Sorry Allan, I've been 'on holiday', albeit at home, with little access to the computer. Apologies for my comments about the arrows, which Andrew had explained to me by the time I received your reply.
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:09:51 +1100, Allan Leggett wrote: >> The only real authority the Bible has is the authority you bestow upon it >yourself. >Sue: >It is Jesus who has bestowed the authority, by His own use of OT >scripture, and by the authority of His own teaching. > >Allan: >> 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? >Sue: >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. > >Allan: >It seems to me that there are 2 problems here. >(1) If Jesus is giving the authority to the OT by his own teachings, then >surely that is to the whole of the OT and not just the bits we choose to >accept as authoritative. We *can* recognise that the whole of the OT is "God-breathed" without believing that we have to obey the minutiae of the civil or ritual codes etc that were given the Hebrew people under the old covenant. >(2) Since the only records that gives us any reliable information on the >life and teachings of Jesus are found within the Bible itself, (the gospel >of Thomas a possible exception) + Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus > isn't this a bit like relying on scripture >to justify itself? The same thing occurs when 2 Timothy 3:16 is quoted to >prove that the scriptures are inspired by God. What therefore prevents me >from writing a book and claiming within it that it is the Word of God? (as >others have done) ...as Muhammed did! The Bible on the other hand doesn't depend on the claim of a solitary writer. [I listened to a very good sermon last night on "The Authority of the Bible", given by a friend who's a prominent linguist. He claimed that this Timothy reference is saying that the Bible-writers were not "inspired" as other poets and writers may claim to be, but that the Bible writings were "God-exhaled". At the same time, he said that Scripture is profoundly human, and drew the parallel with Christ himself - the juncture of humanity and divinity.] > Ultimately, I am suggesting, it always comes down to a >faith statement by the individual concerned that these particular writings >are duly inspired by God. The authority of the Bible or any other so called >sacred writings can only be something that is accepted by those who make the >claim that these are the words of the supreme being to whom they testify. > >Allan >> I suspect that Someone has convinced you that the Bible is the word of >God. > >Sue >The Someone = the Holy Spirit? [C] > >Allan >I have a problem with this argument. It is not verifiable. I had a woman >with me the other day who was claiming certain direct revelations from God >via the Holy Spirit. These revelations would seem to be at odds with the >sort of things that I see revealed by God, but of course I can't say she >hasn't received such revelations because they were very real for her. I can >also say that I believe that the Holy Spirit has revealed to me that the >Bible is not the actual words of God. Who is right? Here are two different things: the claim that the Bible is the word of God, and the claim that a particular individual has had direct revelations from God. The answer to the second is that these revelations would have to be discerned and tested against Scripture, because that is what we're instructed to do in Scripture, and that would refute your own claim. > >> 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. > >Sue >... 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. > >Allan >> As I have made clear in other conversations we have had, I have >> no need for the atonement as a doctrine. >Sue >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.] > >Allan >> I don't believe that Jesus had to die on the cross to appease an angry >God. > >Sue >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. > >Allan >I think there is a thin line between the angry God scenario and your >argument. The idea of blood sacrifices within the Jewish culture comes from >their tribal origins where the sacrifices were made to appease their God who >was angry because of their sins. The suggestion that Jesus' death simply >atoned for human sin is another way of saying that God was satisfied by the >action. Why would a God who is supposed to be all loving require the death >of his son before He could forgive human sin? The whole scenario presupposes >the sort of God I simply don't believe it is reasonable to believe in any >more. It is, I believe, an indication that our faith has not grown in >proportion to our knowledge of the universe and our place in it. Jesus demonstrated God's response to sin: not anger, but profound sadness [Matt 23: 37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."] There is something apparently inherent in us that senses that we have to pay for our sins. Substitutionary sacrifice seems to offer a way out, but Genesis 22 indicates that "The Lord Will Provide". In that, God is meeting *our* need, not His. You have never convinced me that we have grown beyond our capacity to sin. Also in the crucifixion is the realisation that we are capable of being so twisted that we can even attempt to put God to death! [Again there is a junction of the human and the divine.] In your version of Christianity, how do you get rid of guilt, acquire the capacity to forgive others and yourself, and live 'in Christ'? I suppose you had the right to snip my last email by a third, but in doing that you deleted the key to my understanding of the purpose of the Bible: John 5: 39-40 "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." You can call mine a circular argument, but don't we do this all the time in other fields: science, history etc.? That is, not having the time and skills to explore everything for ourselves - we are finite human beings after all - we trust the word of those with the best credentials, who give us "aha" experiences, while we continue to weigh the evidence as best we can. If I trust the Bible it's because it speaks to me of truth in a way the scriptures of other religions never have. Shalom, Sue 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 ------------------------------------------------------
