that is preached in my religion. Those truly trying to live the gospel strive to be tolerant and accepting of others regardless of race or religion. Now that doesn't mean we have to agree with what everyone else does or believes, but we are supposed to love and respect them. Unfortunately, I can't say that everyone follows that creed (I have a hard time loving or being kind to everyone sometimes), but I do not like the blanket statement that insinuates that Mormons are anti-semetics because of their religion. Those that say they are have greatly misconstrued the gospel teachings.

Can't speak for the other denominations authoritatively, but I'd like to think that anti-semetism is not actually preached as doctrine within their religion as well.

Edit: BTW, I'm not here to Bible bash, argue doctrine or the like. I just wanted to clarify and give my $.02 on the subject.

[jefhatfield]

As a practicing Mormon, I would like to note that anti-semetism is not a doctrine that is preached in my religion. Those truly trying to live the gospel strive to be tolerant and accepting of others regardless of race or religion. Now that doesn't mean we have to agree with what everyone else does or believes, but we are supposed to love and respect them. Unfortunately, I can't say that everyone follows that creed (I have a hard time loving or being kind to everyone sometimes), but I do not like the blanket statement that insinuates that Mormons are anti-semetics because of their religion. Those that say they are have greatly misconstrued the gospel teachings.

Can't speak for the other denominations authoritatively, but I'd like to think that anti-semetism is not actually preached as doctrine within their religion as well.

Edit: BTW, I'm not here to Bible bash, argue doctrine or the like. I just wanted to clarify and give my $.02 on the subject.

as with many, right wing leaning denominations, anti-semitism and racism in general are not teached, but it still comes out that way

i am a japanese american and i have a friend who is also japanese american, but also a mormon, and he was not allowed membership into some mormon churches in the 60s and 70s...due to his race...but i know, as he admits, things have become more embracing for his denomination, as has with many christian denominations

the history of american christianity and racism is as deep and shameful as the nazis with germany, and believe it or not, many who "lynched" others, did so in the name of christianity

[floriflee]

the history of american christianity and racism is as deep and shameful as the nazis with germany, and believe it or not, many who "lynched" others, did so in the name of christianity

I don't deny that horrible atrocities have occurred in the name of christianity (or of religion in general), but as far as I can tell, there are a lot of things done in the name of something that have nothing to rightly do with that "something."

In my opinion, when these atrocities occur, that's when man misinterprets the religious doctrine (or whatever doctrine) to justify it for some form of gain--whether it's conscious or subconscious, for self or for a collective). If people understood the doctrines of their religions better (Mormons, included), and aligned their beliefs accordingly, we'd have a lot less problems in this world.

As for your friend, I can't say that I fully understand the reason for the prevention of joining the church before the late 1970's. I can only say, that as a believer in my faith, I have come to know that there are things that happen at a certain time for a reason. Sometimes we understand that reason right away. Sometimes it comes after a long time of study, pondering and reflection (yes, we are taught and encouraged to do such things). Sometimes we don't ever fully understand, but believe there is a good reason because we believe that gospel to be true so we have to live on faith. All in all, we believe that if we live true to our religion that we will come to know it all in the end. I'm sorry if that sounds preachy, misguided, or overly hopeful, but it's what I believe.

[emmawu]

"Lamb" is a great book. Once I read it, I passed it on to my friends. It's been passed six times in six months.

[iSaint]

"Lamb" is a great book. Once I read it, I passed it on to my friends. It's been passed six times in six months.

It's the most 'passed around' book I've ever heard of, and passed around myself!

Wow, our threadjacking was worthy of a thread split!

[fistful]

Even though I haven't read Lamb yet I just wanted to chime in and say Christopher Moore is one of my favorite authors. So far I've read "Bloodsucking Fiends" and "The Lust Lizard of Melancholy Cove". Waiting on my sister to lend me "Fluke" and Lamb.

[jefhatfield]

I don't deny that horrible atrocities have occurred in the name of christianity (or of religion in general), but as far as I can tell, there are a lot of things done in the name of something that have nothing to rightly do with that "something."

In my opinion, when these atrocities occur, that's when man misinterprets the religious doctrine (or whatever doctrine) to justify it for some form of gain--whether it's conscious or subconscious, for self or for a collective). If people understood the doctrines of their religions better (Mormons, included), and aligned their beliefs accordingly, we'd have a lot less problems in this world.

As for your friend, I can't say that I fully understand the reason for the prevention of joining the church before the late 1970's. I can only say, that as a believer in my faith, I have come to know that there are things that happen at a certain time for a reason. Sometimes we understand that reason right away. Sometimes it comes after a long time of study, pondering and reflection (yes, we are taught and encouraged to do such things). Sometimes we don't ever fully understand, but believe there is a good reason because we believe that gospel to be true so we have to live on faith. All in all, we believe that if we live true to our religion that we will come to know it all in the end. I'm sorry if that sounds preachy, misguided, or overly hopeful, but it's what I believe.

i guess i have seen christianity broken into three areas...conservative political belief, moderate, and liberal

the great politician and worthy adversary to democrats like me is conservative orrin hatch and he has rode a wave of power on his combination of christ and republicanism...he is one of the fathers of the christian right and politically mobilizing religious people toward the gop

it was no small secret that conservative christians were largely democrats before the mid-80s, and while they had a liberal political point of view, they were very fundamental in their beliefs of scripture being literal

i think the advent of conservative christians voting as conservative republicans, which in my mind are nearly opposites, is one of the greatest political swindles of all time...yet brilliant and well thought out strategically, but in an infamous way similar to the attack on pearl harbor

if i were a congressman or senator representing myself as a democrat, i would never make the mistake of underestimating gop religionists/lobbyists like orrin hatch or newt gingrich...they saw a potentially fertile field in pious, church going americans and stole them away from the democrats 20 years ago

[Heb1228]

3) Jesus never once said he was God; the only things he said about being of God, he said was true of us also.
C. S. Lewis once remarked, "The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them."

[Heb1228]

the history of american christianity and racism is as deep and shameful as the nazis with germany, and believe it or not, many who "lynched" others, did so in the name of christianity
That statement is absurd. I'm a conservative Christian and I categorically admit that racism in the name of religion was completely wrong and indefensible. Its a shame on religions and denominations where such things happen. I'm a Southern Baptist and my denomination was one of the worst about it in many ways. There was (and is) no excuse. It was utterly wrong and contrary to the Gospel.

HOWEVER, to equate American racism (as bad as it was, and still is in some circles) with Nazi Germany is ludicrous. Neither one is defensible, but they are in completely different categories.

[Heb1228]

i guess i have seen christianity broken into three areas...conservative political belief, moderate, and liberal

the great politician and worthy adversary to democrats like me is conservative orrin hatch and he has rode a wave of power on his combination of christ and republicanism...he is one of the fathers of the christian right and politically mobilizing religious people toward the gop

it was no small secret that conservative christians were largely democrats before the mid-80s, and while they had a liberal political point of view, they were very fundamental in their beliefs of scripture being literal

i think the advent of conservative christians voting as conservative republicans, which in my mind are nearly opposites, is one of the greatest political swindles of all time...yet brilliant and well thought out strategically, but in an infamous way similar to the attack on pearl harbor

if i were a congressman or senator representing myself as a democrat, i would never make the mistake of underestimating gop religionists/lobbyists like orrin hatch or newt gingrich...they saw a potentially fertile field in pious, church going americans and stole them away from the democrats 20 years ago
Most consider the conservative Christians turning to the Republican party as be a direct result of Roe vs. Wade. You bring up a few good points in this post, I would recommend a NYTimes op-ed by David Brooks called "Who Is John Stott?" on the issue. link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/opinion/30brooks.html?ex=1259557200&en=4b9e0ffb63745a02&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt)

Tim Russert is a great journalist, but he made a mistake last weekend. He included Jerry Falwell and Al Sharpton in a discussion on religion and public life.

Inviting these two bozos onto "Meet the Press" to discuss that issue is like inviting Britney Spears and Larry Flynt to discuss D. H. Lawrence. Naturally, they got into a demeaning food fight that would have lowered the intellectual discourse of your average nursery school.

This is why so many people are so misinformed about evangelical Christians. There is a world of difference between real-life people of faith and the made-for-TV, Elmer Gantry-style blowhards who are selected to represent them. Falwell and Pat Robertson are held up as spokesmen for evangelicals, which is ridiculous. Meanwhile people like John Stott, who are actually important, get ignored...

[jefhatfield]

That statement is absurd. I'm a conservative Christian and I categorically admit that racism in the name of religion was completely wrong and indefensible. Its a shame on religions and denominations where such things happen. I'm a Southern Baptist and my denomination was one of the worst about it in many ways. There was (and is) no excuse. It was utterly wrong and contrary to the Gospel.

HOWEVER, to equate American racism (as bad as it was, and still is in some circles) with Nazi Germany is ludicrous. Neither one is defensible, but they are in completely different categories.

it is in degrees, hatred and religious violence, but you are right in that america is nowhere near nazi germany

i would like voices like billy graham, a democrat btw, to be more representative of christianity than that of the reverend fred phelps, who has gained in popularity in his extreme right wing stances and hated for homosexuals

extreme leftist stances are also not a good thing either (and have their long history of violence and atrocities) and i realize most american christians who happen to be republicans do not like, or relate, the kkk or nazis, but i detect a movement of christianity in america to the right, and one day so far right that it may not resemble christ and the early disciples

my studies in bible college have made me see the parallel of christianity more to values of freedom and tolerance, and to the more liberal federalists (vs the conservative tories loyal to the crown and the church of england) and though the democratic party is not exactly like the bible, word for word, it's far closer than what president bush has been doing, alienating many christians in america and abroad, like me and millions of others

but to be a christian or member of any other religion i have heard or, membership to one political party or another is not a prerequisite

[Heb1228]

i would like voices like billy graham, a democrat btw, to be more representative of christianity than that of the reverend fred phelps, who has gained in popularity in his extreme right wing stances and hated for homosexuals
I would as well, which is exactly what the David Brooks article talks about. Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc... may make for good news talk shows but they are not (I would argue) representative of most conservative Christians.

And you are right that being a Christian does not require one to adhere to any political ideology. In fact, it requires that any political affiliation be subservient to Christian belief and doctrine.

[jefhatfield]

I would as well, which is exactly what the David Brooks article talks about. Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc... may make for good news talk shows but they are not (I would argue) representative of most conservative Christians.

And you are right that being a Christian does not require one to adhere to any political ideology. In fact, it requires that any political affiliation be subservient to Christian belief and doctrine.

i think i went to a sermon of stott's at all souls in london when i was a student and missionary there...an amazing church...one anglican priest i met there became my mentor before i went to belfast

i later got married to a woman who also visited belfast, ironically before i knew her, and we almost went there helping children/teens involved in drugs/gangs/violence but a huge outcry from our families prevented me, and her, from returning to belfast

i did have a cousin go on a missionary trip to bosnia right after the war and at the time i didn't like the idea but she went there, did her work with her mission, and got back safely...she was willing to die for christ the same way i was

today, being married and with two businesses, i seem less willing to go into the line of fire in a place like belfast, or "fill in the blank" and do religious social work...i don't know if i have become a coward or changed with age, but i am thankful that there are people everyday willing to do good work in the name of christianity in some of the most dangerous areas of the world, of which some american inner-cities are being them (east la, south bronx, phoenix, dc, new haven, etc)

actually, i am grateful of people who do social work in general, religious or not, especially in dangerous areas of this country and abroad

[iSaint]

That's wonderful that you and your wife have taken steps to do missionary work. Perhaps there's the possibility of doing some work inner city where you live now.

[floriflee]

And you are right that being a Christian does not require one to adhere to any political ideology. In fact, it requires that any political affiliation be subservient to Christian belief and doctrine.

Here! Here! I am of the strong belief that, if prioritzed, you are a member of your religion first and political party second. You do not join a party to shape your beliefs, but rather your beliefs should shape the direction of your party.

Not surprisingly, I am a republican, but I am a moderate who does not blindly side with all things related to my party. In fact, there have been occasions I have voted democrat because they were more in-tune with my beliefs. In all honesty, it would be better if we would strip party from a lot of the issues and just focus on the issue itself and go from there.

Edit: As a side note, it may be surprising to you to know that there are democrats in the top levels of the Mormon church (perhaps a little known fact because we are really not supposed to define ourselves by our party). Every time around elections, a letter from the Presidency of the Church is sent to all the bishops, which is then read across the pulpit at our meetings. It's purpose is to remind us that the Church does not endorse any political candidate or party, but that we are encouraged to study out the issues and vote for the best candidate/issue based on our personal beliefs. The hard part is actually getting everyone--regardless of religion or party--to take heed to that kind of counsel. :)

[Josh]

C. S. Lewis once remarked, "The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them."

Coming from one who writes children's books? Credible. Really.

If you disagree, show me once where Jesus said undeniably that he IS God.

No where does such a claim exist in the Bible. The only way one can arrive at such a conclusion is when words are bent, twisted, and aligned to the readers own interpretation.

Taking things to your own interpretation, as YOU understand them, is exactly what the Bible tells you not to do ("Lean not to your own understanding").

The majority of such Christians are those who live their lives casually, and spend their obligated 45 minutes in church on Sunday, then claim to be warriors of the Christian faith, knowing all there is to know about it.

But talk to any Biblical scholar who has dedicated their entire life to studying what the Bible says (not giving meaning to what it does not) and studying who Jesus was, and they will all tell you the same thing:

Jesus did not, even once, claim to be God, say that he was God, or any such thing. Infact, all that he said is evidence to the contrary. When asked about the ressurection, Jesus said "I can do nothing on my own authority” (John 5: 30).

Unless you mean to say that God has some other authority he calls on for permission....?

[floriflee]

Coming from one who writes children's books? Credible. Really.

Not just a children's book writer, but also a writer of other works, including "Mere Christianity", "The Great Divorce", and "The Abolition of Man." I believe he also had a radio show. A lot of his works are allegorical, which may seem childish, but they provide a lot of good insight. It's interesting to note that Lewis was an atheist who converted to christianity later in life (it's outlined a bit in "Mere Christianity").

He was a very scholarly man, who did his research, so I would say he is a credible source.

[floriflee]

Infact, all that he said is evidence to the contrary. When asked about the ressurection, Jesus said "I can do nothing on my own authority” (John 5: 30).

This is the extent of my Bible-bashing... as I've never found it to be of much good when both parties are set in their beliefs:

If you take the whole verse of John 5:30 it reads (King James Version): "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgement is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me"

If you also take into account the story of Mary being told by an angel that she is going conceive the Son of God by the power of the Holy Ghost, then you can deduce in the above verse that Jesus is saying that his Father is God. Thus making him the Son of God, and thus making him a god. His purpose in life is to do the will of the Father (God the Father), which is to bring about the Atonement so that we can be forgiven of our sins. While he was on this earth he must fulfill His Father's will.

John the Baptist bore testimony of the Christ's divinity in John 1:34 after he baptized Him: "And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God."

Anyway, we could throw scriptures back and forth at each other all day long arguing our points. Scholars are STILL arguing the point. However, the real point is that, with religion and any beliefs that cannot be physically and definitively proven by any source, you have to study it out to the extent that you can, pray about it, and then obtain a testimony of that point through the application of your faith. If that point is true then your testimony of it will grow. You can't rely on JUST the words and research of others here on this earth because those of us on this earth are fallible. We make mistakes, we misinterpret--look at how many times scientific theories have had to be adjusted over time because we misinterpreted the data, or didn't have the whole picture. In issues of faith and religion we have to seek also for inspiration and personal revelation in addition to our study. In a word, it comes down to faith.

[Josh]

This is the extent of my Bible-bashing... as I've never found it to be of much good when both parties are set in their beliefs:

If you take the whole verse of John 5:30 it reads (King James Version): "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgement is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me"


This is true - however being sent by God is much different than actually "being" God.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Moses, Mohammed - all can be argued to have been 'sent' by God.

No one has to claim those individuals are God - so why Jesus?

If you also take into account the story of Mary being told by an angel that she is going conceive the Son of God by the power of the Holy Ghost, then you can deduce in the above verse that Jesus is saying that his Father is God. Thus making him the Son of God, and thus making him a god. His purpose in life is to do the will of the Father (God the Father), which is to bring about the Atonement so that we can be forgiven of our sins. While he was on this earth he must fulfill His Father's will.

John the Baptist bore testimony of the Christ's divinity in John 1:34 after he baptized Him: "And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God."



I am the son of my father, but certainly, he and I are two different men. Again, there is a difference between being the son of God, and actually being God himself.

This is a prime example of twisting words and adding meanings that are not present. Being the son of God does not make one God - it makes them the son of God, nothing more, nothing less.

Furthermore, this is twisting the words of John the Baptist to make it seem as if he said Jesus was God; even though he did *not* ever say this, if we pretend he did, it would still not be absolute. Did John the Baptist have a devine knowledge about Jesus that Jesus himself did not? If Jesus never claimed to be God, why accept the claim from another man that Jesus is God? (Even though John never claimed Jesus was God either. His words are right there, and no where do they say "Jesus is God" or any varation of the same meaning).

Debating the Bible is one thing, but debating superfluous meanings added in by individual interpretation is completely another. You cannot debate the validity a false meaning of a phrase, as it becomes invalid the second non-existent meanings are added.

How vain it is to give entirely different meanings to a phrase and call it truth.

[floriflee]

Ah, but there is a slight difference between saying that you are born of your father and not your father than saying you are born of God. A human that is born of a human is human. A being that is born of God is a god. God is not a title, He is a being. Therefore, any offspring that come from Him will be like Him--a god. I don't believe that God the Father and God the Son are the same being. They are two separate personages. When you read the Bible from that standpoint then a lot of what Jesus says about Him and His Father makes more sense. Yes, He says that He and His Father are one, and that's true. They are one in purpose. They have the same will. It's kind of like the same way you see a husband and wife being one or a family being one--they are one unit.

Jesus wasn't just sent by God. He was sent by His Father. There is a difference between Him and the messengers and prophets that have come to preach to this world. None of them can say that God is their literal father, whereas Jesus can.

Also, does everything have to be explicitly outlined in order for you to believe it? One thing to take into consideration is that there has been a lot of meaning lost in the various translations of the Bible. Men have interpreted passages differently. Some words and phrases don't even appear in different translations depending on who translated it. Who's to say that that He didn't ever declare Himself to be the Son of God then? And who's to say that He needs to himself declare it explicitly? To take a somewhat different approach to this...those who have declared themselves explicitly to be God throughout the ages have not been believed by the masses. These people are seen as crazy. That's just the way the doubting minds of people work when someone comes out and declares such an important thing like that. Instead, what Jesus did is He let His divinity be known through His work, His actions, His miracle, His teachings, His presence. His disciples and apostles knew it and declared it (see Matt 16:16) and Jesus confirms it (see Matt 16:17). Why does He absolutely need to declare it explicitly when others have declared it for Him? Because of the doubting Thomases? Because of the people out there that won't believe a thing unless it is explicitly stated by the person in question? I don't believe that because even if the said person were to say it there would be plenty out there who would still deny it and just call that person crazy. That's not faith and that's not knowing. That's just looking for a sign. Signs don't convert people, and neither would have His saying it Himself. There would be those that would believe at first, but then they'd find reasons to doubt because of some reason or another. "Oh, the Bible and these sayings shouldn't be taken literally" some would say. Others may say "What authority does He have to say that? Show me some solid, physical, tangible evidence. Show me heaven or some great miracle." The possibilities and reasons for doubt are endless. The people that He converted weren't converted because of His miracles. There are plenty that saw His miracles that turned away. Those that remained faithful and firm followers of Christ had felt and understood something more. That is why conversion is so important. Conversion happens because of something more--because of something intangible and explicit has touched your life in such a way to change it. Because that truth has been testified to you by the Holy Ghost. Jesus is the Son of God, and He is divine. I believe that. I still believe that after all your arguments. I don't accept that belief on a whim. I have felt that to be true. It's come from something more than I can actually tangibly explain through examples, or evidence, or anything like that.

Call me silly or naive, but there is nothing I can say that will make you understand what I feel, what I know, and what I believe and why I believe it. Likewise, you can argue until you are blue in the face and it won't make me believe otherwise.

[skunk]

Ah, but there is a slight difference between saying that you are born of your father and not your father than saying you are born of God. A human that is born of a human is human. A being that is born of God is a god. God is not a title, He is a being. Therefore, any offspring that come from Him will be like Him--a god. I don't believe that God the Father and God the Son are the same being. They are two separate personages. When you read the Bible from that standpoint then a lot of what Jesus says about Him and His Father makes more sense. Yes, He says that He and His Father are one, and that's true. They are one in purpose. They have the same will. It's kind of like the same way you see a husband and wife being one or a family being one--they are one unit.Not so much a Holy Trinity as a Holy Ménage à Trois, then?

[Josh]

Ah, but there is a slight difference between saying that you are born of your father and not your father than saying you are born of God. A human that is born of a human is human. A being that is born of God is a god. God is not a title, He is a being. Therefore, any offspring that come from Him will be like Him--a god.
Why do you believe this? Jesus never said someone born from God is also God. Infact, no one in the Bible says "he that is born from God, is God."

That is man's (twisted) intrepetation of something.

Who told you that being born of God makes one God himself?

No where in the Bible does it say that, or even elude to it - so why apply that meaning if it does not exist?

You cannot just say "Jesus is the son of God, because anyone born from God is God" without reason to say that. The Bible doesn't say that is true - so why claim it is?


Also, does everything have to be explicitly outlined in order for you to believe it? One thing to take into consideration is that there has been a lot of meaning lost in the various translations of the Bible.

No, I don't. But, when I read something, I am not going to add in my own interpreations (or that from any other man) to make up a false meaning for what I've just read.

I read what is written, and understand it as it was written - not as someone else, who is only interpreting it based on their own beliefs, *thinks* I should.

I read the words that are there, not those that are not.


Call me silly or naive, but there is nothing I can say that will make you understand what I feel, what I know, and what I believe and why I believe it. Likewise, you can argue until you are blue in the face and it won't make me believe otherwise.
I don't want to argue - I agree that would be pointless. Men believe what they will, and any attempt to change that will fail (from either standing point).

I just merely ask, why, when the words are written plain as day, give them meaning and interpretations that they do not carry?

Jesus said that he was "of" God, and that what he is of, we are as well. Jesus did not preach that he was devine, that he was God, and that he was The Creator incrarnated.

Jesus preached that he, like everyone else, was of the same Father. We were all created the same, for the same reason, and that the awareness and enlightenment of that is what we should devote our lives to seek.

Jesus did not want people to worship him, none of his followers did, they all worshiped God together, as people absolutely equal in every way.

The Father also created us - therefore, we too are of the Father. Yet we are not devine, nor God himself.

The preachings of Jesus were far more about individual enlightenment than they were about eternal life and congregations; he never claimed to be God, there's absolutely no indication in the Bible that he was God (Jesus said time and time again exactly the opposite), and what Christians believe today would probably leave Jesus in a very confused state.

Had Jesus been God incarnate, he would have explicitly said so - yet he never once even hinted at it. If Jesus were God incarnate, he would've had people to worship him. He never did.

All these devine attributes of Jesus were never claimed by him, and infact we not even given until LONG after Jesus died, and man began manipulating the words of the Bible to suit his own needs at the time.

[Sedulous]

my long time employee and good friend is a jehovah witness...think right wing christian and then double it

he tells me that he, as a minister/brother/saint/fill in the blank of his denomination, is not allowed to have a beard...it's against church policy in the united states (but oddly enough, not in ireland for his denomination)

Jehovah's Witnesses at least don't demand anything of the government. In fact, they are forbidden from voting or lobbying. So at least in that way, at least they aren't like the right-wing nut jobs on FOX that force their beliefs on everyone else.

I actually have asked about the beard thing before. I guess the idea is that it has to be something "mainstream" enough so that it isn't somehow offensive to the local population. Remember, they recruit locally. In the U.S. beards for a period of time were associated with hippies and other dissidents. Now beards are allowed so long as they are short and well kept.

[floriflee]

Not so much a Holy Trinity as a Holy Ménage à Trois, then?

Still a trinity in the sense that there are three personages... the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And a unit in that their purpose is to fulfill the Atonement so that man may be redeemed.

[floriflee]

I don't want to argue - I agree that would be pointless. Men believe what they will, and any attempt to change that will fail (from either standing point).


There is enough ambiguity in the Bible such that the Bible alone will not suffice to prove arguments like this. If it were enough, people wouldn't be having these arguments today. There is something to be said for reading something and not really understanding what it is saying. More likely to happen when something's been translated. After taking an Old Testament class and learning from a teacher that has studied Hebrew and the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament while getting her Ph.D. in Theology, I understand that to be more true than ever. There are a lot of passages in the Hebrew text that can be interpreted in many different ways, and it is up to the translator to decide which one to use--very tricky. And I realize that that point could be argued against both of us. Both of us will think that our interpretation is correct based on our knowledge of the words that were used for the translation.

However, one thing to note before I stop my side of this discussion is that a lot of the writings within the Bible (both Old and New Testament) are done using symbols. There is a lot of symbolism in the things that happened to the Israelites travelling in the wilderness that outlined the coming, life and teachings of Christ. In fact, aside from the exlicitly outlined Ten Commandments, I'd venture to say that most of the divine principles that came from God in the Old Testament were taught through symbols and rituals (the book of Isaiah, for one, is filled with symbolism). A few examples of God's symbolic teaching of the coming and life of Christ: manna = "Bread of Life", water coming out of the rock="Living Water", serpent on Moses' staff="look to me and live", etc, etc, etc. So many things that happened in the Old Testament that symbolized the life and teachings of Christ. There were so many things already given to the people to tell of His coming that He didn't need to say it explicitly. These are things that the Jewish people should have already recognized if they were really watching. So, with that being said, you can't really just read the Bible and take it at face value. You have to also understand the symbolism used in the writings to better understand what is really being said.

Ask any decent scholar of the Bible, and they will tell you there is a lot of symbolic language and poetry within it. Therefore, that is why there are arguments such as this. It's the same as if you were to read a poem, take the literal meaning for everything, and not understand what is really being said. Jesus taught in parables, which are symbolic--poetic almost--meant to be interpreted by those who really sought to understand what He was saying. That is part of the reason why I don't think He would come out and explicitly say who He really was to everyone. Likewise, it is up to the reader, through his/her study and efforts, to determine what is literal and what is symbolic adn what it all means.

So, with that, I will continue to believe that Jesus did not have to come out and say "Here I am world! I am God!" Rather, I will continue to believe He wanted people to find out for themselves through what He did and through what others said, and through what was revealed of His coming. It would cause them to struggle a bit with it, make them work harder to find out for themselves, and then, in the end, be stronger for it.

You can believe the Bible as you see it.

Shall we call it a draw?

[jefhatfield]

That's wonderful that you and your wife have taken steps to do missionary work. Perhaps there's the possibility of doing some work inner city where you live now.

i have felt a calling to use the skills i gained in college...human relations and negotiation/mediation...so who knows?

[jefhatfield]

Jehovah's Witnesses at least don't demand anything of the government. In fact, they are forbidden from voting or lobbying. So at least in that way, at least they aren't like the right-wing nut jobs on FOX that force their beliefs on everyone else.

I actually have asked about the beard thing before. I guess the idea is that it has to be something "mainstream" enough so that it isn't somehow offensive to the local population. Remember, they recruit locally. In the U.S. beards for a period of time were associated with hippies and other dissidents. Now beards are allowed so long as they are short and well kept.

i see your point and it's a very socially conservative point of view, and that's ok since there are all points of view, free to believe and preach as they wish, in the usa and most modern countries

and since social conservatism is now the center of the republican party, i see a very uncomfortable mix of christianity and the republicans in a way that both offends the bible and the constitution

i would also not like to see christianity linked with extremely left wing fiscal or social views, either

take christianity for what it is...some values correspond with what republicans currently say and some values correspond with what democrats currently say, but neither party is the divine voice of god in america

i vote democrat but i believe a child should be allowed to pray to god, or whoever, in public school and i believe abortion is wrong...now i can see where people could derive different meanings from the bible which explains why some christians are pro choice and they consider prayer in school violating separation of church and state...but i believe strongly in separation of church and state but sending a child home from praying to god is infringing on his civil rights...and we are a nation built on individual rights first

oh, and most countries who practice common law and roman civil law have come to embrace individual rights, too

[Sedulous]

i see your point and it's a very socially conservative point of view, and that's ok since there are all points of view, free to believe and preach as they wish, in the usa and most modern countries

and since social conservatism is now the center of the republican party, i see a very uncomfortable mix of christianity and the republicans in a way that both offends the bible and the constitution

i would also not like to see christianity linked with extremely left wing fiscal or social views, either

take christianity for what it is...some values correspond with what republicans currently say and some values correspond with what democrats currently say, but neither party is the divine voice of god in america

i vote democrat but i believe a child should be allowed to pray to god, or whoever, in public school and i believe abortion is wrong...now i can see where people could derive different meanings from the bible which explains why some christians are pro choice and they consider prayer in school violating separation of church and state...but i believe strongly in separation of church and state but sending a child home from praying to god is infringing on his civil rights...and we are a nation built on individual rights first

oh, and most countries who practice common law and roman civil law have come to embrace individual rights, too

Well, I'd like to see an end of active involvement of religion in the operation of the government. Once you open the door to one, you must allow all. Why should the Town Hall have a nativity scene? Why should there be prayer in school? Town Hall is not there as a forum for religion. Schools are for education, and there is much to learn without adding prayer. Religion has its place, be it at home, in a place of worship, or "on your own time" but it has no reason to be in government.

[pdham]

This is copied from the university of columbia website. This is an often cited example of Jesus refering to himslef as God. There are also plenty of other illusions

"In John 8:58 Jesus says, "before Abraham was, I Am[1]." Many people make the logical assumption that this is a reference to Exodus 3:14 where God reveals his name to be "I Am" (when he speaks it), or "You Are" (or Yahweh when his people say it). While there appears to be some basic similarity in meaning, the wording of the Greek underlying these verses looks quite different and so it seems unlikely that John intended for us to see a connection between these two verses.[2]

Was "I Am" a way of referring to God? We know that in Judaism in the time of Jesus the Jews had become very conscious of the sacredness of the Divine Name and were afraid to say it publically or even privately (Matt 7:6). For this reason it became common to say "Lord" instead. However, there were other methods used for referring to God besides this ("Power" Matt 26:64, "Heaven" is common in 2 Macc [3]).

Despite the failure of the connection between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14, it can still be shown that God was known as the "I am" to the Jews, and that they sometimes used this as a way of referring to him. In fact, Psalm 90:2 is almost an exact parallel of John 8:58 - except that mountains are mentioned instead of Abraham, and the words used "You Are" are used instead of "I Am." (Note that only the Greek (LXX) version and not the Hebrew should be used for this comparison. The Hebrew says "You are God" not just "You Are.")

That Jesus' words were a forceful claim to Divinity is immediately apparent - the crowd attempts to stone him. This is something that they would not do if they merely thought he was crazy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The original Greek of the Bible, written in a language called "Koine," was written in unctuals. In other words, the words were written using only capitols with no spaces and no punctuation. Because of this, my capitalization merely reflects my understanding that "I Am" is a name.

[2] The Bible was translated into Greek in the third century BC by a group of 70 Hebrew scholars. For this reason it is called the LXX. It was the Greek equivalent of the modern King James in many respects, by this I mean it was the standard Greek Bible. In fact, it is the Bible that is quoted by New Testament writers when they quote the Bible.

[3] Even if you do not accept 2 Maccabees as Scripture, you must admit that it can provide evidence for the point I am making, that is that the "Heaven" was used as a synonym for God. This may be compared to our modern expression, "Heaven knows."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/iam.htm

Paul

[floriflee]

This is copied from the university of columbia website. This is an often cited example of Jesus refering to himslef as God. There are also plenty of other illusions

"In John 8:58 Jesus says, "before Abraham was, I Am[1]." Many people make the logical assumption that this is a reference to Exodus 3:14 where God reveals his name to be "I Am" (when he speaks it), or "You Are" (or Yahweh when his people say it). While there appears to be some basic similarity in meaning, the wording of the Greek underlying these verses looks quite different and so it seems unlikely that John intended for us to see a connection between these two verses.[2]

Was "I Am" a way of referring to God? We know that in Judaism in the time of Jesus the Jews had become very conscious of the sacredness of the Divine Name and were afraid to say it publically or even privately (Matt 7:6). For this reason it became common to say "Lord" instead. However, there were other methods used for referring to God besides this ("Power" Matt 26:64, "Heaven" is common in 2 Macc [3]).

Despite the failure of the connection between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14, it can still be shown that God was known as the "I am" to the Jews, and that they sometimes used this as a way of referring to him. In fact, Psalm 90:2 is almost an exact parallel of John 8:58 - except that mountains are mentioned instead of Abraham, and the words used "You Are" are used instead of "I Am." (Note that only the Greek (LXX) version and not the Hebrew should be used for this comparison. The Hebrew says "You are God" not just "You Are.")

That Jesus' words were a forceful claim to Divinity is immediately apparent - the crowd attempts to stone him. This is something that they would not do if they merely thought he was crazy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The original Greek of the Bible, written in a language called "Koine," was written in unctuals. In other words, the words were written using only capitols with no spaces and no punctuation. Because of this, my capitalization merely reflects my understanding that "I Am" is a name.

[2] The Bible was translated into Greek in the third century BC by a group of 70 Hebrew scholars. For this reason it is called the LXX. It was the Greek equivalent of the modern King James in many respects, by this I mean it was the standard Greek Bible. In fact, it is the Bible that is quoted by New Testament writers when they quote the Bible.

[3] Even if you do not accept 2 Maccabees as Scripture, you must admit that it can provide evidence for the point I am making, that is that the "Heaven" was used as a synonym for God. This may be compared to our modern expression, "Heaven knows."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/iam.htm

Paul

You make some very good points. I remember learning about "I Am" and "Yahweh" a long time ago, but had forgotten about that (and didn't think of the story of Jesus' near stoning, which would've reminded me). I think what it comes down to is that you can't just read the Bible and interpret the words as they are interpretted today, but rather, they must also be put into historical context to get a better understanding of what is actually being said. In addition to the chiasmus poetry and the symbolism apparent all throughout the Bible, a reader must also recognize the history and context of the time. All of these factors can bring an entirely different meaning to the passages within the Old and New Testaments.