Should an ex-Christian be able to explain why?

[cloudyday2]

As for Kallistos Ware needing to become an atheist, he's practically a mystic. Why on earth would it be more honest for him to be an atheist? Some of us do not find atheism at all convincing, you know. He's also a theologian, not a historian, so I don't see the relevance.

He's not a historian, but he surely has researched the history of Christianity therefore he has no excuse for not being an atheist IMO.

I can tolerate for example a Christian biology professor who hasn't bothered to think much about his/her faith. I can tolerate Christian lay people too. I can especially understand older people or people with family entanglements that prevent them from becoming atheists. But I can't respect Christian historians who cling to religion.

 

[cloudyday2]

So, if I have some scholars like Robert Price and Bart Ehrman also sitting on my shelf, then and only then, when I read just them and refer to ONLY them for a discussion of the veracity of Jesus' person, I am actually "being" objective?

Now you're catching on...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Now you're catching on...

...and what if I can successfully critique and deconstruct either Price or Ehrman (or Hitchens, or Dawkins, or Harris, or etc., etc., etc.)? Am I being disingenuous and less than scholarly in doing so?

 

[GenemZ]

I imagine he was skinny by modern American standards. There is a fairly early church with frescos (Dura Europos ~240 CE) that might give some ideas about what people imagined Jesus looked like 200 years after his death.

I used to live in the Berkshires in Massachusetts. I lived about 45 minutes from Williams College. Its one of the finest Ivy League schools in the USA. I saw in the paper that WC was having an open house to come hear a museum curator speak about "Christianity in the Arts." It was on my day off, so I decided to go an learn.

The gentleman speaking explained how we get our present day "images" of Jesus. He explained that in the Jewish law they were forbidden to make any graven image in the likeness of man. That we can have no accurate pictures of Jesus for that reason.

He then went on to tell us that during a certain time in history when the Catholic church was "converting the pagans" to Christianity, it was then when this terribly wrong image of Jesus appeared in pictures and paintings.

For, he said. The newly converted ex-pagans in their enthusiasm for their new faith, wanted to depict Jesus in their art. In doing so, they resorted to what their concept of a holy man was. Which was? Their pagan holy men who served in the pagan priesthood. Which were? Effeminate and sickly looking and also having the long hair that we now associate with Jesus. That is where we got it from. Instead of an accurate depiction of Jesus? We get someone looking like a roadie for Led Zeppelin.

Jesus had a perfect human body without any defect. He physically tossed over the heavy wooden tables which were laden down with silver and gold in the Temple..They weighed hundreds of pounds!
He was physically VERY strong. Its why an entire battalion was sent to arrest him.

And? Jesus having long hair? Never! Not as a Jew!

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that
if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him." 1 Cor 11:14
​

Jesus did not have long hair. Some try to say that Jesus was a Jew under a Nazarite vow who was not to cut his hair while under the vow. But? Jesus was wrongly accused of being a drunkard because he freely drank wine with "sinners." But, he never got drunk. Getting drunk was a sin in the Bible. Jesus drank wine to socialize only and for good health.

A man under a Nazarite vow was forbidden to even eat raisins. Nothing from the vine was to be drank or eaten while under a Nazarite vow. Jesus was not under a Nazarite vow. So, no long hair.

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that
if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him." 1 Cor 11:14​

Fake news is not a new thing in the Devil's world. Jesus has been lied about and misrepresented by many over the years. This is just one example of the lies many have accepted without question.

 

[GenemZ]

Not all atheists hate Christianity - especially now that Christianity is withering away in many cultures. An atheist in Europe is probably not going to have any hatred of Christianity, because Christianity mostly died in Europe in the 1960s. You might have a point on many American atheists though.

So how about restricting your reading to the thoughts of European atheist historians? That should be pretty unbiased

Christianity did not wither. Fundamentalists who are rigid and dogmatic began to wither. Jesus warned that out of all who become believers? Only a few would end up finding the life and happiness He has provided for us. Many (not a few) will take the broad and wide way (1000's of denominations all geared to please someones personal preferences) and will find a destruction to their true spiritual lives. They become religious, not spiritual. Those have withered. Now the only ones who can remain sane and stabilized are the few who find sound doctrinal teachings and walk in the power of the grace of God which is given by the Spirit that no one can know, except those who will be blessed to know.

Its a rough world. Satan is fighting to save himself from the Lake of Fire and will lie and mislead people in this world in any way he can in order to escape his judgment. He uses people. Many people are pawns in this fight. The media is a prime example of this factor of constant lies. That is why Jesus said... "knowing the Truth will make you free."

Many Bible teachers are pawns. Its a rough world, and Satan has no scruples, nor virtue. No one is to be spared. He wants out of his judgment, and now is the only time he has a chance to change things.


Turn on TV much? Ever endure watching many of those TV preachers? Casting out demons? healing? teaching weird and lame ideas from the Bible? Yet! They have many followers? Wonder why? Satan's desperation.

Jesus warned that MANY will be this way. MANY will do things in HIS NAME! And? Many of them were never saved to begin with!

HERE!

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom
of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is
in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we
not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons
and in your name perform many miracles?’

Then I will tell them plainly..
‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ Mat 7:21-23​

Jesus said he never knew them! Not a few bad preachers. Many of them! They? Were never saved! "He never knew them!" = Fake Christianity! (fake news)

Its now the devil's world. Satan is doing everything he can now to counter God's judgment trying to prove God's Word a lie. As long as only a few know the truth? Satan is doomed.

Jesus kingdom on earth will come later.

 

[GenemZ]

So, if I have some scholars like Robert Price and Bart Ehrman also sitting on my shelf, then and only then, when I read just them and refer to ONLY them for a discussion of the veracity of Jesus' person, I am actually "being" objective?

Those "gifted men" are skilled at appealing to the biases of certain men who want to remain thinking the way they do. Its "marketing" a concept.

 

[cloudyday2]

...and what if I can successfully critique and deconstruct either Price or Ehrman (or Hitchens, or Dawkins, or Harris, or etc., etc., etc.)? Am I being disingenuous and less than scholarly in doing so?

As a Christian, you have an axe to grind, so your critiques and deconstructions of atheist scholars are automatically suspect. Your subconscious goal is to continue believing, and that clouds your judgment.

Ehrman touched on this issue in his blog. In his field there are a lot of Christians. So when Ehrman says "most scholars believe X" he is often excluding the fundamentalist Christian scholars, because they are not allowed to think freely due to "statements of faith" and so on. It would be a little bit like counting the votes of slaves when you know they are being compelled to vote a certain way. (These are my analogies and not Ehrman's.)

 

[cloudyday2]

Christianity did not wither. Fundamentalists who are rigid and dogmatic began to wither.

According to the Pew Forum surveys, the Fundamentalists (particularly Pentecostals) are the only segment of Christianity that is NOT losing strength in the US.

 

[Silmarien]

He's not a historian, but he surely has researched the history of Christianity therefore he has no excuse for not being an atheist IMO.

Why does researching the history of Christianity give someone no excuse for not being an atheist? Atheism has nothing to do with Christian truth claims.

As a Christian, you have an axe to grind, so your critiques and deconstructions of atheist scholars are automatically suspect. Your subconscious goal is to continue believing, and that clouds your judgment.

Whoa. Do atheist scholars not also have an axe to grind? Is their subconscious goal not to continue disbelieving, thus clouding their judgment?

 

[cloudyday2]

Why does researching the history of Christianity give someone no excuse for not being an atheist? Atheism has nothing to do with Christian truth claims.

.. for the same reason that study of planetary geology gives someone no excuse for believing in a flat Earth or a hollow Earth. I actually have coworkers who believe in those kinds of conspiracy theories, but they can be excused because the theories are not in their field of expertise.

Christianity is like believing in a mystical Santa Claus with his workshop at the North Pole. It's hard to prove conclusively that Santa Claus is a myth - especially if you allow for Christmas magic and so on. But if I was reading a history of the Santa Claus phenomena, I would exclude books written by historians who claim to believe in Santa Claus. I would think they must want to believe in Santa Claus - even if that means twisting their minds into a pretzel.

Whoa. Do atheist scholars not also have an axe to grind? Is their subconscious goal not to continue disbelieving, thus clouding their judgment?

I lost my faith in Christianity twice, and both time I remember a great reluctance and fear to admit that I no longer believed.

As an atheist, I might dread the thought of attending church, tithing, etc. but it's not the same. Leaving Christianity feels like jumping out of an airplane. Returning to Christianity feels more like waking up Monday morning and going back to work in the coal mine.

 

[Silmarien]

.. for the same reason that study of planetary geology gives someone no excuse for believing in a flat Earth or a hollow Earth. I actually have coworkers who believe in those kinds of conspiracy theories, but they can be excused because the theories are not in their field of expertise.

Christianity is like believing in a mystical Santa Claus with his workshop at the North Pole. It's hard to prove conclusively that Santa Claus is a myth - especially if you allow for Christmas magic and so on. But if I was reading a history of the Santa Claus phenomena, I would exclude books written by historians who claim to believe in Santa Claus. I would think they must want to believe in Santa Claus - even if that means twisting their minds into a pretzel.

Alright, but how does this have anything to do with atheism? Why should a study of Christianity make anyone embrace atheism? You could leave it for Judaism or Islam or become a deist or pantheist or whatever. It's not like a negative assessment of the New Testament automatically entails atheism. That's an unrelated issue.

Though Bart Ehrman has said that it wasn't biblical scholarship that broke his faith in Christianity at all, but specifically the Problem of Evil. Why is he more trustworthy now than he was as a liberal Christian if the historical issues are not ultimately what pushed him over that line? That's like someone saying they could have believed in Santa Claus, but that he forgot to give them gifts one year so they don't.

I lost my faith in Christianity twice, and both time I remember a great reluctance and fear to admit that I no longer believed.

As an atheist, I might dread the thought of attending church, tithing, etc. but it's not the same. Leaving Christianity feels like jumping out of an airplane. Returning to Christianity feels more like waking up Monday morning and going back to work in the coal mine.

Eh, it's embracing Christianity that's like jumping out of an airplane to me. I had a lot of irrational prejudices to overcome before I could take it seriously. The easiest way to avoid wrestling with the religion is to write it off without giving it any sort of hearing at all, and a lot of people do this.

 

[GenemZ]

According to the Pew Forum surveys, the Fundamentalists (particularly Pentecostals) are the only segment of Christianity that is NOT losing strength in the US.

I was not speaking of Pentecostals.... They are a Johnny come lately that appeals to the primitive side of certain types of carnal believers. In a sense, Pentecostalism is paganism dressed in Jesus clothes. Many of the things they do are similar to shaman and witch doctor cultures.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As a Christian, you have an axe to grind, so your critiques and deconstructions of atheist scholars are automatically suspect. Your subconscious goal is to continue believing, and that clouds your judgment.

Ehrman touched on this issue in his blog. In his field there are a lot of Christians. So when Ehrman says "most scholars believe X" he is often excluding the fundamentalist Christian scholars, because they are not allowed to think freely due to "statements of faith" and so on. It would be a little bit like counting the votes of slaves when you know they are being compelled to vote a certain way. (These are my analogies and not Ehrman's.)

I have only a small ax to grind with atheism in my Right hand. However, maybe you've noticed along the way in our various discussions with all kinds of other people here on CF, I also have an ax to grind with Christian Fundamentalists, and that one is in my Left hand.

So, you might want to simmer down the insinuation you're making that all of my faith is purely and solely contingent upon my having a subconscious impetus to want to survive death. Pascal would surely say that it is the sign of an unhealthy disposition toward the essence of life that would give one not only an atheistic type of worldview, but also one disposed toward a severe case of apathy toward further investigating the possible truth within the Christian faith. In this, I quite agree with Pascal.

But for you to say that my motivation in applying the sauce to the Goose of Atheism as I also apply it to the Gander of Christian Fundamentalism is nothing more than the result of "clouded judgement" on my part is really an unverified assertion on your part, Cloudy. If something that atheists say actually turns out to be not only questionable (and some of what they say is definitely questionable and not above scrutiny), but is also either wrong or partially wrong, then for the sake of my own understanding of and my interaction with "reality" as it may be, and for which I am inexorably drawn to consider day in and day out throughout my life, then I am certainly justified in scrutinizing atheistic assertions wherever I may find them. And this is one reason why I also have over 20 books by various atheists and other skeptics on my book shelf, among other sources.

My whole point here isn't to show you up, or to somehow demonstrate publicly that you're deficient in your thinking. I know that you are a very intelligent and articulate individual, and I know that you don't reach your conclusions on the thinnest of scholarly trifles. You're really a very good thinker. But sometimes, maybe because of how you feel about life, you're not fair to at least some of us Christians. I really don't appreciate being thrown in a box and discarded along with those other Christians who, even though I may share my Christian faith with, come at their beliefs it in a different and, often, less complex (maybe even less realistic) way.

If you've read this, then thank you for listening, Cloudy.

 

[cloudyday2]

Alright, but how does this have anything to do with atheism? Why should a study of Christianity make anyone embrace atheism? You could leave it for Judaism or Islam or become a deist or pantheist or whatever. It's not like a negative assessment of the New Testament automatically entails atheism. That's an unrelated issue.

I wouldn't trust a historian of Christianity who believes in Islam because any reasonable Muslim studying the origins of Christianity should think to himself/herself "I wonder if the origins of my own Islamic religion would have similar issues?", and the Muslim should promptly lose faith in Islam. Judaism is a bit different, because for so many Jews the religion is simply a family tradition. I guess I could have some confidence in a Jew who is a historian of Christianity. A Hindu or a Buddhist or a Wiccan would be fine too.

Though Bart Ehrman has said that it wasn't biblical scholarship that broke his faith in Christianity at all, but specifically the Problem of Evil. Why is he more trustworthy now than he was as a liberal Christian if the historical issues are not ultimately what pushed him over that line? That's like someone saying they could have believed in Santa Claus, but that he forgot to give them gifts one year so they don't.

I wish I was still a member of Ehrman's blog. I would like to ask him if he thinks his transition from liberal Christian to atheist has affected his interpretation of the historical data. I suspect a lot of Ehrman's academic work happened earlier in his career while he identified as Christian. I wonder if he has changed his mind about any of his earlier ideas academically?

On Santa and the Problem of Evil, a better analogy would be if naughty children were receiving toys in their stockings and nice children were receiving coal - almost as if Santa had misplaced his naughty list.

 

[cloudyday2]

I have only a small ax to grind with atheism in my Right hand. However, maybe if you've noticed along the way in our various discussions with all kinds of other people here on CF, I also have an ax to grind with Christian Fundamentalist, and that one is in my Left hand.

So, you might want to simmer down the insinuation that all my faith is purely and solely contingent upon my having a subconscious impetus to want to survive death. Pascal would surely say that it is the sign of an unhealthy disposition toward the essence of life that would give one not only an atheistic type view of the world, but also one disposed toward a severe case of apathy toward what may be possibly true within the Christian faith. In this, I quite agree with Pascal.

But to say that my motivation to apply the sauce to the Goose of Atheism as I apply it also to the Gander of Christian Fundamentalism is nothing more than a result of "clouded judgement," as you implied, is really an unverified assertion on your part, Cloudy. If something that atheists say actually turns out to be not only questionable (and some of what they say is definitely questionable and not above scrutiny),but is also either wrong or partially wrong, then for the sake of my own understanding of and interaction with "reality" as it may actually be and for which I am inexorably drawn to consider day in and day out throughout my life, then I am certainly justified in scrutinizing atheistic assertions wherever I may find them. And this is one reason why I also have over 20 books by various atheists and other skeptics on my book shelf, among other sources.

My whole point here isn't to show you up, or to somehow demonstrate publicly that you're deficient in your thinking. I know that you are a very intelligent and articulate individual, and I know that you don't reach your conclusions on the thinnest of scholarly trifles. You're really a very good thinker. But sometimes, maybe because of how you feel about life, you're not fair to at least some of us Christians. I really don't appreciate being thrown in a box and discarded along with those other Christians who, even though I may share my Christian faith with, come at their beliefs it in a different and, often, less complex (maybe even less realistic) way.

If you've read this, then thank you for listening, Cloudy.

It's not a lack of rigor that I'm insinuating. I have tried and tried to understand how people like you and @Quid est Veritas? and others can believe in Christianity. There are smart people who believe in Christianity simply because they haven't had the time or inclination to study the issue. My sister is a smart person of that type. Her field is biology and medicine, and she isn't particularly interested in history. But smart people who frequent these sub-forums are NOT of that type. You guys know the history and care about the issue, so I don't understand why you continue to believe. Two of my atheist friends in college converted to Christian after finding Christian wives. Both of them were very smart. I think they both felt their conversions were sincere. IDK

Anyway, I didn't mean to insult you or anybody else.

There is hope though. I think I finally understand what makes Neopagans tick. Maybe I will understand this liberal Christian thing someday too.

 

[cloudyday2]

I was not speaking of Pentecostals.... They are a Johnny come lately that appeals to the primitive side of certain types of carnal believers. In a sense, Pentecostalism is paganism dressed in Jesus clothes. Many of the things they do are similar to shaman and witch doctor cultures.

I suspect a factor in the staying-power of Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism might be birth rates. Probably these denominations emphasize the traditional values of marriage and raising children while other denominations let their parishioners follow the modern values that reduce birth rates.

 

[GenemZ]

I suspect a factor in the staying-power of Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism might be birth rates. Probably these denominations emphasize the traditional values of marriage and raising children while other denominations let their parishioners follow the modern values that reduce birth rates.

To show you how irrelevant such stats are?

Which is more popular? Hostess Twinkies or Frosted Flakes?

Does it really matter?

Christianity is only valid in God's eyes when believers have the flexibility to avoid dogmatism.. (which comes from the frustration of not having real answers) and teachers having the *capacity* for in depth sound study that coincides with being truly gifted.

Only a few teachers in a given generation will be able to teach what their generation needs for sane stability. James 3:1 Many will not. Matthew 7:21-23

 

[Rodan6]

It's mostly the history that rules-out Christianity for me. I do NOT mean Christianity's history of abusing Christian heretics and non-Christians. I mean the history that argues against divine inspiration shaping either Judaism or Christianity. The religions evolved gradually and clumsily over centuries. That isn't what I would expect to see if divine inspiration was a factor.

I would offer an argument on behalf of Christianity that may or may not resonate with you. To understand the truth about who Christ was and why He came here, one must first understand what the Bible represents--since this is where most of the information we have comes from.

The Bible reflects the opinions and viewpoints of the men who wrote it, colored by the age in which they lived. It contains many great truths but includes many falsehoods as well. The Old Testament was assembled by Jewish priests somewhere around 500 BC, and was constructed from the oral histories handed down from generation to generation. It is most generous to call these writings "history", but certainly logical that some of the stories contained therein are based upon some factual events and people who really lived. It is most unreasonable to conclude that there is not significant embellishment and bias considering the length of time depicted before writing and the great persecutions of the Jewish people at time the scriptures were recorded.

The New Testament is the most reliable part of the scriptures, mostly because the writings occurred such a short time after the events happened. But even here, we can see problems. Scriptures have been edited, added to and altered to suit the motives of the early Christian church. It is very important to note that Jesus was careful to leave no writings behind penned by His hand. He knew of the human inclination to worship the written word and the certainty that such writings would be altered--sometimes with good intentions, and sometimes...not. But He also knew that humans WOULD write, and that the core of His teachings would remain in these writings, awaiting the time when discerning worshipers would one day sort through these works and fully embrace His teachings.

To understand the Bible, one must FIRST embrace and seek understandings of Jesus' powerful teachings. Then, apply what the Master taught to sort through the writings of others in the New and Old Testament. Those who seek to worship every word of the Bible will never come close to learning the greatest truths contained in it. Instead, the golden kernels of truth will be hopelessly blended and compromised with the more primitive opinions and understandings of others written in scriptures.

 

[GenemZ]

I would offer an argument on behalf of Christianity that may or may not resonate with you. To understand the truth about who Christ was and why He came here, one must first understand what the Bible represents--since this is where most of the information we have comes from.

The Bible reflects the opinions and viewpoints of the men who wrote it, colored by the age in which they lived. It contains many great truths but includes many falsehoods as well. The Old Testament was assembled by Jewish priests somewhere around 500 BC, and was constructed from the oral histories handed down from generation to generation. It is most generous to call these writings "history", but certainly logical that some of the stories contained therein are based upon some factual events and people who really lived. It is most unreasonable to conclude that there is not significant embellishment and bias considering the length of time depicted before writing and the great persecutions of the Jewish people at time the scriptures were recorded.

The New Testament is the most reliable part of the scriptures, mostly because the writings occurred such a short time after the events happened. But even here, we can see problems. Scriptures have been edited, added to and altered to suit the motives of the early Christian church. It is very important to note that Jesus was careful to leave no writings behind penned by His hand. He knew of the human inclination to worship the written word and the certainty that such writings would be altered--sometimes with good intentions, and sometimes...not. But He also knew that humans WOULD write, and that the core of His teachings would remain in these writings, awaiting the time when discerning worshipers would one day sort through these works and fully embrace His teachings.

To understand the Bible, one must FIRST embrace and seek understandings of Jesus' powerful teachings. Then, apply what the Master taught to sort through the writings of others in the New and Old Testament. Those who seek to worship every word of the Bible will never come close to learning the greatest truths contained in it. Instead, the golden kernels of truth will be hopelessly blended and compromised with the more primitive opinions and understandings of others written in scriptures.

So, you concluded?

To understand the Bible, one must FIRST embrace and seek understandings of Jesus' powerful teachings.

If that is so? I need to ask..

How can you say that after you gave your description for not understanding parts of the Bible? Why should Jesus words be accurate?

Good, competent scholarship, eliminates the excuse for not understanding you offered. Its rare to find. But its there for those who do not quit seeking until they find.

God wants the Word to be worshiped. But only when its properly understood. For, to worship the Word when properly understood is to have genuine faith.

"I will worship toward Your holy temple, And praise Your
name For Your loving kindness and Your truth; For You
have magnified Your word above all Your name." Ps 138:2
​

Remember. He became the "word made flesh."

I think the problem you cited really happens when believers worship DOGMA. Not the Word. Dogma is teaching that has been extracted with distortions of the Word.

If you don't yet understand the Word properly? Keep it on the back burner until you do. For, Christ lives in us by means of having the Word understood!

Christ lives in us by how much of the Word we comprehend and believe!

"My children, with whom I am again in labor
until Christ is formed in you." Gal 4:19​

Christ must be formed in us!? How? How does He become formed in us?

"I pray that out of his glorious riches he may
strengthen you with power through his Spirit
in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell
in your hearts through faith. " Eph 3:16-17a​

By faith he is formed and dwells in us. So, how do we have this faith?

"Consequently, faith comes from hearing
the message, and the message is heard
through the word of Christ." Rom 10:17
​

Faith comes by HEARING the Word of God being taught soundly.

It must be sound doctrine being taught to have Jesus being formed in us.
Dogma will produce a 'different Jesus.'

In the Greek the word we call faith? Is often times having the meaning.. "what is believed." What is believed should be sound Bible doctrine. What we believe must be derived from sound teaching in order to be able to possess genuine faith.

 

[Rodan6]

So, you concluded?

Please understand that I truly love my Bible. Many of my favorite passages are in the Old Testament. My point is that any effort to "worship" this book requires the worshiper to embrace every word. This is a tragic mistake. The powerful teachings of Jesus cannot be reconciled with some of the primitive understandings in the Old Testament.

Would our loving Father in heaven, as revealed by the Son, destroy every man, woman and child in a great flood? Would this same Father command that a man be stoned to death because he gathered wood on the Sabbath? These and many more passages define God not as a Father, but as an angry, brutal and arbitrary figure.

If Jesus came to our world to reveal the great truth of a loving Father in heaven (as I believe He did), then it is best that we focus on what He had to say and the deeds He performed. He taught us that the "very hairs on our heads are counted". This is a radical departure from earlier teachings contained in the Bible.

I do not dismiss the writings in the Old Testament. Instead, I approach them through the lens of the Master's teachings. In doing this, it becomes possible to see how man's view of God has evolved over a great deal of time. God has NEVER changed. The revelation of the Son IS the one and only true revelation. What has changed is man's concept of God. Primitive man could not embrace or respect a loving Father. The fortunes of war and inevitable environmental catastrophes, all required explanations from early priests. Many explanations revolved around God's anger. And for primitive man, there were many, many "mysteries".


If that is so? I need to ask..

How can you say that after you gave your description for not understanding parts of the Bible? Why should Jesus words be accurate?

Good, competent scholarship, eliminates the excuse for not understanding you offered. Its rare to find. But its there for those who do not quit seeking until they find.

God wants the Word to be worshiped. But only when its properly understood. For, to worship the Word when properly understood is to have genuine faith.

"I will worship toward Your holy temple, And praise Your
name For Your loving kindness and Your truth; For You
have magnified Your word above all Your name." Ps 138:2
​

Remember. He became the "word made flesh."

I think the problem you cited really happens when believers worship DOGMA. Not the Word. Dogma is teaching that has been extracted with distortions of the Word.

If you don't yet understand the Word properly? Keep it on the back burner until you do. For, Christ lives in us by means of having the Word understood!

Christ lives in us by how much of the Word we comprehend and believe!

"My children, with whom I am again in labor
until Christ is formed in you." Gal 4:19​

Christ must be formed in us!? How? How does He become formed in us?

"I pray that out of his glorious riches he may
strengthen you with power through his Spirit
in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell
in your hearts through faith. " Eph 3:16-17a​

By faith he is formed and dwells in us. So, how do we have this faith?

"Consequently, faith comes from hearing
the message, and the message is heard
through the word of Christ." Rom 10:17
​

Faith comes by HEARING the Word of God being taught soundly.

It must be sound doctrine being taught to have Jesus being formed in us.
Dogma will produce a 'different Jesus.'

In the Greek the word we call faith? Is often times having the meaning.. "what is believed." What is believed should be sound Bible doctrine. What we believe must be derived from sound teaching in order to be able to possess genuine faith.