Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's not surprising that a Prof. of religion would hold these views.Quick said:At College, one of my Religion professors was a member of the Jesus Seminar. One day, in his office, he said a very curious thing to me. He told me:If the phrase "blood atonement" had never been attached to the name "Jesus" -- if, rather, the name "Jesus' was attached to the idea that God punishes always to reform and never to ruin its object, I don't think you would see nearly so many people rushing in to say things like:When he told me this, the only thing I could think of was:"Jesus was not God incarnate!"If Jesus came and taught of a wise and virtuous God who punishes non-believing humans only to correct them (and not to destroy them), and if his followers stuck with the story and did not explain his death in terms of divine revenge, then I think that people would be quite happy to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Why not? Such a story in that case would actually be good news.
"Jesus did not rise from the dead!"
As it is, behind the name of "Jesus" shall always lie a malignant and partisan deity whose touch spreads creeping death to sacrificial lambs and to the incredulous. Thus, the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus are just smaller parts of a larger whole which is a waking nightmare. We wish to deny the nightmare, and thus we wish to deny its parts, including the incarnation and resurrection.
Romans 9:20-23 (New International Version)
Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory?
Before we accept your claim, can you tell us what it means to say "God is Substance"? Can you be more concrete, please?PaladinValer said:To be technical, God is Substance. So therefore, what he says is true. And God is most certainly the center of existence, for existence exists because of Him.
Sorry, but this objection is false.
jubilationtcornpone said:Before we accept your claim, can you tell us what it means to say "God is Substance"? Can you be more concrete, please?
Nobody has denied that God is the center of existence, so that part of your rebuttal is simply irrelevant.
I believe this verse does a good job at defending the authority and authorship of the Bible. However if you're not inclined to believe then no verse will do just as well.Quick said:Do you mean to say that you believe the Bible is God? Do you honestly think that the Bible created the universe? Do you worship the Bible? I know that this is done in certain Protestant denominations in the Midwest, but I've never actually met someone with this theology until now.
A touchy subject, I take it?CaDan said:Take cover!
march56 said:I believe this verse does a good job at defending the authority and authorship of the Bible. However if you're not inclined to believe then no verse will do just as well.
-M.C.
jubilationtcornpone said:Finally, even if all that were true, my point remains... Borg cannot claim to believe in the Incarnation in any meaningful sense of the term -- not if he denies the existence of an objectively and separately existing God. After all, the Incarnation denotes God becoming flesh, and that is predicated on his very existence.
Similarly, Borg cannot claim to believe in the Resurrection, since if God was never incarnated, then he most certainly could not rise from the dead!
Which does not disprove anything that I said. If anything, since you admit that Borg denies God's transcendence, then that proves my point. Borg's concept of God is not Biblical.Joykins said:Borg believes in God, but I think he describes an immanent rather than transcendent deity. Traditional Christianity believes in both immanence and transcendence. Certainly the Holy Spirit as traditionally described is immanent as it indwells believers.
People can invent all sorts of ways to use words. Heck, I once met a person who used the word "vegetarian" in the sense of "doesn't eat a lot of meat." That doesn't make it right.Again, it's been months since I read any Borg, but I think he uses "incarnation" more in the sense of "embodiment" than any specialized sense.
Again, it's been months since I read any Borg, but I think he uses "incarnation" more in the sense of "embodiment" than any specialized sense. So he would say that Jesus is the incarnation (embodiment) of the divine Logos (idea / word / wisdom) of God.
jubilationtcornpone said:Which does not disprove anything that I said. If anything, since you admit that Borg denies God's transcendence, then that proves my point. Borg's concept of God is not Biblical.
People can invent all sorts of ways to use words. Heck, I once met a person who used the word "vegetarian" in the sense of "doesn't eat a lot of meat." That doesn't make it right.
The Incarnation is not just "embodiment." It refers to God himself coming to earth and taking on flesh. As I said earlier, if Borg believes in the Incarnation, he's not using the term in any meaningful sense.
And even if we ignore that point, he most certainly does not believe in the Resurrection! Unless, of course, he has chosen to invent his own definition of that term as well.
jubilationtcornpone said:Which does not disprove anything that I said. If anything, since you admit that Borg denies God's transcendence, then that proves my point. Borg's concept of God is not Biblical.
He is many things, but that does not mean that every description of God is correct. Borg's description is not.CaDan said:The "biblical God" is many, many things.
jubilationtcornpone said:He is many things, but that does not mean that every description of God is correct. Borg's description is not.
This isn't hard to understand, folks.
Christianity isn't about what's "useful." It's about what's true. Borg's concept of God is both unbilbical and untrue.Joykins said:I think it would probably be more accurate to say that Borg favors the concept of an immanent God, using the "God as lover" model (which is Biblical) over the concept of a transcendent king/judge God (which is also biblical); but he does not deny that this model is a useful one fo many traditional Christians.
That's not what Borg said, though. Borg said that God does not exist except within ourselves. That is objectively wrong.THese models are not the essence of what God is, they are just our human ways of attempting to understand God.
The problem isn't that he disagrees with me. The problem is that his notion of God is incoherent. If God only exists as a human concept -- something within ourselves -- then that God cannot become flesh, much less rise from the dead.If his definition--or understanding of a theological term--disagrees with yours, then it is meaningless? I don't see that.
It is completely fair. A God that only exists within ourselves can be neither incarnated nor resurrected.I don't think its fair to Borg to say that he does not believe in the resurrection...
I never said that it was. I'm sure that there are others who hold similar views. They are likewise in error.... or that his understanding of the concept is uniquely is his own.
jubilationtcornpone said:He is many things, but that does not mean that every description of God is correct. Borg's description is not.
This isn't hard to understand, folks.
It depends on what you mean by "immanent." If by that you mean "subjective," then it is unbiblical. The Bible clearly states that God existed before time, which means that his existence is not subjective.Joykins said:How is a description of an immanent God incorrect, Biblically?
He demonstrated no such thing. As I explictly said, God may be many things, but that does not mean that all descriptions of God are correct.You might say it's incomplete but it is certainly true to many Biblical passages as CaDan demonstrates one example of above.
jubilationtcornpone said:Christianity isn't about what's "useful." It's about what's true. Borg's concept of God is both unbilbical and untrue.
That's not what Borg said, though. Borg said that God does not exist except within ourselves. That is objectively wrong.
The problem isn't that he disagrees with me. The problem is that his notion of God is incoherent. If God only exists as a human concept -- something within ourselves -- then that God cannot become flesh, much less rise from the dead.
And even if you disagree that his description of God is incoherent, it is still unbiblical.
It is completely fair. A God that only exists within ourselves can be neither incarnated nor resurrected.
I never said that it was. I'm sure that there are others who hold similar views. They are likewise in error.
Joykins said:I think you are profoundly misunderstanding Borg if you think he only believes that God is in ourselves. But why take my word for it?
Read the man's own words.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?