Network Ipswich : Jesus loves science

(page 1 2)

	The Revd Matthew Firth (Guest)	07/09/2011 18:12
I didn't mention John's Gospel, Charles did. But, now you mention it...You claim that the synoptics and John are totally different in their view of Jesus. Not so. See how Johannine is Matthew 11.27! Regarding the historicity of the Gospels (John as well as the synoptics), much modern biblical scholarship is showing how very historically accurate they are. I think you need to update your reading. 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses' by R Bauckham is excellent. Regarding your comments about the oneness of God over against the trinitarian understanding, the mistake you make is to assume that oneness in the Hebrew context is talking about internal numerical oneness. It isn't. Oneness in the Hebrew and Christian understanding is more about uniqueness of authority than it is about numerical oneness. It is about saying that the God of Israel is the one true God, and that other gods aren't. So, your quotes from Mark etc certainly do not negate a trinitarian understanding. Understood in the Hebrew context, there is absolutely no conflict between the oneness of God and him being known in three persons. And then you go on to say that Jesus was a 'Jew like any other', in line with 2nd Temple literature. So why did the Jewish leaders accuse him of blasphemy then, if his view of himself was that he was just another prophet? And then you claim that 'Jesus didn't die'. And then you try to separate 'faith' from 'knowledge', when actually faith is about deciding to trust a position which is reached through knowledge and experience etc. i.e. your arguments are sloppy and unfounded. Every point you make is just a trotting out of all the old and tired arguments which one can read in all the old books that are written with a clear liberal agenda. It's nothing new. I've heard it all before.
	Charles Riddleston (Guest)	07/09/2011 19:17
Deuteronomy 6 v.4 "Hear O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone"is the beginning of the Shema. It was an assertion of monotheism and served as a public proclamation of exclusive loyalty to Yahweh, as the sole Lord of Israel. The verse makes not a quantitative argument, but a qualitative one.
	The Revd Matthew Firth (Guest)	07/09/2011 22:03
Charles - you are spot on! The Hebrew sh'ma yisrael, adonai eloheinu, adonai echad is literally: Hear Israel! The LORD our God, the LORD one. i.e. the LORD who is our God, he stands alone and uncontested. Hence, it is not a comment about the internal multiplicity of God, but a comment about God's unique status. The guy who goes by the name 'Albert Einstein' obviously hasn't looked into the Hebrew properly before making his wild comments.
	Albert Einstein (Guest)	08/09/2011 14:34
// Matthew 11.27 ~ That is Son of Man, not Jesus as God. Sorry... // Jesus and the Eyewitnesses' by R Bauckham is excellent ~ Reddit... Not convincing at all. If all historians gave all ancient religious documents the benefit of the doubt surely we'd all be pantheists... // Understood in the Hebrew context, there is absolutely no conflict between the oneness of God and him being known in three persons ~ No other Hebrew I know of would agree with that. ure there were exalted humans and quasi godlike characters like Melchizedek, the Son of Man and the Teacher of Righteousness, and of course various hierarchies of angels - but no one would suggest that God is in three parts. // why did the Jewish leaders accuse him of blasphemy then ~ Did they? They had no reason to. They found no charge against him - they made it up. Jesus was killed for sedition by the Romans not for blasphemy. // faith is about deciding to trust a position which is reached through knowledge and experience ~ not a trustworthy experience, or all you Christians would believe the same thing surely? There are almost as many interpretations of Christianity as there are Christians. Again, you say 'knowledge' but you've already agreed that knowledge doesn't equal faith and really its faith your are talking about. So your argument is heading circular. It is not based on knowledge - and your experiences are totally subjective and different for many. So you can't equate knowledge with faith at all. // And then you claim that 'Jesus didn't die' Well did he? If a sacrifice was made surely it has to mean something. In the context of eternity Jesus didn't die. What did god 'the father' lose by Jesus' short and temporary death? Nothing. So what was the sacrifice exactly? And, the greater point surely has to be that God sent his some to die to save people from his own righteous wrath! If anything were ever concocted by man then this is the most convoluted and illogical pseudo-religious mumbo jumbo ever! // your arguments are sloppy and unfounded. Every point you make is just a trotting out of all the old and tired arguments ~ certainly not sloppy or unfounded. They may be old, but then that's because they've not been dealt with adequately. // clear liberal agenda ~ ohhh? Not really – just sensible, humanitarian and interested in truth... // it is not a comment about the internal multiplicity of God, but a comment about God's unique status. The guy who goes by the name 'Albert Einstein' obviously hasn't looked into the Hebrew properly before making his wild comments ~ I notice that you ignored the other two where Jesus had the opportunity to say he was 'one' with the 'one god' but didn't. Plus, as I said earlier, no Hebrew would, then or now, have ever suggested god was split into three distinct yet combined personalities....
	The Revd Matthew Firth (Guest)	08/09/2011 16:36
'...no Hebrew would, then or now, have ever suggested god was split into three distinct yet combined personalities...' Well, that's not quite the doctrine of the Trinity, but it is actually the case that certain Hebrews, then and now, put forward a trinitarian understanding; let's start with Jesus, John, Paul...And I will reiterate that you fundamentally misunderstand the Sh'ma: the oneness it speaks of is not necessarily internal and numerical. Also, you should do some more reading on trinitarian hints within the Old Testament. '...clear liberal agenda...' Yes! Really! '...they've not been dealt with adequately...' They have actually, by carefully looking at the first century context, which you clearly haven't looked into properly. '...what was the sacrifice exactly?...' The sacrifice was God himself dying on the cross. The cross needs to be understood within the full trinitarian framework. '...God sent his some [sic] to die to save people from his own righteous wrath...' You skew it quite a bit. God wants to put this world right, and if people choose not to accept that restoration through the death and resurrection of Jesus, then God won't put up with rebellion forever: there will indeed by judgement. But judgement is good, because it is a final setting to rights of all things, so that the world can finally get on with being the world that God intends. So yes, people are saved through Christ FROM the judgement of God, but they are also saved FOR eternal life in a remade world. '...you can't equate knowledge with faith at all...' As I said, faith is an active choice to build your life on something which you come to believe in through all manner of means: evidence, experience, tradition etc. My own faith is based on both experience of Jesus, historical evidence, and what has been passed on to me by other Christians down the centuries. The wedge you try to drive between knowledge and faith is utterly false. You yourself exercise faith, because you are building your life on a certain worldview. // why did the Jewish leaders accuse him of blasphemy then '...Did they? They had no reason to. They found no charge against him - they made it up. Jesus was killed for sedition by the Romans not for blasphemy...' They certainly did accuse him of blasphemy! Read Mark 14.53 onwards. And as far as your comments about the Romans, you're simply incorrect. The evidence of the text indicates that Pilate wanted to see Jesus aquitted, so Rome was hardly pushing for his death! If you read the text, you will find that it was a mixture of things that made the Jewish leaders want to get rid of Jesus, including Jesus' comments about the Temple and his raising of Lazarus from the dead. Pilate only consented to the death once the Jewish leaders started suggesting that if he didn't consent to it, that would be an afront the Caesar. 'Reddit... Not convincing at all. If all historians gave all ancient religious documents the benefit of the doubt surely we'd all be pantheists...' This just shows that, while you may have read Bauckham's book, you misunderstand the aim of it. The aim is not to prove that Jesus is God by showing that the NT documents are historically accurate. Rather, Bauckham's aim is to show that the documents are based on what the people at the time of Jesus were saying about him and the events which surrounded him. // Matthew 11.27 '...That is Son of Man, not Jesus as God. Sorry...' Actually, the debate was about whether, as you claimed, John and the synoptics are totally different in their view of Jesus. Matthew 11.27 shows that John and the synoptics are much closer in their view of Jesus than you claim. But, of course, all you have done here is, rather than commenting on my actual argument, to set up a straw man and try to knock it down by taking the argument off on a tangent about whether the term Son of Man denotes divinity or not. So, again, your arguments simply don't hold water. They are old and tired and have been answered. When you post again, why don't you post your name and contact details so that we can meet up and discuss things further?
	Albert Einstein (Guest)	09/09/2011 08:54
// trinitarian hints within the Old Testamen haha, I bet if you looked into the Bhagavad Gita or Tao Te Ching you could find 'hints' too! // '...clear liberal agenda...' Yes! Really! and your problem with liberalism? What is the opposite - fascism? // They have actually, by carefully looking at the first century context, which you clearly haven't looked into properly. you have no idea about me. I have looked at, as have many historians, scientists and philosophers - oddly enough the vast majority didn't reach the same conclusion as you. // The sacrifice was God himself dying on the cross. The cross needs to be understood within the full trinitarian framework. God died now did he? yet he raised himself from the grave? did god lose anything by his own death? No, you really are making it worse for yourself. // You skew it quite a bit Nope. God wants to put it all right and those that don't accept the resurrection are doomed to the fires of hell. Yet you say God saved 'us' from God (if you use the trinitarian framework) - logically this is exactly what I said. God killed himself to save us from his own righteous anger. Yet both god and jesus are still with us. Jesus didn't really die - he's 'still alive' whatever that means. God lost nothing. And, what's worse, you expect believe to believe you in this nonsense. It's clearly man-made, hateful and illogical. // The evidence of the text The texts were written by greek speaking people living in the roman empire who wanted to distance themselves from the violence going on in israel. it is hardly surprising they laid the blame on the jews and not the romans. the jews could have stoned jesus for Blasphemy, the Romans killed political prisoners by crucifixion. The answer is in the means of death not the contradictory passages in the gospels. // Bauckham's aim is to show that the documents are based on what the people at the time of Jesus were saying about him and the events which surrounded him Indeed, yet he seems to privilege the gospels over other religious documents. f we read these other religious text in the same way Baukham would have you read the gospels then we'd all be believing in the wonder workers that wandered the greek/roman world... // Son of Man denotes divinity or not Where is the stray man - you were equating god as son with the way John calls jesus god. But the Son of Man is a quasi divine figure and not seen as an aspect of god at all. No straw man here, just a negation of the specific text you put forward as your defense. // So, again, your arguments simply don't hold water. Nope, again you failed to answer the points I made. // When you post again, why don't you post your name and contact details so that we can meet up and discuss things further? I live a long way from Ipswich!
	The Revd Matthew Firth (Guest)	09/09/2011 11:22
// trinitarian hints within the Old Testamen '...haha, I bet if you looked into the Bhagavad Gita or Tao Te Ching you could find 'hints' too!...' 'Too' being the operative word: Thankyou for conceding that the Old Testament has some trinitarian related material. Which is why, given the experience of Jesus, it wasn't a totally new thing to start speaking of Trinity: it has its seeds in the Hebrew Scriptures, with concepts like Wisdom of God, Word of the LORD, angel of the LORD etc, which were almost seen as different manifestations of God...and with the coming of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, all this developed into the trinitarian understanding. // '...clear liberal agenda...' Yes! Really! '...and your problem with liberalism? What is the opposite - fascism?...' Much of what you say stems from your agenda and bias, rather than from a careful consideration of the facts. // They have actually, by carefully looking at the first century context, which you clearly haven't looked into properly. '...you have no idea about me. I have looked at, as have many historians, scientists and philosophers - oddly enough the vast majority didn't reach the same conclusion as you...' The evidence of what you have said indicates that your views are stuck in dated scholarship which has taken no account of developments in the field of biblical studies since the days of rampant liberalism. The view of the 'vast majority' doesn't triumph because it is a 'vast majority', especially if it is stuck in the same dated scholarship as you. // The sacrifice was God himself dying on the cross. The cross needs to be understood within the full trinitarian framework. '...God died now did he? yet he raised himself from the grave? did god lose anything by his own death? No, you really are making it worse for yourself...' Again, your sarcastic lampooning of the cross of Jesus shows that your mistake lies in the fact that you are not considering things from a trinitarian perspective. The Christian faith claims that there is one God in three persons, each of whom are fully God. So, in a trinitarian framework, God the Son died, and was raised by God the Father through the power of God the Holy Spirit. It makes sense, but of course our minds will never fully grasp it because we are talking about God here! (in a similar way, quantum mechanics makes sense, but our minds can't fully grasp it). // You skew it quite a bit '...Nope. God wants to put it all right and those that don't accept the resurrection are doomed to the fires of hell. Yet you say God saved 'us' from God (if you use the trinitarian framework) - logically this is exactly what I said. God killed himself to save us from his own righteous anger. Yet both god and jesus are still with us. Jesus didn't really die - he's 'still alive' whatever that means. God lost nothing. And, what's worse, you expect believe to believe you in this nonsense. It's clearly man-made, hateful and illogical...' Again, you are just trying to lampoon things. What I said was that God is going to remake this broken world, and he began by raising Jesus from the dead. Jesus is thus the way by which all of creation can be brought into the fullness of the New Creation, but if any one part of that creation chooses not to go the way of Christ, God is not going to stand by and allow it to wreck his vision of New Creation. So yes, there will be judgement. But what I have said is a far cry from the picture you present of 'God killing himself to save us from himself.' Again, you are lampooning something which has inspired the greatest art and music. Rejecting it is your choice, but lampooning it just shows your prejudice and bias and indicates that you can't form a proper argument. // The evidence of the text '...The texts were written by greek speaking people living in the roman empire who wanted to distance themselves from the violence going on in israel. it is hardly surprising they laid the blame on the jews and not the romans. the jews could have stoned jesus for Blasphemy, the Romans killed political prisoners by crucifixion. The answer is in the means of death not the contradictory passages in the gospels...' You just don't seem to understand the political relationship between the Jews and Rome. The Jewish leaders hated Jesus because he was undermining the status quo of their nationalistic position. The Jews used Rome by claming that this also undermined Caesar's position. Hence, Rome and the Jewish leaders together created the perfect scenario for the death of Jesus. To claim that it was Rome alone that put Jesus to death is just nonsense. You clearly don't see the close relationship between Rome and the Jewish leaders at the time. // Bauckham's aim is to show that the documents are based on what the people at the time of Jesus were saying about him and the events which surrounded him '...Indeed, yet he seems to privilege the gospels over other religious documents. f we read these other religious text in the same way Baukham would have you read the gospels then we'd all be believing in the wonder workers that wandered the greek/roman world...' He shows that the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. If someone did the same thing for other religious texts, fine. But that is not the point! The point is to show (which he does)that the Gospels are a lot closer to the events that they describe than some have said. People have tried to say that the Gospels are separated from the events by generations of tradition. Bauckham shows that this is not the case, and that the Gospels actually represent eyewitness testimony. That is his thesis, nothing more, nothing less. All this stuff that you are bringing up about other religious documents is interesting but has nothing to do with Bauckham's argument. You clearly haven't understood the book. // Son of Man denotes divinity or not '...Where is the stray man - you were equating god as son with the way John calls jesus god. But the Son of Man is a quasi divine figure and not seen as an aspect of god at all. No straw man here, just a negation of the specific text you put forward as your defense...' Do not misrepresent what I said. You claimed that the synoptics view Jesus totally differently to John. Then I showed you a passage in Matthew 11.27 that shows that this is not the case i.e. I showed you a Johannine type theology from within the synoptic tradition, thus disproving your argument. I wasn't commenting on the Son of Man/God issue: this is the straw man you introduced in order to side step the fact that you had made a claim which I had shown to be unfounded, re John and the synoptics being totally different in their view of Jesus. // So, again, your arguments simply don't hold water. '...Nope, again you failed to answer the points I made...' You just don't want to listen to the results of more recent scholarship. I have answered your points, but you are so biased that you are not able to hear it. I'm not going to post again on this thread, as I've made my case now.
	Albert Einstein (Guest)	12/09/2011 12:02
Thank you for your comments Matthew. Again you didn't really engage with them. I wouldn't say I 'lampoon' as such, rather present the contradictory and illogical argument in simple every day words. This may come across as ridicule, but that's simply due to the obvious nonsense of the original premise. I notice you didn't really argue with the points but rather appealed to 'mystery'. That's just a cop out though isn't it? If you can't explain it in simple language and can only justify it by appeals to god's ineffable mystery then surely you are effing the ineffable so to speak when you attempt to lay any particular character on god as you see 'him'. You can't have your cake and eat it too surely.
	Charles Riddleston (Guest)	12/09/2011 12:21
Dear Bertie Boy, It's me again- the voice of reason. I haven't got time at this moment to read through all your postings, as I'm off to do something very important, but to help me understand where you're coming from, can you please advise whether you are athiest, agnostic, confused or just someone who likes a good argument/debate. Whichever label it is ( or even one I haven't mentioned), please don't think I'm a crank when I say that even though you're on the wrong side of God, He still cares for you and wants you to know Him. God bless.
	Bertie Boy (Guest)	12/09/2011 13:44
Hey Charlie! Well I'd say that if we are all intellectually honest we are all agnostics - you may be an agnostic christian and I am an agnostic atheist. How's that for starters? I may be on the wrong side of God, but I would ask for you to explain what version of god you believe in and what your reasoning is for holding this view...

(page 1 2)