Mithrae wrote:Thanks for the effort put into your post, PinSeeker
I'll only address some of it, because parts of our exchange are more or less tangential to the thread topic (eg. interpretation of Genesis), but let me know if you feel I've overlooked anything important.
Thanks for the compliment; I would return the same.
But I disagree with you on at least your point that Genesis is tangential to the thread topic. We've been talking about the term 'enmity' and its use and who it is assigned to, and where it is directed. Genesis 3:15, rather than tangential, is central. It explains the human condition (all people, not just Christians or non-Christians) after the Fall and the natural inclination of each one to despise God.
Mithrae wrote:
PinSeeker wrote:
Ah. Or in Biblical terms, being wise in your own eyes. Not that I'm actually accusing you of such, but that seems to be exactly what you are saying.
I'll accept that; I think it's fair to say that I have learned some things and gained some wisdom at my ripe old age. And while most of it is due to my genetics, family, education and other circumstances beyond my control, it has become
my wisdom, such as it is, with whatever vanity but also all the biases, ignorance and fallibility that implies.
I appreciate your comments and humility. But one thing to say to all that: God is sovereign over all that. No circumstance -- indeed no
thing whatsoever -- is beyond His control.
Mithrae wrote:By contrast, you seem to be implying that your opinions are for all intents and purposes the opinions of God himself: Purely because a selected anthology of Hebrew and early Christian letters, biographical sketches, historical narratives, mystical revelation, legends, mythology, poetry and ritual legislation, chosen and canonised by largely anonymous groups of rabbis and priests, happens to contain some sentences which might - arguably - be used to support your opinions (and to ignore/creatively reinterpret any other verses which you don't like).
Ahhh, no, my opinions are based firmly in what God has said. I don't ignore or "creatively interpret" anything contained in God's Word. I would readily say that my understanding of this or that may be flawed to some degree, and if that's the case regarding any part thereof would welcome correction. And I would be trusting in the Spirit as my Teacher to do that through ordinary means (or even extraordinary, if He were to deem that necessary). And finally, the only thing I "don't like" concerning God's Word are distortions of it, either by me or by anyone else.
Mithrae wrote:According to both John the apostle and John of Patmos,
the Word of God is Jesus, not some collection of paper and ink. As I quoted above, Jeremiah explicitly said that the new covenant would not be like the old - that in the new, God's law would be written on his people's hearts and minds. Alluding to that passage in 2 Corinthians 3 Paul is even more explicit, describing "
a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." Claiming that Paul's letters are the 'Word of God' - even though he himself never made any such claim, and clearly believed quite the opposite, and other passages explicitly identify Jesus as the Word of God - is quite literally the sin of false prophecy which under Deuteronomic law would be punishable by death.
Mmm... Some truth, some misunderstanding, and a lot of personal opinion here. Where to start?
1. Yes, the Word of God is Jesus. But what you really mean with that statement is ambiguous to me. I'm certainly not going to put words in your mouth, but allow me to clarify: Jesus is the Word personified. Jesus Himself said that every word of Scripture is about Him, both directly (John 5:46) and indirectly through Luke (Luke 24:27).
2. Regarding the new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah and Paul, what is being said here is that the new covenant will not be -- and is not -- breakable any longer. And both men are saying the same thing; yes, Paul is more explicit because He knew Christ and knows that he has received the Spirit.
3. Paul's letters were just that -- letters to the churches in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, and so forth. So in that sense, yes, they are his words. But his whole purpose was to proclaim the Gospel; he was not a prophet but an apostle, an expository preacher and an evangelist. He couldn't be a false prophet, because he wasn't a prophet at all. Nor did he claim to be.
Maybe we need to step back and Biblically define what a prophet is and what a false prophet is. If you know this, forgive me. But a prophet is someone who related God's words directly to the people (not merely someone who, as is commonly thought, "predicts the future"). Thus, in reading all the prophets of the Old Testament, you will often see the words "Thus saith the Lord" or some variation thereof depending on the translation. But beginning with Matthew and continuing all through the New Testament, you don't see that. Why? Because, as Hebrews 1 says, in these last days (which began with the coming of Jesus and will continuing to His return), God has spoken to us by His Son:
- "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son..." (Hebrews 1:1-2)
So, as signified by the word "after" above, the time of the prophets passed when Jesus came into the world. So then we can understand what a false prophet is, Mithrae, by understanding what the opposite of a prophet is (obviously), and that is one who falsely claims the gift of prophecy or divine inspiration, or who uses that gift for evil ends.
Paul was not a prophet, and he was very clear on that himself. And he likewise was not a false prophet. He even called himself a wretched man (Romans 7) and the chief/foremost of sinners (1 Timothy 1). What Paul did claim to be was an apostle (and the least of these, actually). And as such, like the other apostles, he visited and walked with, spoke in person to, and wrote letters to various churches (bodies of Christians) proclaiming Christ and Him crucified -- the Gospel. He was a missionary, an expository preacher, an evangelist, and a doer of good works (as today all Christians should be to some extent according to their callings). And he was used by God via His Spirit to explain the Scriptures (what we now know as the Old Testament) to contemporary and future believers. This is why the Spirit moved men to include it in the Canon of Scripture. So in that sense, it is indeed part of the Word of God. Now. Does this mean that Scripture could still be added to? No. The time of the apostles is past, too. There is no need to add to Scripture, because it contains everything we need, and also because Jesus forbade adding to it (Revelation 22).
Mithrae wrote:But this is what seventeen-plus centuries of church subversion and dogma have done. In all those centuries when the masses were overwhelmingly illiterate, claiming that God's will must be known through a written book turned God into a pawn of the powerful. It's an historical fact that the biblical anthology has never really guided or clarified much at all; since the advent of the printing press, the Reformation, availability of the bible in vernacular languages and the increase of literacy, Christian denominations have multiplied exponentially with every would-be teacher claiming the authority of God himself for whatever novel interpretation or selective emphases they'd come up with. For the most part, they keep insisting that the bible is the Word of God because it continues to give them influence over anyone foolish enough to believe them.
Eh... you're just talking about sin (whether you realize it or not), and Christians are just as guilty of sin as anyone else, as that is the human condition. But yet the Word of God remains what it was and what it is, despite man's sin. The grass withers and the flowers fade, but the Word of God endures forever. Again, God is more powerful than and sovereign over all of that. One great day, all will be made right again. God will do it, exactly as He has said, in the fullness of time. His time.
Mithrae wrote:Personally... long, long ago... I decided to not to make such exalted claims for my own 'wisdom,' instead praying and trusting in God to guide me as he chose and as I remained honest in pursuit of truth. I've never stopped honestly seeking, nor ever asked him to stop guiding me (indeed I've renewed that prayer more than once over the years)... so perhaps, if it matters, I may have a better claim to the Spirit's guidance ...
Great! Well, maybe God is allowing you to stray for a time and then plans to draw you back to Himself and Christ at some point in the future. Or maybe He's already doing that. Hope so.
Mithrae wrote:Or perhaps we're all just folk with no particularly unique or special insight into the mind of god at all.
Oh, I wouldn't say "at all." Surely, His judgments are unsearchable and His ways unfathomable (Romans 11). Surely, His thoughts and ways are far above our own, as the heavens are above the earth (Isaiah 55). Such knowledge is high, and we cannot attain to it (Psalm 139). But we can know quite a bit, because He has told us. His word is a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path (Psalm 119). And all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Mithrae wrote:
PinSeeker wrote:
Mithrae wrote:As to whether or not Jesus did teach against working for money... It really is very clear - both from the example which Jesus and his followers set, and the teaching repeated again and again by different authors from different angles - that Jesus taught his followers to leave their jobs and forsake all they owned, to work for the kingdom of God instead of for money, to have faith in His provision for their daily bread.
No, He taught His followers (and us) not to put our ultimate trust in jobs, or money, or anything else they owned, for their salvation or even their well-being.
Well you're certainly welcome to try to show how all the gospel passages I've highlighted don't really mean what they say...
Actually, I think I've done a pretty good job not of "highlighting that they don't really mean what they say," but rather that they mean far more than merely what you realize they do say.
Mithrae wrote:... although I think I might see a problem looming on the horizon (which is why I wrote all of the above): It's possible that like many Christians you may try to use Paul to cancel out Jesus, or even try to use Abraham or anything under the 'old covenant' as Showme seems to be doing - use any and every other page from a fake 'Word of God' to nullify commands of the real Word of God in Johannine theology.
Anything is possible, I guess, but never would I purposely do any of that. I haven't been following your conversation with Showme, but I would be interested to dig into what your understanding (and maybe showme's, too) of the Old and New Covenant is. In Christian circles, there are two general streams of thought on that: Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. One is wrong, of course. Generally speaking, the Bible is one unified work from beginning to end, Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. But more specifically to your comments here, nothing in the Bible contradicts anything else in the Bible. It's possible I may get some things wrong, but if that were the case, it would be my problem, not God's.
Mithrae wrote:
PinSeeker wrote:
I think you would have to admit that what I'm saying here with regard to every subject we're discussing (jobs, money, possessions, teachers, etc.) has one clear, succinct, common, very consistent theme: God doesn't prohibit any of these things but rather endorses all these things, because He is the real, ultimate Source, Provider, and Teacher. He works through ordinary, earthly means to provide for His people. And this fits perfectly with Jesus's command in Matthew 6:33 to "seek first His kingdom and His righteousness..." -- in other words, not to seek
nothing else (or necessarily to physically abandon anything), but to seek Him first and
above all else -- "and all these things will be added to you" -- that He will provide all that you need in every physical and spiritual aspect via His Spirit by
using various earthly means.
Yes, there's some consistency there and that's a nice message - thank God for your blessings - and certainly one which Jesus endorsed, but it clearly is not the
substance of what he taught.
Thanks for the compliment (again), but yes, it most certainly is the substance of what He taught (and lived). The problem is -- and again, no offense intended -- you're analyzing it in a far, far too wooden way. I'll just leave this here, but, well, read on...
Mithrae wrote:It's a message which leaves Christians basically indistinguishable from the rest of the world, even though John's Jesus said there would be a clear distinction such that the world would even hate his followers. Each variety of Christianity which does not involve forsaking all attracts millions of followers, even though Jesus said his way was narrow and wondered whether there'd be
anyone of faith left when he returned.
The feature distinguishing Christians from the rest of the world does not involve material possessions (like a house, a car, a TV, or anything else), but rather a character trait -- what Christians really yearn for, live for, value, and indeed worship. Jesus Himself said that the Law is summed up first and foremost by the command to love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and second to love your neighbor (everyone) as you do yourself. In other words, it's not material, it's spiritual. And that distinction is
crystal clear. That distinction is why this board exists, for crying out loud. Do you not see any distinction between folks like me and... well, other posters on here who are very obviously opposed to Christians and Christianity (and God/Christ Himself)? You don't have to answer that; certainly you do. Now, I will say that with certain people who profess to be Christians, there may actually be no distinction along those lines, and where that is the case, that would call into question whether that person is really a regenerate Christian or not.
Mithrae wrote:It's actually quite remarkable, almost a litmus test of sorts: If you call something Christian, no matter how far-fetched (eg. Mormonism), no matter how obviously man-made and false (eg. Jehovah's Witnesses), no matter how weird and seemingly crazy (eg. Pentecostalism) and no matter how diametrically opposed to Jesus' teachings (eg. prosperity gospel), it seems you are all but guaranteed to attract millions of followers. But forsaking all, as Jesus plainly taught? Well, there's
some believers who do that; at least a few dozen from the world's wealthier countries, perhaps even a few hundred. If you're looking for the narrow way, it's certainly not going to be anything you hear from a well-dressed preacher in a comfortable church building!
Hmmm. A lot to chew on here, too. With regard to the first part, I would just point out this Scriptural passage from 2 Timothy 2:
- "...the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."
This time is obviously here; we can easily see that by looking around in any direction, as you point out. Oh, it was around in Paul's day, too, but this was a letter to Timothy, who's ministry had only just begun, exhorting him to continue in the Gospel regardless of circumstance or where some might be led at any point in his future. It applies just as much to us today as it did to Timothy and any of his contemporaries.
Mithrae wrote:"All these things will be added to you" in Matthew 6:33 covers food and clothing; that's it. That's all he's talking about in the paragraph.
Ohhhh... not so. Not at all. It covers food and clothing, but it also covers all material, emotional, spiritual needs. We will agree to disagree, I guess. But if you want to stick to that -- which is fine with me; it's certainly your prerogative -- you might as well say that Psalm 23...
- "The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside quiet waters. He restores my soul; He guides me in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; You have anointed my head with oil; my cup overflows. Surely goodness and lovingkindness will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever."
... is only about physical needs, and it most certainly is not.
Mithrae wrote:He told his followers to pray for their daily bread, not a two bedroom mansion and fancy second-hand car.
Absolutely. He taught them to acknowledge God as Provider and pray for His continued provision. But He didn't tell His followers it was wrong/sin to have a mansion or a fancy car or any other earthly possession.
Mithrae wrote:Jesus was homeless, he said so himself...
So all Christians should be homeless? Surely you're not suggesting that, Mithrae. Surely not. Please tell me you're not actually suggesting that.
Mithrae wrote:...they sheltered with people willing to accommodate them. The example he set, and his followers set, was forsaking everything; eventually even their own lives, most of them.
Well, okay, and these other people were believers/Christians. So Christians today are supposed to "shelter" with other Christians who are willing to accommodate them? But then how would this even be possible if all Christians are supposed to abandon everything they have? Oh, my.
Mithrae wrote:The words he taught are clear enough in themselves... their example, even clearer.
Well, to some, anyway...