Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

renie · 05-08-09 10:38 pm

Elaine....if only the Christian church would just admit that Paul was often obtuse. We could relax and enjoy the ride with God. Instead, we are told that nothing is ever good enough. The road is long and complicated. We Christians have our own bed of nails. We lie on it and hope God will accept us but our church tells us we must do more. So we begin to put heavier and heavier rocks on our chest to get us closer to God. My pastor tells me to spend time with God each day. How much time? Morning or evening or both? I must do good works. I must pay my tithe. I must watch my diet, and on and on. So, it's never enough. We are told there is nothing we can do to earn salvation, but then we are told to go out and earn it. When is enough enough? renie

don · 05-09-09 2:54 am

When is enough enough? The issue is contentment. How can we be content in our relationship with God and yet seriously seek for personal character development? For me, my sense of being at ease with God was hard won. Certain Bible passages lead the way:<blockquote><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205:11-13;&version=31;" target="_blank">1 John 5:11-13</a>, If you have Jesus, you have life. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201;&version=31;" target="_blank">1 John 1:9</a>, If I confess my sins, He is faithful and just to forgive me my sins and to cleanse me of all unrighteousness. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203;&version=31;" target="_blank">1 John 3:1-3</a>, We are son (and daughters) of God and we will be like Him by the time He returns. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil%201;&version=31;" target="_blank">Philippians 1:6</a>, He will finish what He has started in us. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph%202&version=31" target="_blank">Ephesians 2:8-10</a>, It is by Grace I have been saved, through faith. Not by me. It is a gift. Not of works so I cannot boast. This is all so that I can do good works.</blockquote>When these and similar assurances were repeatedly applied to my striving-weary soul, I found the peace so much needed to walk with God. .

don · 05-09-09 2:59 am

The problem seems to be that Adventists have not developed a coherent and logical basis for adopting some OT rules, while eliminating others. This is why I like Gane's <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=5&post=4832#POST4832" target="_blank">rule of thumb</a>. Even though he does not adequately address <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2015;&version=31;" target="_blank">Acts 15</a>'s sweeping changes, He does provide a sensible approach to all the good provisions found in the Torah. .

john8verse32 · 05-09-09 8:04 am

God infused into the Jewish system many of His values and thought processes. These divine principles remain relevant. so has God given up enjoying the smell of a burnt sacrifice like it says he did back in those daze? does He still expect that in order to spread his "message" over our neighbors, that we should kill all the men and little boys, but save the virgins to use as the Old Test claims He did back in those daze? does He still use pestilence to punish those who don't worship him the right way? does He still require that Jews celebrate the Passover in honor of His mass murder of Egyptian kids.... or is that something which might be minimized in the future in order to convert them from their belief in another god, Allah? iow, has God changed from the OT to today? or is it just the people and THEIR IDEAS who read about Him who have changed?

don · 05-09-09 10:57 am

iow, has God changed from the OT to today? or is it just the people and THEIR IDEAS who read about Him who have changed? I BELIEVE the Bible when it says that God's basic ways do not change. I could not believe in a capricious God. So, this leaves me with a few possible viewpoints: 1) The people couched their theology in their cultural terms and that God worked with them to convey His will. Why He would do it this way, I don't know. But, as a believer in Him, I consider this a very possible solution. 2) That all the problematic (from our modern viewpoint) behavior of God can be explained in light of eternity and justice. I don't like this as a complete explanation, but it moves me along to one. 3) More later. .

john8verse32 · 05-09-09 9:46 pm

I BELIEVE the Bible when it says that God's basic ways do not change....Don does the Bible really indicate that? God doesn't change? hereis the Old Test story: GE 4:15, DT 32:19-27, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god. EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire. EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god. LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing. NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, ZP 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce. 2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it." EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him." Did God change by the time the New Test was written? check out 2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 where it is claimed that God is love. and GA 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Olt Test: EX 21:23-25, LE 24:20, DT 19:21 A life for a life, an eye for an eye, etc. New Test: MT 5:38-44, LK 6:27-29 Turn the other cheek. Love your enemies. Old Test: GE 11:7-9 God sows discord. PR 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord. GE 11:9 At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world. New Test: 1CO 14:33 Paul says that God is not the author of confusion Old Test claims that god required the sacrifice (killing and burning) of innocent animals GE 15:9, EX 20:24, 29:10-42, LE 1:1-7:38, NU 28:1-29:40, God details sacrificial offerings. but thru the prophet Jeremiah, God seems to indicate that He did no such thing!!! JE 7:21-22 21The LORD told me to say to the people of Judah: I am the LORD All-Powerful, the God of Israel, but I won't accept sacrifices from you. So don't even bother bringing them to me. You might as well just cook the meat for yourselves. 22At the time I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I didn't command them to offer sacrifices to me. 23Instead, I told them, "If you listen to me and do what I tell you, I will be your God, you will be my people, and all will go well for you." 24But your ancestors refused to listen. They were stubborn, and whenever I wanted them to go one way, they always went the other. 25Ever since your ancestors left Egypt, I have been sending my servants the prophets to speak for me. 26But you have ignored me and become even more stubborn and sinful than your ancestors ever were! even within the OT it gets confusing: EX 20:15, 17, LE 19:13 God prohibits stealing, defrauding, or robbing a neighbor. EX 23:7 God prohibits the killing of the innocent. NU 31:17-18, DT 7:2, JS 6:21-27, 7:19-26, 8:22-25, 10:20, 40, 11:8-15, 20, JG 11:30-39, 21:10- but in 1SA 15:3 God orders or approves the complete extermination of groups of people which include innocent women and/or children. and of course, there is that "steal the silverware command....in EX 3:20-22, DT 20:13-17 where God instructs the Israelites to despoil the Egyptians, to plunder their enemies. and then the confusion increases as various OT and NT texts disagree on God's nature... whether changing ornot.... EX 34:6, DT 7:9-10, TS 1:2 God is faithful and truthful. He does not lie. but NU 14:30 God breaks his promise. 1KI 22:21-23 God condones a spirit of deception. 2TH 2:11-12 God deludes people, making them believe what is false, so as to be able to condemn them. and does God intend to be there for us? yes: PS 145:18 God is near to all who call upon him in truth. PS 46:1 God is a refuge, a strength, a very present help. but NO!!! PS 22:1-2 God sometimes forsakes his children. He does not answer. PS 10:1 God cannot be found in time of need. He is "far off." more confusion? PS 30:5, JE 3:12, MI 7:18 God's anger does not last forever. JE 17:4, MT 25:46 It does last forever. (He has provided for eternal punishment.) so, Don...do how do you explain your statement listed above? given the apparent confusion in texts which purport to educate us about God and His "basic ways...which do (not)change"

don · 05-10-09 12:48 am

so, Don...do how do you explain your statement listed above? My statement: I BELIEVE the Bible when it says that God's basic ways do not change. I could not believe in a capricious God. So, this leaves me with a few possible viewpoints: The people couched their theology in their cultural terms and that God worked with them to convey His will. Why He would do it this way, I don't know. But, as a believer in Him, I consider this a very possible solution. This is my stated bias, or theory of God. I appreciate you showing me <a href="http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2004/11/biblical-inconsistencies.html" target="_blank">the list</a>. Since I will not tolerate my believing in a capricious God, I am bound to try to find an explanation to these and other difficulties. Some people make a distinction between the "Classical" view of God, i.e. systematic theology and the Biblical account of God. The Biblical account is couched in time-limited cultural words; the classical view is usually defined in contemporary words. So, the believer takes the Biblical accounts and "works" them into his personal view of God. As believers share their differences and their Biblical reasons for holding their views, the goal is to seek to be as Biblically consistent as possible. Having said this, all believers seek to explain difficulties. For me, this is better than rejecting the Biblical account of God in total. I have this notion that all believers seek to explain difficulties. I have actually posed observations to my friends and have observed this process of explaining with interest. We all do it. Thus, I believe that God expects us to try to make sense of the accounts based on underlying principles such as "God is Love". John, you seem to present these concerns not as a believer seeking for answers but as a person who has rejected already any possibility of a viable explanation. I am not convinced that my answers will help you. I do like <a href="http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2004/11/biblical-inconsistencies.html" target="_blank">the list</a> you have found though and will keep it on file to study and challenge myself and my students to think through. Usually, these second hand lists are not so difficult to work through. I have looked over a few on this one and am convinced that most of them can be appropriately explained. In the process of seeking for explanations, one's view of God develops. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> . (Message edited by Don on May 10, 2009)

bob_2 · 05-10-09 2:33 am

I still think this question is easily solved by asking those pushing to shred the Bible, what alternate way do they see God communicating His way to salvation. There is reference to a natural conscience, but where the Gospel is presented one must grow with the new enlightenment. OOPSY, I may have just used a word the Atheists like to claim, claim that their brand of intellectualism brought "enlightment" to our culture and society. THINK AGAIN, FRIENDS!!!

john8verse32 · 05-10-09 9:33 am

God expects us to try to make sense of the accounts based on underlying principles such as "God is Love". so why does His authorized biography seem to represent Him as the <a href="http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/gods-uncounted-and-uncountable.html" target="_blank">...biggest mass murderer in history?...</a> with the only possible two who could have even approached this efficiency being Stalin and Hitler. John, you seem to present these concerns not as a believer seeking for answers but as a person who has rejected already any possibility of a viable explanation. I used to believe it all, but that was based on accepting without question what people told me to believe, and not on direct study of the evidence. I am not convinced that my answers will help you. I keep hoping somebody....and I expect that you are as lettered, interested, and intelligent as most...will be able to come up with explanations as to why there exist so many questions which a more cogent, consistant and confirmable inspiration of God's biography might have been able to avoid. I'm still open to new and assuring explanations based on facts and evidence, but each time I hope there is a breakthrough, it seems that the old ideas are rarely supported. (Message edited by john8verse32 on May 10, 2009)

bob_2 · 05-10-09 10:11 am

God is wrathful with wicked people. Can I help you with that. Not if you believe your ways are better than His in dealing with sin, and purging His creation when it becomes polluted and evil. You skip the context and want modern science to appear out of the pens and mouths of individuals like Moses. Won't happen. If it did you should then wonder about the Bible, I know I would, that someone had doctored it in the back rooms, by Friar Tuck. Genocide, abuse and neglect, are overused words in today's Emergent Church. It is a form of shaking one's fist at God and putting your intellect above all others, including God, your creator.

don · 05-10-09 11:51 am

seem to represent Him Don't you mean, "seem to portray Him" as...? One of the rules that historians use is to try to imagine the times, the context, in which a work was written. Was the writer attempting to portray God as immoral? Would the people initially receiving the message think of God as immoral upon hearing it? Of course, we don't know for sure, but its seems obvious to me that the original writers and the original readers/hearers would not have the trouble that we have with such reports. Why? Are our moral sensibilities better today? I am considering starting a thread to examine some of the items on the list, but only because you have indicated you are still open to a positive examination of the concerns. .

john8verse32 · 05-10-09 12:29 pm

Was the writer attempting to portray God as immoral? probably more like... "my God is stronger than your god".... as in Moses snakes ate the Egyptian magicians snakes!! and "This land is ours, God gave it here to me"... Cecille b DeMille ... so get out, or He will (help us) kill you, but save the virgins to use. Later, once they "had" their land, but were under the rule of the Romans during the times of Jesus, His New Test thinking became more MLK, more Gandhi... more Rosa Parks....more Buddhist... ..except for those episodes where He allegedly rode two donkeys at the same time into Jerusalem in order to appear to fulfill a prophecy and taunt the authorities, and the time He upset the bancs (money changer "tables") and the Sanhedrin.... all of which branded Him a rabble rouser, instead of a gentle statesman offering Obama like change for the downtrodden. Are our moral sensibilities better today? lets see... our loving heavenly father allegedly (if you literally believe His self claimed biographers)tried to massacre almost all of humanity, His kids, including innocent animals, in a flood.... saying He was "sorry He had made them" a while ago a lady tried to kill her kids by strapping them into their seat belts, then pushing the car into the lake...drowing them. didn't our society --probably 12 out of 12 votes--call her deranged? and put her to graze away on the funny farm? hopefully forever? not suggesting that God should be tried and punished, but maybe we should reconsider the literalness of the stories told about Him by His self absorbed, selfish, misogynist, genocidal, scientifically ignorant, superstitious self elected self promoting biographers?

don · 05-10-09 3:40 pm

There is a concept I have recently begun to study: historical empathy. This is contrasted with emotive empathy. Historical empathy tries to understand the people of a different era. Emotive empathy relates to people of that different era as though they were just like us. Your wrote: we should reconsider the literalness of the stories told about Him by His self absorbed, selfish, misogynist, genocidal, scientifically ignorant, superstitious self elected self promoting biographers? I submit that you write as one possibly who exercises emotive empathy (though I tend to doubt even this) but historical empathy seems lacking. Maybe we can explore the features of historical empathy further. .

renie · 05-10-09 3:45 pm

There is another possible explanation for the terrible God of the Old Testament. Those old testament people blamed and credited God with everything that happened. Satan/the devil is mentioned only two times in the Old Testiment. EVERYTHING is attributed to God. All the disgusting, unjust things they did, they backed up with a command from God. This allowed them to do what they did. This isn't just my idea. I know of three pastors who believe this was the case. One of them was run out of my church because of his understanding on this issue. His agenda was to try to portray a loving God. renie

don · 05-10-09 4:11 pm

More on Historical Empathy vs Emotive Empather This is adapted from <a href="http://www.csse.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE29-4/CJE-4-BryantClark.pdf" target="_blank">HISTORICAL EMPATHY AND CANADA: A PEOPLE'S HISTORY.</a><blockquote>Emotive Empathy<ul><li>Relies on limited sources of evidence <LI>Accepts evidence at face value <LI>Identifies with historical agents. <LI>Seeks to share their feelings, perspectives, values <LI>Seeks to understand the past through a contemporary lens</li></ul>Historical Empathy<ul><li>Primarily cognitive domain <LI>Uses multiple sources of evidence <LI>Probes for context (motives of historical agents and their access to knowledge) <LI>Includes those with whom we cannot identify, as well as those with whom we can <LI>Recognizes that the passage of time limits the ability to understand historical agentsf actions because our access to information about the influences on those actions diminishes over time.</li></ul>Tenacious research by Rosalyn Ashby and Peter Lee (1987, 2001) has identified several typical counter-historical habits of mind:<ul><li>students understand through shared meaning by equating their own experiences with those of the past; <LI>students tend to view historical people as ignorant or mentally defective in comparison to contemporary people; <LI>students view change over time as progressive, improving on the way things were in the past; <LI>students explain behavior through stereotype or generalization; <LI>students cannot relate circumstances and decisions to beliefs, values, or conditions other than their own when they are able to see the past as unique. Given these findings, it is possible that an emotively driven narrative could actually exacerbate students of dubious historical orientation. This is an area for further research. </li></ul></blockquote>You wrote: we should reconsider the literalness of the stories told about Him by His self absorbed, selfish, misogynist, genocidal, scientifically ignorant, superstitious self elected self promoting biographers? This statement seems to provide an effective example of "counter-historical habits of mind." .

don · 05-10-09 4:17 pm

This isn't just my idea. I know of three pastors who believe this was the case. One of them was run out of my church because of his understanding on this issue. His agenda was to try to portray a loving God. We have a retired Church leader (former Union President) living in our area; a friend of mine. When I was involved in creating Sabbath School programs, I invited him to share his thinking on the topic we are addressing. He often attends the same small round-table Sabbath School that I do. He has preached on this topic twice at our church. He is respectful, more conservative than I am, and eloquent in style and kindly in demeanor. The topic challenges the best of us. .

bob_2 · 05-11-09 12:59 am

Don, I think you are on to something the Emerging Church can use to answer the apparent contradiction they are fussing about. When I saw under "historical empathy" : Probes for context (motives of historical agents and their access to knowledge) ...I could identify right away. I think that is why John Alfke has the problem and list after list that he does of apparent contradictions, context is ignored. The Emerging or Emergent Church wants the ancients to be "one of the boys", postmodernist, like us, eh???? You'll never see what they were trying to say with that desire.

bob_2 · 05-11-09 1:01 am

Renie, just remember our friends at HS.com, God is ONLY love. He is a little more complex than that. He has to be complex to be just, eh??? (Message edited by Bob_2 on May 11, 2009)

elaine · 05-11-09 6:24 pm

This is why I like Gane's rule of thumb." Personally, I haven't found anyone who has such an ideal perspective that I would defer to his (or hers). I am only responsible to use my own reasoning powers, feeble as they may be, in making the most important decisions. When they don't "compute" I do not adopt or buy them. Too many people have allowed others to make their decisions, or have not asked the right questions and have been burned financially, religiously, and otherwise. As long as my mind is functioning and others have respected it, I will continue to be guided by what seems to be right, and when it doesn't or it is too convoluted and difficult to understand, it usually is purposefully ambigiuous. Renie's position makes perfect sense: reasonable and unassailable: Those old testament people blamed and credited God with everything that happened. Satan/the devil is mentioned only two times in the Old Testiment. EVERYTHING is attributed to God. All the disgusting, unjust things they did, they backed up with a command from God. This allowed them to do what they did." And even Satan is a later addition to the Bible, adopted from the Persians when the Jews were in captivity there. This is undeniably how we should read the Bible: It is THEIR story, and just like their contemporaries, they attributed all the events, both good and bad, to their god(s). To believe it as all true, literal, and factual, is to be ignorant of ancient literature. It is not comparable to our modern understanding of history at all. They were not writing history, but attempting to explain events which they could explain in no other way than blaming or thanking their god. If we all had that perspective of the Bible, there would be far less controversy and we could then agree on the principles that Christ gave i.e. the Sermon on the Mount, or in Paul's essay on love, and let the NT principles be our final authority; leaving the OT for interesting historical characters.

elaine · 05-11-09 6:31 pm

Grandma's brag: Sat. afternoon, I enjoyed my little 9-year old granddaughter in the Sacramento Youth Symphony program. One of the shorter pieces: "Simple Gifts" was most beautifully played. Also, Dvorak's "New World Symphony."

renie · 05-11-09 9:08 pm

Oh Elaine, that is SOOOOO neat. Aren't they wonderful when they are nine years old? renie

elaine · 05-11-09 10:24 pm

Nuthin' like it! She's coming to spend a week with me in June and we both are looking forward to it.

bob_2 · 05-11-09 10:42 pm

Renie, I'll take a four year old over a nine year old for cutest, any day. If I could have frozen my two girls at four for a couple more year each..... (Message edited by Bob_2 on May 11, 2009)

elaine · 05-12-09 2:33 pm

Maybe even at two? Each stage has its own beauty (excepting of course the teen years <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/wink.gif" border=0>).

renie · 05-12-09 9:20 pm

Yeh, Bob. Four-year-olds are really awesome. When my grandson was four, we played hours putting legos together. My grandkidlets call me Granny Legos. Elaine, do you know how to tell when a teen-ager is lying? When his mouth is moving. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/lol.gif" border=0> renie

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#51 05-08-09 10:38 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#52 05-09-09 2:54 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#53 05-09-09 2:59 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#54 05-09-09 8:04 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#55 05-09-09 10:57 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#56 05-09-09 9:46 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#57 05-10-09 12:48 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#58 05-10-09 2:33 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#59 05-10-09 9:33 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#60 05-10-09 10:11 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#61 05-10-09 11:51 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#62 05-10-09 12:29 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#63 05-10-09 3:40 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#64 05-10-09 3:45 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#65 05-10-09 4:11 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#66 05-10-09 4:17 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#67 05-11-09 12:59 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#68 05-11-09 1:01 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#69 05-11-09 6:24 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#70 05-11-09 6:31 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#71 05-11-09 9:08 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#72 05-11-09 10:24 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#73 05-11-09 10:42 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#74 05-12-09 2:33 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#75 05-12-09 9:20 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

Board footer