John 3:16 questions

Just something every good Congregationalist knows, ha!

 

Forgive me. With which part of Pike's quote, then, are you "strongly disagreeing"?

The distinction is a fine one when one has no inner conviction for, or impulse towards such a notion. The inner and higher prerogative and law of my soul are intact without this myth. They have no inclination toward Christ and his purported sacrifice.

Those who say it can't be done are often interupted by someone doing it.

I proclaim, as did Apollonius of Tyana, O ye gods, grant unto me that which I deserve.

May my deeds bear their natural consequences, to the glory of the gods.

Enjoying the interaction as well, and peace to you,

Brett

 

Read what Pascal wrote on this subject and you'll see. And I'm not asking you to uncritically--like a robot--accept anything. Neither is G-d. But this matter deserves honest investigation rather than perfunctory slogans.

Perhaps I was being a bit disingenuous with saying: "Yeah, you're right, it makes no sense". I think, even from a non-spiritual perspective, it can make some sense. I'm sorry; serves me right for not being totally honest in a debate.

In fact, dcv, as you're a sharp guy, I'll bet that even you could, right now, come up with some hypothetical spiritual law or common-sense reason why a perfect G-d could perform the atoning work necessary to save humankind from their sin by paying the penalty for us.

Try, I'll bet you can come up with something. And if you just say "Pass, it's pure BS, makes no sense whatsoever", I'm going to question your honesty.

 

And please, stop asking for that--you might get it!

 

Strong's is not usually a source for biblical language reference.

The Greek pisteuo can also mean "to be persuaded," and doesn't strictly mean mere belief or mental assent.

 

I used Strong's because I thought I should use something from a particular source of some authority, and that was what I had on hand. My Greek is still pretty weak; languages wasn't part of my MDiv curriculum, and I'm just beginning to work on it on my own.

That having been noted, you're right: There are certainly better authorities for Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic than Strong's.

Thanks.

Peace,

Matt

 

Brett! (beats calling you "dcv" ->. What's that stand for, anyway?),

I was disagreeing with the part you noted; it was your interpretation of what I was saying that gave me the impression that you'd misunderstood my views, and so I sought to clarify them above.

It is merely the distinction between nomincal adherence to a faith and actual grasping and giving oneself over to it (or rather, to Him).

Somehow, I can't imagine you've quite attained perfection.... (;->

To the contrary, it is my prayer that in God's mercy you are spared the natural consequences of your deeds, and that the singular cure for death, in Messiah, be granted you in His Providence and revelation (or as my Sufi friends would say, by irfan ->).

Seriously, consider reading the Athenasius piece I linked above. Normally I suggest to people that they focus on the first few chapters which seem to "get under the hood" of the Incarnation, but perhaps reading some of his response to the Greeks would be helpful, too (perhaps with a side order of Justin Martyr's First Apology as well. (;->

Peace to you,

Matt

 

I was the one who mentioned pseudo-Dionysius. The context was Little Fauss' raising the issue of God's transcendence to deflect rationalistic questions about doctrine, and my observation that his rhetorical strategy is not without its problems.

My reason for citing pseudo-Dionysius was his saying things like this:

"The fact is that the more we take flight upward, the more our words are confined to the ideas we are capable of forming; so that now as we plunge into that darkness which is beyond intellect, we shall find ourselves not simply running short of words, but actually speechless and unknowing." ('The Mystical Theology' 1033b)

My own point is that if you push divine transcendence very hard, then all the conventional propositional language about divine things becomes more and more problematic. Ultimately one is led towards an interesting religiously-motivated agnosticism, a 'cloud of unknowing' you might say.

 

I've read a little Pascal. Why don't you quote me a snippet that you feel is relevant to the question at hand.

 

What is it you think I deserve that is so horrible? And what have I done to deserve it?

 

Hi Bill,

Actually, Pseudo-Dionysius is talking not so much agnostically as apophatically; that outside what has been revealed in Scripture, one can 't really predicate anything about God; it is through "negation" (He's not like this, not like that; not all that different from the Upanishadic "neti-neti", except, again, I think even Dionysius would of course allow what is predicated in revealed Scripture.).

But you know that (not for nothing your nod towards the Cloud of Unknowing ->)

It is also interesting to note the way Pseudo-Dionysius appropriated Neoplatonic language to communicate truth about Christ, saying essentially that the longing expressed for union with God in Pagan writings and philosophy could find their fulfillment in Christ; it is only in Him that such mysticism "works"; the kernal of this idea is found in Athanasius' On the Incarnation (cited above), but is given in much greater detail in, say, Maximos the Confessor's works which somewhat take from where Pseudo-Dionysius left off, as well as in the mystical writings of Symeon the New Theologian.

Peace,

Matt

 

Some Reflections

Speaking of the Song of Solomon, I do remember a minister associate of mine who preached through the S of S each Sunday for 3 years, taking the Christ and His Church line... and a couple of years later, he made the headlines of the newspapers when he was picked up by a plain clothes cops for soliciting for prostitutes!

But coming back to John 3:16, the meaning of this verse can only be considered in the light of 'religious' truth. This form of 'truth' or understanding is quite beyond our normal access to facts and information - through the senses. Unless you believe in human having both a normal and supernatural channel to knowlege and understanding, then this matter is beyond us. And it would also have to be presumed that the channel of supernatural knowlege comes from a Christian God!

I am in the process of reading Locke's 'Essay Concerning Human Understanding' after having finished my name sakes work on 'Treatise on Human Nature', and hence am not really in the mood to try and 'explain' the philosophical background to the development of this biblical story of God's children, expiation and sacrifice and the whole concept of sin (read Adam Smiith's 'Moral Sentiments' for a good common sense exposition on morality, along with Hume).

And who is to say that the only way to Gog is through the Christian faith? It is a nonsense to think that IF there was a god (apart from the creation of our mind), he is or would necessarily have to be a Christian god.

My apologies to all you ministers out there who make a living out of peddling this snake oil!

 

dodge city vegan.

Far from it. Somehow I don't think I'll attain it by expecting others to pay for my sins.

Thank you for the kind prayer, though I find the "singular cure" a tad dramatic. Much as if I had said "May Apollo the only god shine his light down upon you" (not that I would ever say such a thing.)

What terrible deeds do I commit, that I should escape their natural consequences?

Perhaps you could find some relevant passage of Athenasius? No offense, but I have no particular interest in rummaging through the his works. I can tell you that I find the notion that "God became man that we might be made God" more than just a little quaint.

Peace to you as well.

Brett

 

Re: Some Reflections

Oy... here we go again:

1. Sorry about your minister friend, but that's hardly representitive of all, nu? Obvious cheap shots like that don't much enhance your argument.

2. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll post a link to a fairly brief but effective response to David Hume's empiricism generally (that of the real David Hume, that is): http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hume01.html

3. Snake oil? More like fish oil: People have varying opinions on it's taste, but the fact is that it's good for you! (;->

Peace,

Matt

 

I'm going to be coy. You tell me. I going to play bounce-the-question-back rabbi with you.

And for your information, I consider myself neither one step higher nor lower than you. But I will not get what I deserve.

 

Brett:

I don't find that quote quaint--I find it blasphemous!

Surprised?

Maybe I missed something that was discussed earlier on this thread, but nowhere are we led to believe in the Scriptures that we will become G-d because G-d became man. There are two groups that teach that theology: the Mormons, who I do not consider "Christian" at all, and some of those word-faith televangelists such as Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, and that lady with that incredible, stupendous hair --I will not express in words what I think of that crowd, because I'm not capable of maintaining my dignity while doing it.

Mike aka Little Fauss

 

I thought since you seem so concerned that I might actually get what I deserve that you had some ideas in mind of terrible things I deserve.

Since you're being coy, however, I suppose my answer would be "Nothing that requires anyone to die for me, certainly nothing that merits eternal punishment."

Nothing I've seen so far indicates to me that you consider yourself so.

I believe that you will, and that you'd be better served by recognizing that fact instead of counting upon jesus to wipe away your actions.

 

Mike,

Just so you know, what Athanasius was talking about had nothing to do with the kind of thing followed by Mormons; he recognized that we who are merely created could never become uncreated. The idea of being united to God in Athanasius is not like a drop of water merging into the Ocean, but rather more like a cloth becoming filled with water.

Figure it this way: On the Incarnation is found on the Spurgeon site, rather than that of the LDS! ->

Peace,

Matt

 

Pardon my intrusion into this discussion, but I have never heard Kenneth (nor Gloria) Copeland say we can become God.

I also think you don't really understand the Mormon faith at all.

 

John 3:16: reason

I think the original questions were all perfectly reasonable.

Yes, reason is what we all have to work with, and reason has to encompass and define our discussions.
However, reason is not what faith is made of.
Let me explain...

The neurons firing in my brain are not the same as the taste of apple pie. Apple pie does not taste of neurons firing in my brain. Undeniably neurons firing is how I get the taste of apple pie: there is a qualitative leap somewhere. That's not a leap of faith; it's more anaologous to consubstantiation, where two things happen on two levels at the same time.

So we are stuck with reason as our tool of discourse: let's keep using it. Faith can be qualitatively different from reason, but it's not the tool of discussion.
Let's stay reasonable about this.
Vera
B. Th. (Bogus certificate of Theology-Gnome University)
CQSW (Certificate of Qualification that is Surely Worthless-Bishop Beaver College)