Intellectual Honesty from a Christian

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is the way you explained the OP:
However, I do believe that, by and large, the words that were attributed to Him while he walked the Earth are reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within themselves and that many of them fly in the face of the mythology and beliefs that have been created around Him since His death. The retired pastor acknowledged th ...[text shortened]... You have to come out with the truth before your OP will make
any sense to the rest of us.

For one, the text you quoted was NOT intended to be an explanation of the OP as you seem to believe. It was part of an attempt to address TW's question and post.

For another I have no idea where you got the idea that the pastor "had problems" with "[Jesus's] claim of divinity". Nowhere in the OP or anywhere else in this thread did I speak of His "claim of divinity".

It seems you have a real problem with comprehending the written word. I can only imagine how that impacts your attempts to understand the Bible.

I still think your best bet is to try to paraphrase my OP. Any reason that you haven't done so? If you try, I might be able to help you understand it. Don't let pride get in the way of your doing so.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I get you think Paul's writtings have clouded Jesus' meaning, and okay
I again don't buy it. If you can show some difference between the two
where one's words produce this without the other I'd be happy. If you
cannot and the theme are the same I don't buy into what you think is
going on.
Kelly

Do you really not understand that part the point of the OP is that a retired pastor exhibited an intellectual honesty about how he views the words of Jesus? That I am speaking of the PASTOR'S views of the the words of Jesus?

If you don't, please reread the OP again. If you still don't understand it, then follow the suggestion that I've been trying to give to RJ: Try to paraphrase the OP.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you really not understand that part the point of the OP is that a retired pastor exhibited an intellectual honesty about how he views the words of Jesus? That I am speaking of the PASTOR'S views of the the words of Jesus?

If you don't, please reread the OP again. If you still don't understand it, then follow the suggestion that I've been trying to give to RJ: Try to paraphrase the OP.

I understand him now. He is trying to be an A-hole. Just ignore him. He
has been caught in a lie and is trying to cover it up.

Oops. Wron person.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I understand him now. He is trying to be an A-hole. Just ignore him. He
has been caught in a lie and is trying to cover it up.

He has been caught in a lie and is trying to cover it up.

What "lie" is that? Either prove your accusation or apologize.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I get you think Paul's writtings have clouded Jesus' meaning, and okay
I again don't buy it. If you can show some difference between the two
where one's words produce this without the other I'd be happy. If you
cannot and the theme are the same I don't buy into what you think is
going on.
Kelly

I understand him now. He is trying to be an A-hole. Just ignore him. He
has been caught in a lie and is trying to cover it up.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I understand him now. He is trying to be an A-hole. Just ignore him. He
has been caught in a lie and is trying to cover it up.

Once again:

He has been caught in a lie and is trying to cover it up.

What "lie" is that? Either prove your accusation or apologize.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I disagree with the extrapolation you have made from what he said.
Not sure what you are referring to here. Please try to be more explicit.

Regardless I'll take a stab at it:
He "acknowledged that he reads the words of Jesus through the lens of the writings of Paul and others".

He acknowledged that in doing so he "essentially [makes] the Ne ctual honesty would require that he do so.

So what is it that you disagree with?[/b]

As I pointed out to you earlier I don't see the difference between the two with
the one exception which would be prespective. Unlike you I do not view Jesus'
teaching as anything different than what we recieve through the Holy
Spirit in other's teachings. If Jesus was correct in saying that the Holy Spirit
was going to come to us and teach us about Jesus, than the differences would
one again be only perspective.
Kelly

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
However, I do believe that, by and large, the words that were attributed to Him while he walked the Earth are reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within themselves and that many of them fly in the face of the mythology and beliefs that have been created around Him since His death.

Does this at all address what you're driving at?

No, it doesn't address it. You don't even say clearly whether you believe the words attributed to him, were actually said by him. You know they were written down long after his death. Yet you put more weight on the gospels than on other writings, even though both the gospels and those other writings were both written after his death.
How are the gospels not included in your "mythology and beliefs that have been created around Him since His death"?
Certainly much of the content of the Gospels is not literal history but is mythology and beliefs - eg the parts about Jesus' birth.

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I pointed out to you earlier I don't see the difference between the two with
the one exception which would be prespective. Unlike you I do not view Jesus'
teaching as anything different than what we recieve through the Holy
Spirit in other's teachings. If Jesus was correct in saying that the Holy Spirit
was going to come to us and teach us about Jesus, than the differences would
one again be only perspective.
Kelly

This is the second straight post of yours where you have responded to responses I've written to other people.

Have you even been reading the responses I've written to you?

Sure doesn't seem like it based on what you're writing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it doesn't address it. You don't even say clearly whether you believe the words attributed to him, were actually said by him. You know they were written down long after his death. Yet you put more weight on the gospels than on other writings, even though both the gospels and those other writings were both written after his death.
How are the gospels pels is not literal history but is mythology and beliefs - eg the parts about Jesus' birth.

You don't even say clearly whether you believe the words attributed to him, were actually said by him.

Is the following not showing in my previous post to you? I noticed it isn't in the "Orginally posted by.." box in your response, but I'm thinking it's pretty darn clear.

Not sure what you're driving at. I certainly don't see the Bible as "the inerrant word of God" or even that all words/actions attributed to Jesus were spoken/done by him.

What is going on around here? Between your latest post and KJ's last two I'm wondering if RHP may be having issues.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently some people don't change. Despite the window dressing ("peace ToOne", etc.) it's the same KM underneath. Was it the Holy Spirit that prompted the following unwarranted attack?

KM: Is this what he actually said or are you quoting what you said about what he said?

[b]Are you quoting him or quoting yourself and un /consciously trying ...[text shortened]... t say isn't overly important

Actually it's the topic of the thread.

I'm sorry that you feel I am being underhand in some way when all I am trying to establish some clarity. We are all capable of biased reporting of circumstances because we want to make it fit with our own paradigm. It's not a criticism of you , simply an reasonable observation.


In the opening post you said........

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently he acknowledged that he reads the words of Jesus through the lens of the writings of Paul and others whereby essentially making the New Testament/Bible his "Lord" rather than Jesus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


.....and then later on page 2 you said the following.....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless I'll take a stab at it:
He "acknowledged that he reads the words of Jesus through the lens of the writings of Paul and others".

He acknowledged that in doing so he "essentially [makes] the New Testament/Bible his 'Lord' rather than Jesus".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm trying to figure out whether the statement in the opening post ( whereby essentially...etc) is your own interpretation of what he said or something that he admitted. He may have said that he read the words of Jesus through the lens of Paul but did he admit to making the NT/Bible his Lord and not Jesus?

On page 2 you seem to take these statements a step further and it almost seems as if the Pastor himself is making these statements because you put quotation marks around the words.

Now , any decent journalist knows that precision in reporting is important , and in this case we are all relying on your integrity and intellectual honesty regrading what this pastor actually admitted to and didn't admit to and what he said and what he didn't say. You need to distinguish between your own thoughts about what he said and what he actually said. It's basic stuff ToOne.

When you write .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He "acknowledged that he reads the words of Jesus through the lens of the writings of Paul and others".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....it's starts to drift towards seeming as if he actually admitted something that I don't think he would have done.

It's all getting a bit muddy and vague. Can you please clarify whether he admitted to "making the NT his Lord" or whether that was your interpretation of what he said. If you are unable to separate out your own interpretations from the actual facts of the story then the whole post is pointless.

Peace to you ToOne

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This is the second straight post of yours where you have responded to responses I've written to other people.

Have you even been reading the responses I've written to you?

Sure doesn't seem like it based on what you're writing.

No I responded to you, as a matter of fact you are the ONLY person I have
responded too. Are you following your own conversations, now I'm not sure you
are?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I responded to you, as a matter of fact you are the ONLY person I have
responded too. Are you following your own conversations, now I'm not sure you
are?
Kelly

kellyjay! i have a question for you.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Is the following not showing in my previous post to you? I noticed it isn't in the "Orginally posted by.." box in your response, but I'm thinking it's pretty darn clear.

No, it was not very clear. It is clear that you do not consider the Bible inerrant, even when it comes to the gospels, but it is not clear how accurate you do consider the gospels, nor why you give more weight to them than to the other writings of the new Testament.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
kellyjay! i have a question for you.

Ask away, you may get an I don't know. 🙂
Kelly