tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post815564820446053370..comments2023-06-01T14:08:49.977+00:00Comments on Confessions of a Doubting Thomas: The Historical Jesus SpectrumUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-34577274094958639842013-08-28T12:05:15.261+00:002013-08-28T12:05:15.261+00:00Thanks for the comments. I'm not sure I've...Thanks for the comments. I'm not sure I've been accused of 'insight' before, so that's particularly appreciated.<br /><br />@Joshua<br /><br />Maybe focussing on the 'Son of God' phrase wasn't the best emphasis. The phrase does mean different things to different people. What I mean is, it matters to me if Jesus was and is a divine being who existed before his incarnation and continues to exist now in some manner that he can hear our prayers and act in our world today. In other words, is Jesus God or a god?<br /><br />@Steve<br /><br />I think you need to ask yourself who compiled the NT and why? I was very surprised to discover that the NT canon we have now appears to have been compiled by 'orthodox' Christians as a response to the earlier 'heretical' Marcionite canon. <br /><br />Thus the canon was created with an agenda and a bias. Textual criticism of the NT documents shows that there are many instances of 'redaction' where material has been added to the bible. The church already had added to scripture before the books were even compiled into a canon!<br /><br />So how can a book which has been edited by humans to fit their agenda have the authority of God?Ricky Carvelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975085318645232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-84207131697608360292013-08-26T00:35:24.372+00:002013-08-26T00:35:24.372+00:00Excellent post, and some pretty insightful nuance ...Excellent post, and some pretty insightful nuance in your characterization of the spectrum of Historical Jesus studies.<br /><br />I would probably characterize myself as a 3 with splashes of 4. And I agree—it is an uncomfortable place to be. It seems to me, though, that both ends of the spectrum lean too much on certainty, which is a product of the Modern era and has very little to do with reality, which tends to be messy.<br /><br />I'm not sure my faith rests on whether or not Jesus really was the Son of God, though. For one thing, there is no clear consensus on what that title entails. A better question might be whether or not I consider Jesus "Lord." <br /><br />For another thing, I'm pretty convinced that even if we were to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was NOT the Son of God and was NOT raised from the dead, I would still follow the moralistic teachings of the NT because they offer—in my view—the best way to live peacefully with other human beings.Joshua Paul Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03970879028978093230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-81864451452107551022013-08-25T05:56:21.611+00:002013-08-25T05:56:21.611+00:00TRUTH AND AUTHORITY?
Where should Christians look...TRUTH AND AUTHORITY?<br /><br />Where should Christians look for God's authoritative truth? Should it be the Bible? Should it be the church of your choice or the church you belong to by chance?<br /><br />The Bible was completed in 95 A.D. when the apostle John wrote Revelation. Who wrote the Bible? Was it God or was it the church?<br /><br /><br />John 14:24-26 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent me. (THE WORDS JESUS SPOKE WERE FROM GOD THE FATHER) 25 "These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all the I said to you.<br /><br /><br />The words of Jesus were from God the Father and He said that The Father would send the apostles the Holy Spirit so they could remember all that He said. The words of the apostles were God's word, their words were Scripture, their words were the Bible. <br /><br /><br />In, John 14:24-26, Jesus was not talking to the Pope, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Billy Graham, Joesph Smith Jr, Mary Baker Eddy, cardinals, bishops, elders, so-called modern day apostles, preachers, pastors, nor any one claiming to speak for God. If the church or theses men as individuals, were speaking for God by new revelation, then, we would have added books to the Bible. There would the books of the Popes, the book of John Calvin, the book of Billy Graham, the books of elders, the books of churches, the book of Joesph Smith Jr. etc.<br /><br /><br />THE BIBLE IS THE AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH.<br />THE CHURCH HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE OR OVERRULE THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE. THE CHURCH CANNOT ADD TO OR TAKE AWAY FROM SCRIPTURE! <br /><br />YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG. Google search>>>> steve finnell a christian viewSteve Finnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12863026367048527526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-925497946314679022013-08-25T03:24:25.118+00:002013-08-25T03:24:25.118+00:00I see myself as a 6 with a dash of 7. As an agnost...I see myself as a 6 with a dash of 7. As an agnostic I am unpersuaded by 1-3 since I have no emotional baggage to cling on to Christian theology. 4 seems like the position of Bishop Spong and other progressive Christians. Some of the extreme progressives lean to 5 but always gives an out to the 4th position. 8 seems to radical and best left to radical internet mythicists.Dannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-70249829204080471992013-08-25T02:34:34.698+00:002013-08-25T02:34:34.698+00:00Great post. Thank you for being honest about this;...Great post. Thank you for being honest about this; most Christians I know pretend there aren't issues here. Whistling as they walk past the graveyard?<br /><br />@plstepp Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com