Sacred Scriptures

[smaneck]

This suggests to me that you have never (truly) heard the Gospel. Yes in this sense it is unique from both Islam and Judaism, although the High Priest's functions in the Most Holy Place foreshadow this aspect ...

Are you trying to say that Christianity is ultimately pantheistic with believers becoming one with God's Essence?

Somehow that's not what I read in the Gospels.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Are you trying to say that Christianity is ultimately pantheistic with believers becoming one with God's Essence?

Somehow that's not what I read in the Gospels.

Not pantheistic. Though a case could be made for panentheism. The Doctrine of Theosis is about our union with God, our being conformed to the perfect image and likeness of God and becoming a sharer and communicant in His eternal, perfect and Divine Life which we receive by our union with Christ. As St. Athanasius wrote, "He [God the Son] became man so that man could become God". And similar statements are found throughout the writings of the Fathers and Saints going all the way back to the epistles of Peter in the New Testament.

However, we must be careful here. We are not saying that the created becomes Uncreated, that we become what God is in His uncreated, ineffable and eternal Essence; rather we say "What God is by nature we become by grace." Imagine, if you will, taking a flashlight and sending it hurtling toward the sun, as it gets closer and closer to the sun the light of the sun soon completely overwhelms the light produced by the flashlight. And yet, the flashlight is quite different from the sun.

It is our hope in Christ that we will be so saturated with God's Life and Light that we will be wholly immersed in Him, saturated by Him, filled with Him until overflowing with His light, His love, His kindness, His goodness, and in this we are truly reflecting the Divine Image as God has always purposed for us. We remain creatures, human beings, unique and distinct. That part needs to be clarified too: We don't become less of who and what we are, we become more of who and what we are; not less human but more human.

The transfiguring light of Mt. Tabor in which Christ for a brief moment shone brighter than the sun before three of His disciples is the same light that will shine from us on the Day of Resurrection, the pure Light of God's eternal Divinity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

If this is it's origin why did Jesus quote it so often and use it's principles in His teaching?

Because Enoch was influential in the first century. Just because it was only a couple hundred years old during Jesus' ministry doesn't make it less valuable.

Daniel isn't much older than Enoch--it's Second Temple Period literature too--but it's still a valuable text.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[razeontherock]

If neither their deeds or their word say nothing about their convictions I'm not sure what does. Benjamin Franklin stated he was a deist in his own memoirs, though he nonetheless considered himself a Christian in some sense. His statements of beliefs, however, say nothing about the usual themes regarding salvation, the divinity of Christ, etc.

You're not considering the time period these various statement were written, (nor what he did say about these specifics) As a young man he flitted about a bit, as most young men do. He also stayed quite busy, what with winning a war, founding a Nation and all that. By the time he had settled down from all that he postponed such questions of eternity as saying "I suppose I'll find out soon enough."

The value of even being able to keep such things as "a matter of private conscience" was a BIG DEAL. They made a point of imposing it upon society. And yet Ben displays his spirituality in his autobiography, (p 55 IIRC) and it's a quite serious form of Christianity. Makes the most fevered Bible thumpers today look like wimps.

 

[razeontherock]

I'm saying the Bible itself does not reflect a belief in the equality of men and women.

We're reading a different book.

 

[Drunk On Love]

However, we must be careful here. We are not saying that the created becomes Uncreated, that we become what God is in His uncreated, ineffable and eternal Essence

Seems like an important distinction to make.

 

[razeontherock]

Jude quotes the Book of Enoch, not Jesus.

Apparently you are familiar with the words of neither!

 

[razeontherock]

Are you trying to say that Christianity is ultimately pantheistic with believers becoming one with God's Essence?

Somehow that's not what I read in the Gospels.

I don't see any way of arriving at pantheism from this, no:

"Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one." (John 17:11)

 

[razeontherock]

Because Enoch was influential in the first century. Just because it was only a couple hundred years old during Jesus' ministry doesn't make it less valuable.

You don't think He would've made it a point to explain that it was good, but not written by Enoch? I'm thinking that by quoting it, He was affirming Enoch's authorship ... (or else He would've made the point a different way)

 

[smaneck]

Apparently you are familiar with the words of neither!

Where does Jesus quote the Book of Enoch?

 

[smaneck]

I don't see any way of arriving at pantheism from this, no:

"Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one." (John 17:11)

I'm not saying there is no unity with God in the monotheistic religions. What I'm saying is that this a unity of will, not essence. It is as Paul put it having the mind of Christ.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You don't think He would've made it a point to explain that it was good, but not written by Enoch? I'm thinking that by quoting it, He was affirming Enoch's authorship ... (or else He would've made the point a different way)

I don't think it would be necessary, no. I don't see how referencing Enoch or in the case of St. Jude quoting it affirms Enochian authorship. Of course, I don't know if there even was an historical Enoch in the first place, though that's probably for a different discussion. But, even as the Pentateuch/Torah is often referred to as the "Books of Moses" I don't think that definitively means they were written by the very pen of Moses. There seems to be plenty of evidence that the Pentateuch is a redaction of several literary streams written by different authors (c.f. the Documentary Hypothesis). That doesn't mean it's wrong to refer to these five books as the "Books of Moses", but it does mean that calling them that does not in and of itself prove Mosaic authorship.

The only thing that makes Enoch valuable is that it was regarded as valuable, that it wasn't written by the biblical Enoch is ultimately inconsequential.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm not saying there is no unity with God in the monotheistic religions. What I'm saying is that this a unity of will, not essence. It is as Paul put it having the mind of Christ.

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

 

[smaneck]

You don't think He would've made it a point to explain that it was good, but not written by Enoch? I'm thinking that by quoting it, He was affirming Enoch's authorship ... (or else He would've made the point a different way)

But Jesus never mentions Enoch by name in the first place! Only Jude does.

Anyhow, I'm confused.

I thought you weren't an inerrantist.

 

[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

And how is that different from what I'm saying?

 

[ViaCrucis]

And how is that different from what I'm saying?

You mentioned a "unity of will", Theosis is more than that. It is about becoming a sharer in God's very Deity and Divinity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Drunk On Love]

http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/theosis_how.html

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).

This distinction, especially as taught by Gregory Palamas, is very similar to the teachings of Ibn Arabi as well. A chapter in the book " Paths of the Heart, Sufism and the Christian East" discusses this topic. The article is called " A Unity With Distinctions, Parallels in the Thought of St Gregory Palamas and Ibn Arabi"

There is a chapter that you can read online from the book called " Hesychia An Orthodox Opening to Esoteric Ecumenism." It looks at the Orthodox Hesychast tradition and sheds light on the openings it provides for what the author calls "esoteric ecumenism."

I have a special place in my heart for Christian mysticism

 

[razeontherock]

But Jesus never mentions Enoch by name in the first place! Only Jude does.

Anyhow, I'm confused.

I thought you weren't an inerrantist.

Labels usually run much shallower than the sphere where G-d operates. And I guess it is possible that Jesus merely used expressions that were known to His audience, which had also made it into the book of Enoch. I just don't find any reason to think that, and I do find every reason to see that Jesus affirmed essentially all the high points of Israel's history, letting us know that it was indeed G-d every step of the way

 

[razeontherock]

Where does Jesus quote the Book of Enoch?

Several places. Off the top of my head:

Luke 23:31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?"

Mat 24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together."

When I had finished reading Enoch, I recall there were more references, and they seemed to be the harder sayings of Jesus, which are plentiful. I'm not remembering more right now though, nor can I place where in Enoch these are. As it turns out, the best available online source is the one I read, some 5 years ago. And it is furnished by a poster here! Summa Scriptura, IIRC. I don't know that there's a searchable database, but he might be a good person to help locate specifics ...

 

[Deaver]

Several religions out there rely upon a collection of texts that are considered holy, divinely inspired or even (in some cases) flawless and literal representations of Supreme Reality.

What I'd be interested in is how individual believers sustain this particular belief in their scriptures. What is it based on? Can you examine your holy text of choice the way you'd examine any other text, and yet still arrive at the same conclusion - or do you have to "stack the deck" in its favour by giving it an exalted status to begin with? What exactly is it that convinces you of its validity?

We all know the oft-parodied circular logic of "Book X says it's true, therefore it is true", but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your reasons are much better than that.

So... what are they, exactly?

I can’t answer your question with just a couple of words, so bear with my ramblings.

I accept Christianity because I have taken time to look at as much as I can about the Bible and Christianity and have come to the conclusion that Christianity must be true. Regarding the Bible, it wasn’t put together in secret; but rather it was a very public process open to scrutiny. As a Christian I welcome the most severe scrutiny, because I know the Bible can stand up to it.

Let me list some reasons:

Perhaps the strongest evidence is that the Bible which has been so universally attacked has survived and attained a place of such renown is alone a miracle that testifies to its supernatural origin.

Next consider the unity of the Bible from three aspects – (i) diversity of authors, (ii) details of the wording, and (iii) the doctrine of the writings.

(i) diversity of authors: Who are the authors? Well, forty men from all walks of life including kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, tax collectors, poets, musician, physicians, teachers, statesmen, lawyers and shepherds. Their writings took place over the course of some 1500 years on three continents, and in three different languages. These individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their message would eventually be incorporated into such a Book.
​

Yet, amazingly we see the next two points

(ii) details of the wording; Here I want to quote from the book CHRISTIAN FOUNDATIONS by Dr. Ian Richard Kyle Paisley

“For example, take the word "sweat" as it occurs in the Bible. It is mentioned only three times:
(1) Genesis 3:19-- "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground."

(2) Ezekiel 44:18-- "They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat."

(3) Luke 22:44-- "And being in an agony He prayed more earnestly: and His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."

Notice the complete symbolic and doctrinal harmony and symmetry. In Genesis 3:19 "sweat" is part of the curse of sin. In Ezekiel 44:18, no garments which would cause "sweat" were to be worn by the priests in the service of the sanctuary. This service was holy, hence no symbol of sin was permitted even in the priest's garment. Again, these priests were typical of the sinless One Who alone could be our Great High Priest. In Luke 22:44 He Who was made sin was identified with the curse, and therefore was bathed in the bloody "sweat" of Gethsemane's passion and agony. Think a moment of the fact that Ezekiel wrote about 1000 years after Moses, and Luke about 500 years after Ezekiel. Though there could be absolutely no collusion, yet there is absolutely no collision. In view of this we can assert that no artful conniver could devise such unity. The Power behind such harmony in detail is surely divine. Many such examples of profound unanimity could be given, but this one is sufficient to affirm the unity of the Bible as manifested in the details of its wording.”

​

Now the final point regarding the unity of the Bible:

(iii) the doctrine of the writings:

The Doctrine of the Bible is simply, “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.” The Old Testament says that Christ is coming and it tells how he is coming; in the Gospels, we have found Him; the Epistles tell us more about Him; and the book of Revelation tells us He is coming again.

More over, the subject of the Bible is Christ; the object of the Bible is Christ; its symbols symbolize Christ; its types typify Christ; its predictions predict Christ; its gospels glorify Christ; and its epistles expound Christ.

As you read the Bible in its entirety this unity is readily apparent.
​

I will cover one more here and that is the record of the historical manuscripts support the accuracy of today’s Bible translations. The Arabic Bible Outreach Ministry listed the following as support of this point.

• The Septuagint Version which Batlimus Philadephos asked 70 Jewish scholars to translate the Old Testament from the Hebrew to the Greek language in 285 B. C. This translation was popular before the birth of Christ and is still in existence today. This is a very clear evidence that the Old Testament is still in tact and was not tampered with.

• The Sinai Manuscript It was found by scholar Chandorf in Saint Catherine’s Convent at the bottom of Mount Sinai in Egypt. It goes back to the 4th century A.D. and it is kept at the British Museum in London, England.

• The Vatican Manuscript, This edition was copied by an order of King Constantine, and it dates back to 328 A. D. It is kept now in the Vatican Library in Rome. This copy contains the Old and the New Testament.

• The Ephraim Manuscript, It dates back to 450 A.D. and it is kept in the National House of Books in Paris, France.

• The Qumran Scrolls. Found in 1947 by a Jordanian shepherd boy in one of the caves on the hills of Qumran, Jordan a complete manuscript of the book of Isaiah written in Hebrew with other books of the Old Testament except the book of Esther. One of the famous archeologists Dr Albright gave the date of its writing period a few hundred years before Christ.

• The Alexandria Manuscript dated 400 AD. This manuscript contains the entire Bible, and it is kept in the British Museum.

• The Bezae Manuscript (450 AD) This manuscript contains the four gospels, the book of Acts and it is written in the Greek and the Latin languages and is kept in Cambridge, England

There are many other areas that support my belief in the Bible and Christianity, some more controversial than others. These include prophecies concerning Christ, its scientific accuracy, the Testimony of the Quran, and that many influential people in the world believe it.