Allan,
Without the >>>, it's only those of us who've been following this
thread closely that would know who's saying what. Time being at a
premium for all of us, I'll just comment on a few things you said in
your last two emails to Andrew:
> The only real authority the Bible has is the authority you bestow upon it yourself.
It is Jesus who has bestowed the authority, by His own use of OT
scripture, and by the authority of His own teaching. [A]
>
> If you don't follow some instruction that is in the Bible such as stoning your
> delinguent sons to death,
> does that mean you are going against God?
>
There's nothing in Jesus' recorded teaching that commands me to do
that. But OT injunctions such as this simply underline the seriousness
of sin, as syariat law does in the Islamic world today. [B]
> I suspect that Someone has convinced you that the Bible is the word of God.
The Someone = the Holy Spirit? [C]
> I am convinced that God has been speaking (or is being revealed) in many ways
> and many different cultures that pre-date our Judeo-Christian history.
... and there are 'evangelicals' who would agree with you,
eg Don Richardson ["Eternity in their Hearts"] and several others I've
mentioned before. The difference between their position and yours is
that they claim the Bible has an authority lacking elsewhere - see [A]
and [C].
> As I have made clear in other conversations we have had, I have
> no need for the atonement as a doctrine.
And perhaps that is something the Muslim world needs to teach us
today: that there is such a thing as 'sin' and it needs to be repented
of and atoned for. [I'm not saying that the Muslim and Christian
understandings of 'sin' are the same, mind you.]
> I don't believe that Jesus had to die on the cross to appease an angry God.
I don't believe that either. I believe that Jesus [=God] died for the
sins committed by me, you and everyone else, as the means of wiping
them out and enabling us to have a relationship with Him. That sounds
like mercy, rather than anger, to me.
> Andrew: I think that the Bible has an authority that the Koran does not have.
> How about you? Do you regard the two of them as equally authoritative?
> If not, what is special about the Bible? (I'm assuming you don't prefer the Koran.)
> Allan: Apart from the occasional browse, I have never read the Koran, nor do I feel
> the need to.
> I was merely making the point that for someone who is a Muslim the Koran has the
> same authority
> to them as the Bible does for a Christian. (Possibly more.)
> What makes their belief that the Koran is the Word of God
> (and they do use that terminology at times) any different to your belief
> that the Bible is the Word of God?
You're right about the "possibly more". To Muslims, the Qur'an is the
very words of God, dictated to Mohammad. Hence the reverence with
which they [physically] treat it, even when they never read it
"because I can't understand it". [I believe it's difficult even for
those whose first language is Arabic.]
To a Muslim [a non-Sufi/mystical one], the Koran is the connection
between God and humanity - the closest a human being can come to
experiencing the transcendent God. To a Christian, the closest
connection is Jesus Christ, ie God Himself.
Thus the Muslim's focus is on the Koran, but the Christian's is on
Jesus. Mohammad was the means of transmission, and the Bible likewise
is the means, rather than the focus of a Christian's faith.
In other words, although we are blessed with a wealth of
comprehensible Bible translations, dictionaries and commentaries, a
mere intellectual dissection of the Bible will not result in
relationship:
"You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them
you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about
me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." [John 5: 39-40]
Shalom,
Sue
You said yourself that "I think that the Bible has an authority..."
This is correct, you think. You have no other basis on which to make
the claim other than your own belief and cultural history. Therefore I
go back to my earlier statement, "The only real authority the Bible
has is that which you yourself bestow upon it."
>
>
>
> When I read the Bible as though it was the literal word of God I come away
> thinking that this is a very confused God.
>
> I think that this is more a case of a very confused reader. I have commented
> previously on "literal" readings. They don't bear up under close scrutiny. Agreed?
>
> I agree, however that then raises the question of how one reads the Bible and how
> ones decides what is authorative?
>
> On one hand I read a verse in what is called the ten commandments that says
> "thou shalt not kill" and then a few verses later this same God is telling the same
> people to go and slaughter every living thing in the town they are about to conquor.
>
> Yes. I think the tension here was obvious even five thousand years ago.
>
> Such things don't trouble me. They are background noise, but I don't think they
> make it difficult to hear the message.
>
> Ultimately I have to say that the Bible is a human creation that tells about a
> particular race of people in a particular time and place and how they tried to
> understand their experience of the mystery they called God.
>
> Hmmmm. Fair enough. But you also claim to be a Christian, and I'm glad you have
> chosen to be one.
>
> So I assume that Jesus Christ has a special place in your life. Doesn't that make
> the Scriptures he used special too? They are the OT of course. You deal with the NT
> below.
>
> The NT basically relates to the experiences of a group of people who had
> claimed Jesus as the messiah. These people had experienced in this man what they
> believed to be the presence of God, or more correctly, they had experieced the
> spirit of this man which they believed to be still with them, even after his
> execution, in such a way that they found a way of living and being that transcended
> anything they had experienced before. They then went about telling his story in such
> a way as to demonstrate that he was the messiah.
>
> Fair enough. And I'd add that these people believed in their message so strongly
> that only one of the Twelve Disciples seems to have escaped martyrdom. These people
> had seen Jesus, they knew him, and they were not taking an easy road in continuing
> to follow him after Easter.
>
> Paul says that if Christ did not physically rise from the dead, the whole Church is
> misguided and pointless. Do you think he was just plain wrong when he said this, or
> do you think he might be misquoted? Or is there another explanation?
>
> First of all you are wrong. Paul did not claim that Jesus physically rose from the
> dead. Paul talked about Jesus being raised from the dead (1 Corinthians 15) but
> said nothing about a physical resurrection. In fact if you keep reading towards the
> end of the chapter you will find that he specifically denies that the old body is
> resurrected. Since we have no personal account of Paul's conversion experience
> (with the possible exception of 2 Corinthinans 11:1ff) we are left with the story in
> Acts where once again their is no record of him having an encounter with a
> physically resurrected Jesus. Paul was a Pharisee who believed as was normal that
> there would be a general resurrection from the dead at the end times but that
> resurrection would be in a new imperishable body. Even Pauls claim to have
> experienced the risen Christ cannot be interpreted as a 'seeing him in the flesh'
> type experience. We could go into a discussion about what Paul might have meant by
> God raising Jesus, but
>that would take a lot of time that I don't have. One thing can be said with a degree
>of certainty though, and that is that Paul did not believe that the old body of Jesus
>was physically raised from the dead.
>
>
> I'm sure you've heard these arguments and similar ones. But I'm interested in how
> you answer them.
>
> Personally, I think Paul did write this, and that he was sincere and sane when he
> did. Which is quite a challenge to me.
>
> I'm also under the authority of the Holy Spirit, and of the Church. I expect
> these three to give the same message. If they don't I'm worried. Two out of three
> doesn't win.
>
>
> It's not always easy to tell what God is saying. But my experience is that for
> every time I seriously wonder what God is saying to me, there are many others when I
> do know, and the problem is rather that I don't want to do it.
> I believe that once again we are stumbling around our different perceptions of
> God. I don't see God s a supernatural being who is trying to talk to me.
>
> Not everyone, however holy, hears the very words God uses. Paul of Tarsus did. The
> Virgin Mary did. The prophet Samuel did. And some people do in this day, I believe,
> but probably not many. They never were very many in past ages, so I don't expect
> there to be many now. God chooses them.
> Did these people hear the very words of God? Where's the evidence? I don't think
> Paul ever made such a claim. The stories of the prophet Samuel is so clouded in
> cultural mythology that we wouldn't have any idea. So too Abraham who was supposed
> to have had a meal with God. The virgin? Mary's dialogue with God in Luke's gospel
> is a construction of the story teller Luke some 90 years after the event and is
> largely fabricated around Biblical (OT) stories. (Known as a Midrash) I have known
> people who claim to have conversations with God but most of them seem to be talking
> to a very confused God. Sometimes people will have mystical moments when they will
> experience some special and pertinent revelation for them. These can sometimes seem
> to be an audible type of experience and I would not want to deny the reality of them
> for the particular person but whether or not we can claim that it is God talking is
> another question.
>
> I believe it's still possible to know what God wants of us, even if we don't hear
> the exact words. But if you desire the gift of Prophecy, let's start praying that
> you will receive it. Do you desire it?
>
> All of the above pre-supposes that God is some sort of a supernatural being who
> lives somewhere out there and occaisionally intervenes in the affairs of humans on
> this planet. I no longer believe in such a God.
>
> But what I have found is, that when I live the way of Jesus, the way of love
> and compassion, I become aware that God is beconing me to action whenever I see
> people or nature being abused. I confess I fail so often to respond. But I also see
> God everytime I see new life being born and in some small way I hear the angels
> singing.
> Grace & Peace.
> Allan
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/03
Sue Bolton
Sydney, Australia
------------------------------------------------------
- You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe
insights-l' (ell, not one (1))
See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm
------------------------------------------------------
