Ask a non-believer questions on Christian Theology

[ElijahW]

'Kay. Now which authority is being appealed to in order to support that argument? I tell you. None.

In post #41 CS lewis, McLaren and "other chritstians" are being used as if presenting a correct understanding of Christianity, without verifying that understanding is correct.

There is no appeal to, but a descrition of other people's opinion. Which is fair enough if said people's opionions is subject matter.

How can people's beliefs not matter, if people's beliefs is the topic, huh?

We don't need anyone's opinions on this matter. The question was does Tinker understand Christianity and that has been demonstrated clearly that he doesn't. We can move on now.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I have been reading the new testament, on and off, and something on the very first page struck me as a little odd. It starts off with a long genealogy connecting Joseph to several old testament kings. Why was Joseph's heritage considered relevant if he was not Jesus's father? Why trouble to trace a royal bloodline if Mary wasn't part of it? Was there a time when Jesus was considered Joseph's son, rather than being born of a virgin? Or is there some other reason why we should care about the ancestors of a man Jesus wasn't related to, whom hasn't been mentioned again (at least as far as I've read). Or is that just a normal thing for that period in culture, to start off listing everyone's 'begat's as far back as one can reach?

Not nearly as deep as the other questions you've been getting, but that detail always just seemed irrelevant to me.

Well, of course, this also has been the subject of some debate.

First, Joseph is mentioned in another Gospel and that is Luke. And once passed the nativity, he is mentioned a second time in Luke in the story of Jesus as a 12 y.o. in the temple.

There are two genealogies in the N.T. One in Matthew and the other in Luke. They are quite different, both in names and the number of generations between common points. In Luke, the author says something like "Joseph, who was the supposed father ...". By this we can infer that many of the people, certainly at least many of those who weren't his followers, thought Jesus had a human father and that that father was Joseph.

Neither the author of Matthew nor of Luke specifies a reason for including the genealogy. So we have to guess according to normal reasons why someone might include a genealogy for some personage of note.

(IIRC--Jewish scholars distinguish between two different persons of prophecy that Christians conflate, according the Jewish scholars. So I apologize in advance if I make the same conflation.)

The messiah is to be descended from the line of David. So inheritence being through the man, and there would have to be at least some man designated, that man would be Joseph. If Joseph inherits (sort of) from David, then so does Jesus.

The genealogy in Luke is usually said to be Mary's genealogy even though the text doesn't call it out. One reason is that this resolves the apparent conflicts between the two genealogies. A secondary reason is that if Mary is of David, then Jesus is of the line of David as well.

So the shorter answer is that the inclusion of the genealogy shows the fulfillment of prophecy.

 

[Tinker Grey]

In post #41 CS lewis, McLaren and "other chritstians" are being used as if presenting a correct understanding of Christianity, without verifying that understanding is correct.

No. They are being presented as having different understandings, illustrating that Christianity doesn't have just one understanding of the matter.

 

[ElijahW]

No. They are being presented as having different understandings, illustrating that Christianity doesn't have just one understanding of the matter.

Don't need that illustrated, everyone knows that. I needed what you think is a correct understanding of what Jesus is doing. If you haven't figured that out, then have the courage to say so, instead of acting like the diversity in thinking is justification for you not having figured out what is going on.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I already said I have no opinion, nor could I, on the matter.

 

[ElijahW]

I already said I have no opinion, nor could I, on the matter.

Why can't you have an opinion on which understanding is correct? If you want to try to prove non-believers understand Christianity correctly, then that is going to be necessary IMO. You actually need a coherent understanding of what is being attempted.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Because if Christian have no definitive understanding, then choosing a "correct" understanding serves no purpose.

 

[ElijahW]

It serves one of the purposes of this thread, which is to prove that non-believers understand what they are rejecting. Now that purpose is established, is there any reason you can't figure out what is the correct understanding of what is going on with Jesus and the cross?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why don't you just ask a clarifying question? One from outside the faith (or even having come from the faith) cannot pick what the correct understanding is if Christians themselves disagree on it.

Either ask something or agree to disagree, please.

 

[ElijahW]

I don’t know what you need me to clarify. I’m just trying to get a basic idea of what you think is going on with Jesus on the cross, and how that leads to salvation of any kind. While you are throwing other people’s opinions at me, and acting like that is somehow answering the question of what you think. Or maybe you are trying to demonstrate that you can’t understand what is correct because you need consensus in thought to know what that is. I’m cool with agreeing to disagree, but I’m not sure what we are disagreeing on. Is it you need a consensus from the masses to know what is correct, or that you need to be a Christian, for some reason, in order to understand the story?

 

[juvenissun]

I think the problem is with the quetioner not the with my answers.

Do me the favor of refraining from "grading" me. If you have something you want to get at, you'll have to do a better job of framing the question.

I did answer the question. Myths persist because the continue to help people frame the reality of their relationship with whatever--in the case of the Bible stories, it is their relationship with God.

I gave an example of Adam and how it frames a sense of our relationship with God. This frames our doctrinal understanding of the rest of scripture--whether or not the story actually happened.

If this isn't what you are after, ask a better question.

According to the design of your OP, this thread is not one for debating. It is one for Q/A. Readers give questions and you provide answers. If allowing debate, then even one question will make this thread have no ending. Since I give question, I will match your answer with my answer. Therefore, I will assign a so-called grade by assuming my answer is the correct one. With each of my "grading", I give a short comment, agreeable or not.

That is how this game is played. If you don't like it, then stop answering my question. I would say in this case, to give a question is much harder than to give an answer.

 

[juvenissun]

There is an entire doctrine built around this concept. I believe Wesley formulated it. It is called Entire Sanctification. (Wesley, IIRC, never claimed to have reached this state.)

The doctrine of sanctification runs through the NT. Romans 12:2 say we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. Entire Sanctification would be the completion of this process that perhaps is only theoretically possible.

In any case, if Spirit is fundamentally other (other than physical reality) and that Spirit that we have is, say, on loan from God. Then perhaps the prayer to be more like God isn't so far out of line.

When I was an elder I some times taught like this: When we become saved we are adopted into the family of God (adoption language runs through Paul's letters). As we are sanctified, that is to say, transformed, the miracle of salvation is our transformation into the "Blood" children of God. This isn't to say that if you die "early", you won't get to go to heaven. This is just a metaphor about what the process is about.

But all of the above is more mystical than necessary. To be like God can be simply interpreted as being more loving, more just, more merciful, more patient, more all-of-the-fruit-of-the-spirit.

So, in either case, a justification can be made to pray "Let me be more like you." In the first case, you are praying that God "continue that work which was begun in you." The second case is like the first, but without the mystical overtones.

To me, the highlighted answer is acceptable, even it could be more clear. For example, what does the "blood children of God" mean?

The meaning of words here should be more than metaphoric because this is a doctrine, not an explanation. "The family of God" itself demands a serious explanation as the Christianity is a monotheistic religion and the number of Christians are numerous.

To quantify it, I would assign a "grade" C+ to your answer.

 

[Tinker Grey]

To me, the highlighted answer is acceptable, even it could be more clear. For example, what does the "blood children of God" mean?

The meaning of words here should be more than metaphoric because this is a doctrine, not an explanation. "The family of God" itself demands a serious explanation as the Christianity is a monotheistic religion and the number of Christians are numerous.

To quantify it, I would assign a "grade" C+ to your answer.

I would have thought the contrast between children who are adopted and those who are blood children would have been clear enough. If one is a child of someone but is not adopted, what kind of child is it? A child by blood. Also, the use of the blood in this context nicely ties into Christ's sacrifice.

In any case, I cannot transform children I adopt into my children by birth (by blood). But the miracle of sanctification is we become more than just legal children. (This by the way was not meant to make those who are transform equivalent to Jesus.)

As for your complaints, I give them a C-.

 

[juvenissun]

I would have thought the contrast between children who are adopted and those who are blood children would have been clear enough. If one is a child of someone but is not adopted, what kind of child is it? A child by blood. Also, the use of the blood in this context nicely ties into Christ's sacrifice.

In any case, I cannot transform children I adopt into my children by birth (by blood). But the miracle of sanctification is we become more than just legal children. (This by the way was not meant to make those who are transform equivalent to Jesus.)

As for your complaints, I give them a C-.

This question is extra, but simply out of curiosity:

Do you have an example of "an adopted child of God"? What kind of Christian is that?

 

[Tinker Grey]

One who has accepted Christ is adopted into the family of God.

 

[juvenissun]

One who has accepted Christ is adopted into the family of God.

If so, how is it different from a so-called "blood child of God"?

 

[Tinker Grey]

One is sanctified, the other is not.

 

[juvenissun]

It is sometimes alleged that non-believers just don't understand Christianity.

So for as long as this thread remains open, I will answer questions on Christian Theology. I will do so with straight answers and no snark.

ETA: Questions are welcome both from believers and non-believers.

Here is my fifth question, may be the last one from me to this thread:

The "Holy Spirit" is a critical element in Christianity. However, a god who has a spirit or spirits is not a unique idea. Also the spirit of a god has different functions in different religion. It is not common that some religions that treat the spirit of god as the god himself.

My question is: What is a unique function of the Holy Spirit in the Christian doctrine? The Holy Spirit may have several special functions. I only ask for one. But if you like to name more than one, I am also happy to know them. When you answer this question, you should consider that the named function of the Holy Spirit is rare and is not commonly known to other religions.

 

[juvenissun]

One is sanctified, the other is not.

I think you make a mistake. It is your classification and is not in the Christian doctrine.

Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as God is a child of God. There is no sub-classes on this one. Sanctification only describes the quality of the child.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I didn't say it was Christian doctrine. I said it was a way I liked to look at it when I was teaching. It wasn't the main point of the post that started this train of thought.

And, the whole description was meant to be seen as a continuum. Remember this was all about whether it was reasonable to pray to be more like God.