Sacred Scriptures

[Jane_the_Bane]

What evidence do the liberal theologians have on their side.

Simply put: the texts themselves. I could go into acribic detail if you like, being employed in the field of philology, but to keep matters simple, let me tell you that a trained eye can spot different styles and layers of text the way an art historian can analyze brush strokes and textures. For example, there is no way that Genesis 1 and 2 were written by the same person: they clearly started out as two separate creation myths, and were cobbled together later on.

So you are saying viewpoints which have expounded on over the last couple of hundred years are more valid than all of those supported for some 2 thousand years (approximately).

Most likely not all of them. But yes, in general the ancients were pretty much ignorant with regards to most scientific findings that have supplied us with better insight into many matters during the last couple of hundred years.

The ancients didn't know about germs, or gravity, or heliocentrism. They thought diseases were caused by bad smells, or an imbalance of "humours". They thought of lightning and earthquakes as supernatural phenomena, not natural occurrences. They had no idea that the stars were actually remote suns. And (last but not least) they knew virtually nothing about how to analyze a text or how languages develop over time.

Isn't it really the liberal viewpoint is easier to believe if you don't like the message Christians have been teaching for thousands of years.

No, likes or dislikes have got nothing to do with it, nor is the Christian message affected by the fact that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch.

 

[smaneck]

Isn't it really the liberal viewpoint is easier to believe if you don't like the message Christians have been teaching for thousands of years.

It was Christians themselves who developed the methods of higher criticism and some of us have gratefully applied some of those methods to the study of our own scriptures.

In any case, who wrote the Torah has little to do with the Christian message.

 

[Deaver]

It was Christians themselves who developed the methods of higher criticism and some of us have gratefully applied some of those methods to the study of our own scriptures.

In any case, who wrote the Torah has little to do with the Christian message.

I agree with your comments, here. The OP asked for someone to give their rational as to why they accepted the Bible and the Christian faith. I gave my viewpoint. I avoided using internal evidence, which many attack as circular logic. I also avoided using the argument of faith or belief.

I am firmly convinced that those opposed to the Christian message will attack any evidence presented. I am also aware that Christians have varying viewpoints of the evidence that is available.

 

[Deaver]

Simply put: the texts themselves. I could go into acribic detail if you like, being employed in the field of philology, but to keep matters simple, let me tell you that a trained eye can spot different styles and layers of text the way an art historian can analyze brush strokes and textures. For example, there is no way that Genesis 1 and 2 were written by the same person: they clearly started out as two separate creation myths, and were cobbled together later on.


Most likely not all of them. But yes, in general the ancients were pretty much ignorant with regards to most scientific findings that have supplied us with better insight into many matters during the last couple of hundred years.

The ancients didn't know about germs, or gravity, or heliocentrism. They thought diseases were caused by bad smells, or an imbalance of "humours". They thought of lightning and earthquakes as supernatural phenomena, not natural occurrences. They had no idea that the stars were actually remote suns. And (last but not least) they knew virtually nothing about how to analyze a text or how languages develop over time.


No, likes or dislikes have got nothing to do with it, nor is the Christian message affected by the fact that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch.

I respect your viewpoints. However, as I am sure that you are aware, many scholars, from varying fields of study, have different conclusions than you do.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1813

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I agree with your comments, here. The OP asked for someone to give their rational as to why they accepted the Bible and the Christian faith. I gave my viewpoint. I avoided using internal evidence, which many attack as circular logic. I also avoided using the argument of faith or belief.

I am firmly convinced that those opposed to the Christian message will attack any evidence presented. I am also aware that Christians have varying viewpoints of the evidence that is available.

Funny you should equivocate pointing out tautologies as an "attack," but ok.
As for "those opposed to the Christian message," I think if you took a step back and looked at the evidence with a critical eye, rather than one of devotion, you would have to agree with leading scholarship regarding the Bible. There is no such thing as "conservative vs. liberal" scholarship; only scholarship. The difference is what one chooses to accept, and usually Christians only choose to accept that which agrees with their bias, ignoring the rest.

 

[Avelina777]

Funny you should equivocate pointing out tautologies as an "attack," but ok.
As for "those opposed to the Christian message," I think if you took a step back and looked at the evidence with a critical eye, rather than one of devotion, you would have to agree with leading scholarship regarding the Bible. There is no such thing as "conservative vs. liberal" scholarship; only scholarship. The difference is what one chooses to accept, and usually Christians only choose to accept that which agrees with their bias, ignoring the rest.

I actually do agree with you frenchy in the Bible there is no liberal vs. conservative. But I just think it is insane to call Jesus Christ a liberal or funny at least. It reminds me of Major League when the guy says are you saying that Jesus Christ cant hear a curve ball. LOL

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I actually do agree with you frenchy in the Bible there is no liberal vs. conservative. But I just think it is insane to call Jesus Christ a liberal or funny at least. It reminds me of Major League when the guy says are you saying that Jesus Christ cant hear a curve ball. LOL

Please highlight where I stated Jesus was liberal.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Please highlight where I stated Jesus was liberal.

You may not have said it, but I think I will. Jesus was very liberal in contrast to the prevailing religious and political conservatism of His time. And even when we take the Gospels and set them against the backdrop of today's political field we still have a Jesus who is quite left-of-center.

I would even argue that one of the chief reasons early Christians got into so much trouble with the Roman establishment was precisely due to their unwillingness to conform to Rome's cultural traditions.

When Christians were brought before magistrates the charges levied against them weren't overtly about their religion, but rather it was their nonconformity with Roman culture and custom, and even worse in Rome's eyes was that they encouraged others to join them in their civil disobedience.

Common charges against Christians included atheism (for rejecting the State gods and encouraging others to reject them as well); for opposing traditional social values, including traditional family values; and for being enemies of the State. Christians were regarded as being a dissenting, treasonous group whose actions were a threat to Roman morality and society. When calamities fell upon the Roman Empire Christians were often blamed, specifically they saw it as the gods punishing Rome for tolerating the Christian presence.

Now take that, and look at a lot that's being said today, and notice if we can find some similarities here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Daniel25]

Most likely not all of them. But yes, in general the ancients were pretty much ignorant with regards to most scientific findings that have supplied us with better insight into many matters during the last couple of hundred years.

The ancients didn't know about germs, or gravity, or heliocentrism. They thought diseases were caused by bad smells, or an imbalance of "humours". They thought of lightning and earthquakes as supernatural phenomena, not natural occurrences. They had no idea that the stars were actually remote suns. And (last but not least) they knew virtually nothing about how to analyze a text or how languages develop over time.

.

Textual analysis is non-experimental. If you wish to call it a science (as in a corpus of knowledge), that's fine, but it isn't of the same species of insight we've seen such dramatic advances in the last 500 years or so.

 

[Daniel25]

Don't get me wrong, I understand why you'd want to conflate your own interests with the space shuttle, high-yield staple crops, or the polio vaccine. But if two agronomists quarrel, come harvest the issue is settled. For textual analysis, the harvest never comes.

 

[Avelina777]

Please highlight where I stated Jesus was liberal.

No you didnt frenchy, previous poster did no worries

 

[Avelina777]

You may not have said it, but I think I will. Jesus was very liberal in contrast to the prevailing religious and political conservatism of His time. And even when we take the Gospels and set them against the backdrop of today's political field we still have a Jesus who is quite left-of-center.

I would even argue that one of the chief reasons early Christians got into so much trouble with the Roman establishment was precisely due to their unwillingness to conform to Rome's cultural traditions.

When Christians were brought before magistrates the charges levied against them weren't overtly about their religion, but rather it was their nonconformity with Roman culture and custom, and even worse in Rome's eyes was that they encouraged others to join them in their civil disobedience.

Common charges against Christians included atheism (for rejecting the State gods and encouraging others to reject them as well); for opposing traditional social values, including traditional family values; and for being enemies of the State. Christians were regarded as being a dissenting, treasonous group whose actions were a threat to Roman morality and society. When calamities fell upon the Roman Empire Christians were often blamed, specifically they saw it as the gods punishing Rome for tolerating the Christian presence.

Now take that, and look at a lot that's being said today, and notice if we can find some similarities here.

-CryptoLutheran

Jesus said never to mix church with state so they were neither!! No matter their actions, people cannot justify things saying they think Jesus was liberal. Just cant. They were not protesting or being "liberal" by going agasint the Roman empire. That was challenging beliefs and speaking out the truth. Liberals and conservatives alike do that.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

No you didnt frenchy, previous poster did no worries

What particularly conservative positions did Jesus promote, though? (Both in the context of his times and compared to current conservative positions)?

ViaCrucis's analysis was spot-on.

 

[Deaver]

What particularly conservative positions did Jesus promote, though? (Both in the context of his times and compared to current conservative positions)?

ViaCrucis's analysis was spot-on.

In hindsight, I wish that I had not used the terms “liberal’ or “conservative” in my post #328. Both conservativism and liberalism are man-made philosophies, both having their respective limitations in regards to biblical truth. We should not allow our perception of Jesus to be skewed by our ideology, attempting to define Him in light of our previously defined viewpoints.

We must also recognize that Jesus was not a political figure, and to attempt to paint Him either “liberal” or “conservative is wrong.

To answer your question, the following from Jesus: Conservative or Liberal? “Copyright 2004 by James and Dave‘s Bible Page. Used by permission” presents some viewpoints that are probably considered conservative, today.

“As we shall see, all of these statements are in total contrast to the Biblical Jesus. In order to understand the world through Jesus' eyes, we must first understand the world view He followed: Jesus was a devout, Torah observant Jew who believed and cherished the Old Testament and its ordinances. Although much so called "modern scholarship" has attempted to divorce Him from this, everything Jesus taught was based on, and consistent with, the 4000 years of Old Testament teaching that paved the way for Him (Matthew 5:17).

“In light of this, Jesus would have wholeheartedly affirmed the Law's decree that homosexuality is indeed a horrendous sin (Leviticus 18:22). In perfect harmony with God's Law, Jesus taught that the only legitimate sexual activity is between a man and a woman within the confines of marriage (Mark 10:6-9). Similarly, He would have echoed the words of the Prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, who said that God formed them in their mothers' wombs (Isaiah 44:2, 24; 49:1-5, Jeremiah 1:5). Compare this to the commandment to "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those who are perishing" (Proverbs 31:8, NLT). In light of this, the notion that Jesus would have advocated abortion is blasphemous.

“Modern society has often painted Jesus as a very "soft," even effeminate persona. It is certainly true that Jesus teaches us to be followers of peace and to turn the other cheek when we are reviled or insulted (Matthew 5:9, 38-39). However, being a peacemaker is not necessarily the same as being a pacifist. Keep in mind that this is the same Jesus who specifically instructed His followers to buy a sword ( Luke 22:36). In one of His parables, He portrays Himself as a landowner who imposes the death penalty on an unjust servant ( Luke 19:12-27). When He encountered a Roman military leader (Matthew 8:5-10), Jesus did not rebuke him in the least for his military occupation. Instead, He commends the soldier for his great faith, a faith so strong and pure that it put all of Israel to shame. In all of these areas, Jesus' teachings would be considered quite conservative by modern terms.”

 

[ViaCrucis]

"When Christ disarmed Peter, He disarmed every soldier." - Tertullian of Carthage.

"If you enroll as one of God’s people, heaven is your country and God your lawgiver. And what are His laws? You shall not kill, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. To him that strikes you on the one cheek, turn to him the other also." - St. Clement of Alexandria

"I am a soldier of Christ. To fight is not permissible for me." - St. Martin of Tours

"God, in prohibiting killing, discountances not only brigandage, which is contrary to human law, but also that which men regard as legal. Thus participation in war will not be legitimate to a just man; his “military service” is justice itself." - Lacantius

"We, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another." - Arnobius

Just sayin'

-CryptoLutheran

 

[smaneck]

This article may be helpful to understand the historic Christian teaching on Theosis. The use of the term "energies" should be understood in light of the Greek word energeia/energos, meaning "activity" or "work". This is God's Divine Activity in which and through which He is present and real, making Himself known (since in His Essence He is unknowable).

-CryptoLutheran

Dear Crypto,

As I understand it, there are basically three kinds of mysticism in Christianity.

1. Penitential Mysticism where the emphasis is on turning away from ones sins and turning towards God. This would have been the kind of mysticism which the early Desert Fathers engaged in. It has its Islamic equivalent in Hasan al-Basri.

2. Bridal Mysticism or High Love Mysticism. This is where the emphasis is an intense love relation with God, or in the Christian context with Jesus as the Bridegroom. This is the kind of mysticism associated with St. Bernard of Clairvaux, esp. in relationship with his commentary on the Song of Solomon. And, of course, St. Francis Assisi cultivated this kind of mysticism. It has its Islamic equivalence in Rabia al-Basri and Rumi. (The latter by the way, is currently the best selling poet in America.)

3. Eucharistic Mysticism. This kind of mysticism seeks to re-enact the miracle of trans-substantiation within ones soul. In other words, the believer is transformed into the blood and body of Christ. This kind of mysticism is associated with Meister Echhart. It strikes me that this form of mysticism is the most problematic in terms of monotheistic theology, however it finds its equivalence in Islam with figures like al-Hallaj and Ibn Arabi.

Am I missing anything here?

warmest, Susan

P.S. I got those three forms of the mysticism from the man I studied church history with, Dr. Heiko Oberman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heiko_Oberman
Of course, the Islamic equivalents are my own.

 

[smaneck]

I actually do agree with you frenchy in the Bible there is no liberal vs. conservative. But I just think it is insane to call Jesus Christ a liberal or funny at least.

I would say Jesus was a radical not a liberal.

 

[smaneck]

Jesus said never to mix church with state so they were neither!!

Where did he say that?

 

[smaneck]

“In light of this, Jesus would have wholeheartedly affirmed the Law's decree that homosexuality is indeed a horrendous sin (Leviticus 18:22). In perfect harmony with God's Law, Jesus taught that the only legitimate sexual activity is between a man and a woman within the confines of marriage (Mark 10:6-9). Similarly, He would have echoed the words of the Prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, who said that God formed them in their mothers' wombs (Isaiah 44:2, 24; 49:1-5, Jeremiah 1:5).

It is awfully skeptical to talk about what Jesus would have done, although I was tempted to do so during the whole health care debate.

 

[smaneck]

"When Christ disarmed Peter, He disarmed every soldier." - Tertullian of Carthage.

"If you enroll as one of God’s people, heaven is your country and God your lawgiver. And what are His laws? You shall not kill, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. To him that strikes you on the one cheek, turn to him the other also." - St. Clement of Alexandria

"I am a soldier of Christ. To fight is not permissible for me." - St. Martin of Tours

"God, in prohibiting killing, discountances not only brigandage, which is contrary to human law, but also that which men regard as legal. Thus participation in war will not be legitimate to a just man; his “military service” is justice itself." - Lacantius

"We, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another." - Arnobius

Just sayin'

-CryptoLutheran

Dear Crypto,

I think it was probably true that the early church fathers were complete pacifists. Of course, that all changes when Constantine has his "under this sign conquer" vision. But I think it was inevitable that once Christians were numerous enough to exercise political power, they would not be able to do so without force of arms. That is why people like St. Augustine developed their Just War theory. What bugs me is the number of evangelicals in the South who the 'right to bear arms' is somehow a Christian ideal.

warmest, Susan