a deep, philosophical question

Re: Re: Can you say Faux Paus

 

Bill, please don't apologize for practicing systematic theology. I belong to a church with a lay ministry that does not hold ecumenical councils, nor does it have professional theologians (which is probably why we LDS are often naive in our use of theological terminology).

It is true that Mormons do not hold the Council of Nicaea, et al and the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, et al, as being authoritative. I hold the doctrine of homoousious to be an extra-biblical innovation. However, I would certanly be much more uncomfortable with Ariansim and it's "created" Christ who was "unlike" the father.

Tony

(Who held a minor in religion at Cal State, until transferring to BYU which, interestingly, did not offer degrees in religion)

 

This is all really impressive, guys. Keep up the good level of discussion. Even the Carpathian peasant is delighted.

 

A Carpathian peasant who seems to know a thing or two!

What is it about Christians and faith? Muslims too, I guess. I think that for most Jews what one BELIEVES is rather unimportant compared with how one BEHAVES.

For Christians and Muslims, however, it seems that the most important thing is not only faith, but the right KIND of faith.

There are exceptions, of course. I doubt that most Jews would consider any "Jew-for-Jesus" to be anything but an apostate, but that may be more a matter of emotion than reason.

Anyway, my point is that faith as a foundation for "salvation" is a very un-Jewish concept. Actually, "salvation" is a not-so-Jewish concept as well. Torah (Chumash) doesn't even MENTION an afterlife, let alone heaven and hell.

Nosborne, JD

 

===============================


Nosborne

Please don't be offended, but I'd like to respond to this. I will not make the assumption that your religion feels obligated to adhere to the your Scripture's usage of 'emun. But as I read what we call "The Old Testament" I find therein regular occasions where belief is considered a measure of righteousness and a requirement of acceptability to God. These include:


* And Abraham believed in the Lord and God counted it as righteousness. Gen 15:6

* And God was angry because they believed not in God, Ps 78:21,22

* They did not believe in the Lord and rejected his laws , so God removed Israel out of His sight. 2 Kings 17


* God said, "I will hide my face from these children who have no faith, Dt 32:20


* The just shall live by faith, Hab 2:5


Of course it could be countered that these are not exhortations to accede to doctrinal requirements. But it seems clear to me that your Scriptures urge commitment to theological tenets as well as requiring good living, eg,

* Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one...these words teach diligently, Dt. 6:4-7

Nevertheless in the New Testament the verb pisteuo or the noun pistis can indicate trust in a Person( 'His disciples believed on Him', Jo 2:11) or on a set of doctrines ('salvation through belief of the truth, 2 Thes 2:13). I lean toward the notion that one might confess a creed yet not genuinely trust in God.

Thanks for not being offended,

 

This is not a debate that we are in a position to have.

I did NOT say that Torah says the Messiah will be a man; I meant to make it clear that the Jewish traditional concept of Messiah, which doesn't even APPEAR in Torah itself, is not divine.

The reason I can't debate this with you is that I don't believe that Torah, or even the rest of the Hebrew scriptures, are the Word of God. Therefore, the bible cannot be used to convince me of the rightness or wrongness of ANY theological position, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, for that matter.

If you could show me in b'midbar where the text describes the Christian Jesus in exact detail down to his shoe size, it still would not suffice to change my opinion, you see.

We do not have common ground for debate.

You ask me to disprove your scriptural interpretation. This I decline to attempt. You come from a Christian faith that begins and ends with the divinity of Jesus, which is by definition not subject to objective verification. (Neither, for that matter, is MY faith, let me make it clear! I am NOT accusing you of spiritual blindness!)

Lastly, it seems to me that the burden of going forward to demonstrate that a long dead Jew is in fact alive and divine ought to lie with the proponant!

This posting is a bit vigorous. Please accept it in the spirit I assure you it is offered.

Nosborne, JD

 

Nosborne

No problem, thanks.

 

Nosborne:
You are on to something that most Christians don't get about "faith." Most Christians seem to construe "faith" as a sort of emotional effort or psychological accomplishment which is self-generated, the result of "decisions for Christ," revival meetings, or rationally persuasive apologetics. Muslim "faith" appears (to this kafir) to be of the same order. From my own tradition's perspective, faith is an absence of human work or effort, a recognition that God has totally on his own done whatever is necessary to bring and keep human beings in right relationship with himself.
The Christian in my tradition who "lives by faith" necessarily lives under the Law, that is, in admittedly defective obedience to the moral demands of the Law. So real "faith" necessarily results in human action which is actually God-pleasing--because and only because it is a consequence of his prior and permanently undeserved action on our behalf. That undeserved action is completed for us in the career of Jesus of Nazareth.
You are correct in saying there are not grounds for debate. I think there are grounds for the kind of conversation which has been going on on this thread (and others, as it happens). Real debate required the complete sharing of presuppositions; conversation requires intelligence and empathy.
St Jerome says somewhere that the equivalent of Jews for Jesus in his own day "while wishing to be both Jews and Christians end by being neither one." There appears to be a lack of recognition of the true function of the Law on their part. I would welcome input from them on how they view the Law. There does also appear to be a problem with misleading advertising. This is not to say that such groups are dishonest, but that their initial presentation of themselves seems to impress Jews as tricky and to impress Christians (in my tradition) as confused.
You are quite right that the burden of proof that a long-dead Jew is alive lies with the proponent. That Proponent, in our view, works "faith" in us through the specifically church-located arenas called word (that is, preaching and study of the law-gospel polarity in the scriptures) and sacrament (the ritual actions of baptism, the mass, and confession/absolution). By definition that does not occur on a website! What does occur here, thanks to posters like yourself, Bill, Tony, and quite a number of others, is a forum of goodwill. That in and of itself is a precious thing.
Janko

 

well said, Unk

 

Does this represent an answer to the question that led off this thread? Do Christians accept that the good atheist is saved? Is everyone already saved, independent of what they believe or do?

Or must people *do* something in order to pass judgement?

Christians have told me repeatedly that the fate of my soul depends on my accepting Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. Is that mistaken? Am I already saved, even if I decline to (or am unable to) "accept" Christ?

My point is that it seems to me that a tremendous "work" is being called for here. That's true, even if it is an inner work of reorientation rather than an outer work of behaving in accordance with a code of religious law.

 

Re: Re: Can you say Faux Paus

Do Mormons believe that Jesus is in fact the spirit brother of Lucifer? If so, then that is one significant way in which I believe Mormonism, by inherent tenet, is not compatible with Christianity. Please clarify this belief for me.

This is true...but the litmus test, if you will, of being called a Christian would include exactly "what" is implied by a Christian with respect to who Jesus is.

Tony, I believe, as you apparently do, in the selectivity of the New Testament authors. If I allow the canon to be opened for alleged plates discovered by Joseph Smith - what would stop others from receiving "revelations" which they should should be included, as well? The canon, in its purest sense, is after all, a "standard" evaluated by the framers of the canon to include what was agreed as Scripture. Would the Book of Mormon fit the canonizers definition of an included work?

I will have to hunt through my files to see if I can produce it. I am pretty sure it it's not saved on a diskette anywhere.

Keeping the civility going,
Steven King

 

Actually, if we evaluate the New Testament carefully, there seems to be a great correlation between what one believes especially as it relates to what one does with that belief. True Christian belief should translate into better living. In other words, it is not enough to mentally assert faith - it must be demonstrable in action.

Elsewhere I've typed that "faith" should be regarded in light of the object in which it is placed. Therefore, a Christian's faith is placed in God to effect salvation in that person's life. How can "faith" be divorced from salvation?

Steven King

 

Re: Re: Re: Can you say Faux Paus

There's an analogous situation in Buddhism.

The Southern ("Therevada") Buddhists closed their canon in the form of the 'Tripitaka' ("three-fold collection"), preserved today as the 'Pali Canon'.

But a more expansive movement continued on, culminating in Northern ("Mahayana") Buddhism, which freely added new and additional scriptures in the form of the numerous Mahayana Sutras. The Mahayana accepts the Tripitaka (not necessarily in its Pali form), *plus* their own scriptures. (Different sects often emphasize different ones.) But they don't really have a well defined and closed canon, like the Southern Buddhists.

Nevertheless, they all are Buddhists.

 

It appears that the New Testament demonstrates that a true believer will do things that are consistent with being a believer. In that sense faith without works is dead.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you say Faux Paus

I am not sure what a proper response to this is. When I took Hermeneutics in seminary, I was blown away by the selectivity of the scriptures within the canon [and the "good" works that were lablelled as such, but were excluded since they didn't meet the rules for canonization]. The obvious religious/political motivations for exclusion of some material can never be fully apprehended. I recall thinking...if they were that selective, how can I trust this is all I am supposed to have?

That is where faith must play out - if I can believe that God gave me his book - then I have to believe that he superintended the process so that I got what I needed.

Still in progress,
Steven King

 

I am a bit surprised that a topic of vital importance has been rather obscure in this thread, namely, the purported resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Several questions have been asked in this thread about determining the authenticity of religious claims, and much comparison has been made between various religious expressions. People rightly want to examine religious claims with some measure of objective verifiability. I believe the empty tomb of Christ provides such an opportunity.

Scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) are largely agreed that the tomb of Jesus Christ was found empty a few days after his death by Roman crucifixion. Historical evidence overwhelmingly points to this conclusion. The question is: What accounts for this fact? A simple mistake? A masterful hoax? Or an unprecedented miracle?

Jesus Christ plainly said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). If these words of Jesus are true, then faith in him is the exclusive means by which we can approach our Maker. The question is: Are these words true?

If the body of Jesus rotted in the grave, then these words lack authority and are, for our purposes, meaningless. Christianity's exclusivistic claims have no teeth, and it can be shown to be no better than many other religious ideologies. If, on the other hand, Jesus has been raised from the dead, these words need to be taken with utmost seriousness. For these reasons, I don't think we can afford to merely be agnostic on the matter of Christ's supposed resurrection. We must attempt to make sense of the evidence, and either discount Christian particularism as an atrocity or embrace the resurrected Christ. Did Jesus Christ rise physically from the dead? In my opinion, this question forms the linchpin to the entire discussion.

I have great affinity for scholarly inquiry that treats the New Testament gospels like all other purportedly historical documents. Such an approach is modeled by the scholar William Lane Craig, and examples can be found here: www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html. Craig has written two doctoral dissertations on the resurrection (one submitted to the University of Birmingham, the other to the University of Munich), and both were subsequently published by Edwin Mellen Press. He has debated the subject with several prominent scholars, and his Boston College debate with Gerd Ludemann (professor of New Testament, University of Gottingen) was published by InterVarsity Press in 2000. The book is quite helpful in that it also provides responses by four other scholars, two of whom reject the resurrection and two of whom accept it. For those interested in this affordable, multi-sided treatment of the topic, information on the book can be found here: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0830815694/qid%3D1035393240/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-6945476-2771962.

 

Re: Re: Re: Can you say Faux Paus

TONY:
Steven, due to the sheer length of each of us quoting and responding to the other's quotes, I will leave it up to the good Degreeinfo folks to look back on our correspondence to gain some context of our conversation.


STEVEN:
Do Mormons believe that Jesus is in fact the spirit brother of Lucifer? If so, then that is one significant way in which I believe Mormonism, by inherent tenet, is not compatible with Christianity. Please clarify this belief for me.

TONY:
To ask this kind of question is a bit like asking a Christian (of any denomination) the following: "Isn't it true that Jesus teaches us that we should hate our families (Luke 14:26), perform self-mutilation (Matt 18:9), engage in cannibalism (John 6:53-57) and, finally, commit suicide (18:25)?" You, of course, see the point that it is easy to make a question taken out of context sound scandalous. To answer the above question would take a posting long enough to exhaust the patience of even the most devoted Degreeinfo member. I hope that my responses will not do the same.

I will attempt to clarify this belief as briefly as I can. LDS belief is that God is the Father of all spirits, yours, mine, the angels'--everyone's (including Lucifer's). Lucifer was one of God's spirit children (a "Son of the Morning" to use Isaiah's wordsl) who choose to rebel completely against God and was cast out, becoming Satan, the Evil one. Latter-day Saints are certainly not alone in this belief. For instance, Lactantius--who, along with Eusebius, documented Constantine's conversion to Christianity--held this doctrine as well, and has always been considered a Christian. (By the way, Eusebius, who's history of the church is standard Christian reading, would be likely considered by anti-Mormons as a non-Christian, due to his "subordinist" view of the Godhead).

This doctrine avoids the whole controversy as to whether God is the author of sin by creating Satan "ex-nihilo". I prefer the idea that Satan rebelled against God than the idea of God being the cause of evil and sin. As you can see, anti-Mormons twist our belief in Lucifer into a doctrine about the nature of Christ. This is a doctrine concerning the nature of Lucifer, not Christ.

Now, you may very well state that my understanding of Lucifer is flawed and that I interpret the verses in Isaiah and other places incorrectly, but is an incorrect interpretation of origin and nature of Lucifer enough to label me a non-Christian? Christological understanding throughout the ages and even now among the various denominations has not been consistent (witness the perceived need for the various ecumenical councils), yet all involved in these discussions/debates about the origin and nature of Christ were still allowed to be "Christians". Can anyone construct a consistent and complete doctrine of the origin and nature of Satan using just the Bible? It seems odd to exclude Mormons from being Christians because they may differ from evangelicals on their understanding of Lucifer/Satan.


STEVEN:
...but the litmus test, if you will, of being called a Christian would include exactly "what" is implied by a Christian with respect to who Jesus is.

TONY:
Really? Who established such a "litmus test"? Where, specifically, in the Bible is this litmus test found (e.g. "in order to be called a Christian you must ____, otherwise you are a non-Chrsitian")? I haven't yet been able to find any verse like that.


STEVEN:
Tony, I believe, as you apparently do, in the selectivity of the New Testament authors.

TONY:
Well, I know that John stated at the end of his gospel that there were "many other things which Jesus did..." that, if written down, would fill all of the world's books. Since so little of Jesus' life is documented in the four gospels, they obviously nneded to be selective (this is not a criticism--I certainly trust their judgement!). I do lament, however, that our Bible only contains the writings of 3 of the original 12 apostles (I could do without the Book of Judas Iscariot, but the Book of Andrew would have been nice).


STEVE:
If I allow the canon to be opened for alleged plates discovered by Joseph Smith - what would stop others from receiving "revelations" which they should should be included, as well? The canon, in its purest sense, is after all, a "standard" evaluated by the framers of the canon to include what was agreed as Scripture.

TONY:
I realize that the Book of Mormon idea of a group of Israelites 1) who fled from Jerusalem out to the desert because they felt that the city had become apostate and ripe for destruction, 2) preserved their scriptures and other records and 3) wrote on metal plates sounds far-fetched. It least it did until 1947, when the Dead Sea Scrolls introduced us to another group who did just that (the so-called "Copper Scroll", is actually a series of riveted metal plates).

Seriously, though, one of the many accusations hurled at early Christians was that they supplanted and reinterpreted the scriptures with their own writings. Although God said in at least three places that MEN were not to add or take away from His words, there is nowhere in the Bible where He declares that HE would never speak again (not even in Rev. 22:18-20). Your point: "If I allow the canon to be opened" is right on the mark. The canon was closed, not by God, but by men, as a defense against the "canon" adopted by Marcion and the alleged revelations by the Montanists in the mid-2nd century. Even then, it took another 250 years before an "authoritative canon" was declared.

Since canonization occurred over the period of over three centuries and involved many different "lists," This is a difficult statement to address adequately. Eusebius argued that the major requirement for scriptural authority was a book's use by the previous generation of church leaders. Others argued for "apostolicity," but since Mark, Luke, and Jude were not apostles (and Paul and James the Just were not of the original 12), being an apostle's close companion was deemed acceptable. Nevertheless, this did not keep 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Gospel of Thomas and other books from showing up on "official" lists in many of the churches for hundreds of years.

Another "standard," articulated by Bruce Shelley (Denver Seminary) is that the scriptures have a "self-evidencing quality about them...they have always exercised, and still exercise, an unparalleled power among men." (Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, p. 76). Dr. Shelley, in fact, seems to answer your question about "others from receiving "revelations" which they should should be included, as well?" If Shelley is correct, then I should be able to read the Bible, the Qur'an and the Bhagvat Gita and should walk away with a testimony that the Bible is, in fact, the Word of God. Latter-day Saints affirm exactly the same thing about the Book of Mormon.

Some have made fun of the LDS idea that you can pray about the truthfulness of the Book (Bible or Book of Mormon) and get an answer. But I have never been given an "objective" test of the truthfulness of the Bible without being asked to apply circular logic. (e.g. "The Book is true because it says so"). You may discount my faith and testimony as purely "subjective feelings," but I would need something indisputable in its place.


STEVEN:
Would the Book of Mormon fit the canonizers definition of an included work

TONY:
I doubt that Athanasius would have liked it much. Do you have any information on the "canonizers" (their names, church positions, translation experience, theological preparation)? Can any 1 Evangelical in 100 expound on the history of the development of the canon from the time of John to its fixing by the third Council of Carthage in 397? It seems that we have placed an awful lot of faith in the efforts of people whom we know so little about. (I think that I can imagine your retort to this last sentence).


STEVEN:
I will have to hunt through my files to see if I can produce it. I am pretty sure it it's not saved on a diskette anywhere.

TONY:
If you could find it, I'd be interested to read it.

STEVEN
Keeping the civility going,
Steven King

TONY:
I was starting to wonder when you brought up the old anti-Mormon chestnut about "spirit brother of satan," but I am convinced that your motivations (as mine) are civility and mutual exchange (not attacking).
Tony Piña
(If there be any typos, it be the mistakes of man)

 

I am dropping in on the fourth page of this discussion but have a comment. I was looking at the issue of Messianic Judaism and found some rather interesting issues (at least to me).

Messianic Jews seem to suffer from all sides. Some Liberal Christians don't like them evangelizing Jews, some conservative Christians don't like the fact that they keep the feasts and traditions which they consider superfluous since Christ. And the different Jewish traditions (Orthodox/Conservative/Reformed) do not consider them to be Jews. One of the ironies is that you can be Jewish and not believe in God but cannot be a Messianc Jew and be Jewish (according to one site). Some of the Jewish sites expressed concerns over what they consider dishonest tactics used by Messianic Jews to recruit students and retirees as well as universally affirming that they were not Jews.

One of the sites alerted Jews to tactics used by Christians and how to refute issues that they consider to be misinterpretations of Old Testament texts and statements about the Old Testament predicting Christ which they consider textual misuse.

One of the humble things to realize was that to some (many Jews??) Christianity is a sect that is not worshipping the same God as Judaism. In that sense they see us in the same way Evangelical Christians view the Mormon Church (with extra non divine scripture/worhsipping a distortion of God, etc).

Reminds me that an Orthodox Rabbi (Chaplain) I knew in the army was the happiest that Muslim Chaplains were coming on board. He said that this would cause the chaplaincy to think more outside of the Christian box which he felt paid lip service to his religous perspective but really did not understand it.

North

 

Greetings Darren!

Without going in to any depth the Bible is an amazing book which has much....much.... prophecy in it that has come to pass. Specific prohecies, the odds of which coming true are astronomical (no astrologist/psychic has ever come anywhere near as close...so much so that you could say they are utter failures in this regard) . It is written over hundreds and hundreds of years by many different authors and yet has remarkable unity. It has made statements regarding archeology/anthropolgy that have been laughed at by scholars and then turn out to be true. For Christians these and many other things indicate divine inspiration. No other religion's scripture can compare to the Bible.

The recommendations regarding Josh McDowell are good.

The reality is that no matter how much evidence is placed before people, if their heart is not open to it they will not understand it. I could quote biblical passages regarding this but will not for brevity.

North