Your thoughts on 2 men, Trump and Osteen

[morbo3000]

As Christians, aren't we supposed to love one another? Instead of "pecking" at each other in every post, can't we try to maintain love and respect? I will admit that I have not always done that in my posts. Please forgive me for my wrong attitude at times. I really desire to share what I see in scripture (and in life) and want to know what you see.

I have not "pecked." I have only echoed your rhetoric. And comparatively dispassionate, from my perspective. Your mileage may vary.

So I am a fundamentalist and you are a Bible scholar.

I am not a Bible scholar. I respect their methodology and carefully make use of their research.

If it's not really a holy book, i.e. the word of God, graciously given to us so that we might have salvation and hope, then why would anyone even consider following it's instructions? If it's not our standard, then what other standard is there?

I view the Bible as the historical documents that they are. The doctrine of divine authorship, and inerrancy was applied to them later on. None of the authors claimed it of themselves.

They are my standard because of Jesus. I am captivated by Jesus. And the way of Jesus. Imitating him. Taking seriously his message. Whenever people have striven to center their life on Jesus, their world has been turned upside down. This is very different from centering your life on doctrine about Jesus, as Protestants do, or on the church built on Peter, as Catholics do. Though I have no quarrel with either of them when they are promoting imitating Jesus.

This is my approach to the Bible: Jesus is the epicenter of the earthquake that rocked the world. The books of the New Testament are the reverberations of that earthquake. I give the greatest weight to those records of his life closest chronologically to his life, and decreasingly to those documents historically farther. So, Mark and the hypothetical "Q" gospel are front and center. Followed by Matthew and Luke.

From an academic perspective, the farther the authorship of a book gets away from the time of Jesus' life, the more we see the influence of the church in re-membering. This makes the Gospel of John, the least likely to actually get the facts of jesus' life correctly. However, it is one of my favorite books, because it reflects the remarkable character of love the Johannine community grew into decades after the earthquake of Jesus. You might say the gospel of John is a love-letter to Jesus.

To test this out for yourself, here is a simple exercise. Read the gospel of Mark backwards, one chapter at a time, attempting to un-remember everything you believe about Christianity. Especially the divinity of Jesus and the atonement. What does Mark say about who Jesus is? What does Mark say about the meaning of his death? What does Mark *not* say. Notice especially how much Mark talks about heaven and salvation. Once, i believe. And what are the criteria of getting to heaven? It's the story of the rich young ruler. Check it out. Does it involve faith? Or something else.

I take the same approach to Paul's letters. I accept modern scholarship's consensus that Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon are letters genuinely attributable to St. Paul. This is quite remarkable. We don't ever know who wrote the gospels. There is more than enough meat to keep me busy in Paul's genuine letters. And the same rule of thumb with the gospels is true of Paul's letters. Those that get farther away chronologically from his life bear the imprint of the church's influence, not faithfulness to his teaching.

But the honest scholars admit that sometimes their extreme studies actually distort the true meaning of the Bible text.

Can you name some of those scholars?

It is the goal of any good scholar, Christian, or non-Christian to find out what the "true meaning" of the text is. You don't need spiritual discernment to try and get at Paul's theology. Or to try and understand what "son of man" means historically, or what "the kingdom of God" meant. Or the historical underpinnings of John's revelation. What you do need spiritual discernment for is what faithfully living those ideas out looks like.

You wonder if under the surface, I have a secret desire to live a debauched life? If I were not a genuine believer in Jesus (Who drastically changed my life), I would say "yes".

I am not saying this about you. It is a general response to this common accusation against the consequences of not holding to the divine authority of the Bible.

What a low estimation of the value of life. That we need a divine rule-book to keep us from devaluing ourselves and others.

The older we get, hopefully, or ethics grow from being rule-based to values-based. My mom knew she had to control my impulses to eat candy and fruit pies, because I was a child and lacked the self-control. But now I need to control my diet because I *value* my health, rather than rely on a *rule-book.*

Jesus overwhelmingly emphasized values-based ethics, while the religious rulers were constantly frustrated by his betrayal against their rules-based ethics. Even worse, he subverted the Bible they used to justify their rules. And then he turned people loose to live this way, without a manual. You don't need a holy book to tell you to not live a debauched life. You have to value yourself and others.

This is what people like me believe about life and morality. The gospels are my source for understanding Jesus. I seek to imitate him, which means I am informed by his values. His ethic of love transforms me. The Bible doesn't need to be divine, or inspired, or inerrant to accomplish that. Which is fine, because they didn't claim that about themselves anyway.

[TK]

I have no idea why the POTUS has to be a born again Christian. I dont get that concept at all. It would be nice, if he was also a very smart and gifted leader, but we are not a theocracy. There are many non-Christians who may be excellently qualified to be POTUS.

Not saying Trump is that person, but no one else is seeming to corner that market either.

[Homer]

Morbo,

You say your religion is based on the teachings of Jesus, although, according to what you write, all we know of what he said and did is little more than hearsay, passed down to us by fallible men. He left us with nothing of His own writing. The idea that there was a document "Q" and that Mark was the first gospel is based on the ideas of fallible men. Supposedly the other gospel writers added to what Mark had written, but how do we know that Mark's is not the condensed, "Reader's Digest" version?

You say your religion is simply trying to be like Jesus. Do you approve of the vile practice of abortion? Wasn't the heart of Jesus' teaching about not being selfish? Can you think of any act more selfish than taking the life of an innocent baby? One that can survive outside the womb? I can't. Trump says he is a convert to the pro-life position. We will have to take him at his word until we learn differently. We have no doubt where Hillary Clinton stands on the issue and the kind of judges she would appoint. And the courts are legislating the laws, or whatever they are called, that are the bedrock of the liberal social agenda.

[morbo3000]

...all we know of what he said and did is little more than hearsay, passed down to us by fallible men. He left us with nothing of His own writing

This is to make a molehill out of a mountain. The material we have to work with regarding Jesus is huge. It being passed down by fallible men makes it no less remarkable. You are careening off the cliff that if a person doest not accept the totality of the canon then there is no value to be taken from the documents themselves. That is preposterous.

The idea that there was a document "Q" and that Mark was the first gospel is based on the ideas of fallible men.

It is the majority position of all reputable scholars, both evangelical and critical. In fact, I'd be surprised if there is any scholar who believes that Matthew or Luke pre-date Mark. Whether Q exists as a distinct source or not, Matthew and Luke were definitely relying on another common source besides Mark. This means that both the secondary source and Mark pre-date Matthew and Luke, and are closer to the historical Jesus. I''m not sure why you would debate this. It is commonly accepted knowledge. And does nothing to harm your theology or faith.

You say your religion is simply trying to be like Jesus. Do you approve of the vile practice of abortion?

What on earth gives you any idea that I would approve of abortion? What a crazy grenade to throw into the middle of a conversation.

Trump is nothing but an opportunist. Claiming to be pro-life is simply good politics for him right now.

[steve7150]

Trump is nothing but an opportunist. Claiming to be pro-life is simply good politics for him right now.







Really if he were simply an opportunist he could have ran as an independent and with his pro business agenda siphoned off many Republican votes and he could have kept a moderate social agenda and siphoned off many Democratic votes and IMO have a great chance to win.
You called him a fascist but we saw fascism last night as "Moveon.org" organized thugs to break up a pro Trump rally and threatened to keep doing it. IMHO the left does not want or value free speech, except if you agree with them.

BTW I think Mark was written very early as he talks about people's facial expressions and emotions as Jesus does something, the original notes may have been contemporaneously.

[dwight92070]

Here we see the error of the so-called scholarly approach to Bible interpretation. Throughout the centuries, the church, including scholars have given their stamp of approval on the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible and yet that's not good enough for some people. God is more than able to watch over His word to keep it pure and understandable. The "wise and intelligent" will not see that, but "infants" will. Luke 10:21

As far as the writers not claiming divine inspiration themselves, that is untrue. Peter called Paul's writings "scripture". That is most of the New Testament. We know that Jesus opened the minds of the apostle's to understand the scriptures, so that anything they wrote for the benefit of the church is itself inspired by God. Paul said all scripture in inspired by God.

[Homer]

Morbo,

You wrote:

What on earth gives you any idea that I would approve of abortion? What a crazy grenade to throw into the middle of a conversation.

If you are opposed to abortion you have my sincere apology. As I recall you support gay marriage and are very much a liberal which I mistakenly assumed included support for abortion. Having said that, what I wrote about abortion still applies to Clinton and Sanders. Regarding Trump you wrote:

the furthest from Jesus and The Kingdom of God that any political leader could be.

How can Trump be further than the Democrats who support abortion while he opposes it? And I must add I am very much opposed to Trump being the Republican nominee; I simply view him as less bad than Hillary or Sanders.

You wrote:

I give the greatest weight to those records of his life closest chronologically to his life, and decreasingly to those documents historically farther. So, Mark and the hypothetical "Q" gospel are front and center. Followed by Matthew and Luke.

You seem, rather oddly, to follow modern scholarship in contradiction to your stated "closest chronological" principle. The early church fathers believed Matthew to be written first and those closest to the time of the Apostles do not seem to know anything of the hypothetical "Q". Why is that?

[morbo3000]

Here we see the error

Where is the error? When I read the bible, i do nothing different then you do. I ask "what does this text say?" I do everything I can to read it in context, just as I'm sure you do. I don't try to make it say what I want it to. Where is the error in that?

I choose to focus on specific books out of priority. I don't have enough time in my life to try and gain a deep understanding of every book in the bible. So, I focus on specific books, with the criteria I gave. Again. Where is the error in that? That's 3+1 gospels. And 7 letters of Paul. Plus I pray through the Psalms.

of the so-called scholarly approach to Bible interpretation.

What would you prefer to call it? Do you not read commentaries? Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias? Who do you think wrote those? Sushi chefs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[morbo3000]

As I recall you support gay marriage and are very much a liberal which I mistakenly assumed included support for abortion.

What does respecting two people's love for each other and their desire for their union to be recognized as every other loving couple in America have to do with killing babies? One issue is about love. The other is violence. They couldn't be further apart.

Having said that, what I wrote about abortion still applies to Clinton and Sanders. Regarding Trump you wrote:

How can Trump be further than the Democrats who support abortion while he opposes it?

Do you know anyone who supports abortion? Any candidate? I sure don't. No one wants there to be more abortions.

the furthest from Jesus and The Kingdom of God that any political leader could be.

Here is video of Bernie addressing this topic at Liberty University.

http://youtu.be/y_nTe7LCYYI

If you can make it past the 3 minutes he talks taking the pro-choice position, watch the last of it and you will see how the Kingdom of God goes beyond one issue. And how immoral the Republicans have been by giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest and corporations, while taking money from healthcare and food to the poor and children. Sounds a lot like issues Jesus preached against.

You seem, rather oddly, to follow modern scholarship in contradiction to your stated "closest chronological" principle.

No. The early church fathers are secondary sources. Not primary. I am interested in the primary sources closest to Jesus' life. As are you. If the church fathers disagree (which they often do) with biblical theology, you would reject their opinions.

I'll ask you the same question I did with Dwight: re modern scholarship. Do you not read commentaries? Bible dictionaries? Who do you think wrote those? French clothiers? And what difference does it make? I go to the same bible and the same verses with the same intent as you. To ask "what does this text mean?"



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dwight92070]

I never said I was against scholarship. Even in my post I mentioned that the church includes scholars and probably always has. I would consider Paul a scholar. Yes, I do use Bible commentaries, dictionaries, etc. But when your scholarship leads you to false, anti-Biblical errors, you don't have true scholarship, now you have so-called scholarship,

Where is the error? Again, in my post I explicitly stated some of the errors:

1. Not believing that the Bible is inerrant.
2. Saying that the writers of the Bible did not claim that their writings were divinely inspired and so not assuming that the Bible is inspired.
3. Not recognizing that the church, by and large, thoughout the centuries has believed that the Bible is inerrant and is divinely inspired by God.
4. Here's one that I did not mention earlier: Believing in a non-existent gospel of "Q" and drawing conclusions as if it did exist.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is,the word of God, ..." Clearly Paul is saying that his teachings were the word of God, which includes his oral preaching and teaching as well as his written preaching and teaching.

2 Peter 3:15-16 Here Peter clearly includes the writings of Paul, as being part of the Scriptures.

Luke 24:27 and 45 Here Jesus explained to two disciples "the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures." Later He appeared to the 11 apostles and other disciples with them and "Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, ...". So when Matthew, John, and Peter wrote their books, we know that they had a clear understanding of both the scriptures and the life and teachings of Jesus, so much so that the early church considered their writings to be divinely inspired.

Finally, and a little off topic, but part of the original subject, can you give us evidence that Donald Trump is a fascist?
Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College noted that many people now, mostly Democrats, are calling Trump a fascist. So he and others did research on Trump, going back many years, looking at his speeches and/or talks. Repeatedly, Trump spoke of the fact that we are a nation of laws, laws passed by congress. There was no indication of fascism. Of course, those are his words, not his actions. But maybe you could let us know what is fascist in his words or his behavior. Another tactic of the Democrats, as was noted in an earlier post, is to start riots at Trumps rallies, to make it look like Trump causes trouble and violence, when actually it is those opposed to him who are the violent troublemakers (the so-called peaceloving Democrats).

By the way, since Trump appears to be your enemy, how are you loving him, as Jesus told us to do?