- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
31 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioExcactly my point....
I'm not sure what you are saying. This verse explicitly states that
Christ Jesus will submit to God once He has accomplished (mediated)
all that is to be accomplished. This only serves to reinforce my
observation that the NT writers viewed Jesus is a distinct entity from God.
Nemesio
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=186
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by NemesioSt Paul clearly believes that Jesus was the first born of creation.
So what? The Gospel of Saint John uses the turn of phrase 'I am' some
several dozen times -- I am the bread of life, I am the vine, I am the
living water. Jesus says earlier (as I pointed out) that He came from
God (not was God, you'll notice), that He did not come of His own
volition but was sent by God. St Paul clearly believes that Jesus
...[text shortened]... uld make the most sense
in the context of the verses I mentioned before (42 ff).
Nemesio
The Jehovah's Witnesses and Col. 1:15
(Source = carm.org)
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist."
(Col. 1:15-17, for context. The New World Translation - Emphasis added. Note the NWT’s addition of “other” into the text four times. This is discussed here.)
The Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the word "firstborn" here to mean "first created" because it is consistent with their theological presupposition that Jesus is a created thing. Of course, Jesus, the word become flesh (John 1:1,14) is not a created thing. But that hasn't stopped the Watchtower organization from claiming He is. Nevertheless, there is a Greek word for "first created" and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn" and that is what we find here in Colossians 1:15. The Greek for "first created" would be proto with ktizo and it is not used here.
Second, the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can mean the first born child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it can also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall make him My first-born" (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born in his family was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence.
Third, firstborn is also a title that is transferable:
*
Gen. 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction" (NASB)
*
Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn (NASB)."
Scripture best interprets scripture. Firstborn does not require a meaning of first created as the Jehovah's Witnesses say it means here. "Firstborn" can mean the first born person in a family and it can also be a title of preeminence which is transferable. That is obvious since Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and is also the first born son of Mary. In addition, He is the pre-eminent one in all things. The Jehovah's Witnesses should consider this when they examine Col. 1:15. They should also abandon the Watchtower which guides them in their thinking and believing.
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by NemesioThe word for 'word' is logos, a Hellenistic construct with a much
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).
The word for 'word' is logos, a Hellenistic construct with a much
greater significance than 'word' (although there isn't a good single-word
translation for it). However, the translation 'and the Word was ma ...[text shortened]... .
Nemesio[/b]
greater significance than 'word'
And what is the greater significance of Logos?
The Logos is God's Son.
He is distinct from God ('the Word was with God'😉, and yet also God ('the Word was God'😉. There is a distinction between God the Father and God the Son (which you've mistaken as indicating unequal status), but nevertheless the Son is also God. Read it again: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). If you were to approach John 1:1 without bias how could you conclude otherwise?
The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon describes Logos this way:
"In John, (Logos) denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.
A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.'
When John speaks of the Logos it is helpful to bear in mind that he is speaking of God ('the Word was God'😉. God is the Logos and the Logos is God. No where in John 1 does it remotely suggest the Logos was formerly represented only by degrees in other less-than-perfect creatures, which you claim the author of John 'is clearly saying'. On the contrary, the author of John is perpetually highlighting the absolute uniqueness of God's Son. No where else has God become flesh except in Jesus Christ.
However, the translation 'and the Word was made 'flesh' is inaccurate, or rather insufficient. Better capturing the words of the author, it should read 'and the Word was enfleshed.' The author here (as evinced by the other quotations I offered above) is clearly saying that the purest of Spirit was in Jesus, the very logos (wisdom, knowledge, conviction, &c) was in Jesus in a way that it hasn't been with humankind before.
How is the translation of 'became flesh' inaccurate, as you claim? Here are the Greek words in order as they were originally written: Logos sarx ginomai -- Logos (Word) sarx (flesh) ginomai (became).
BTW, 'enfleshed' is not a word, and even if it was, it's hard to see what significant difference in meaning it might have from 'became flesh'. Also, your definition of Logos is inaccurate. We've already established that the Logos is God, not merely 'wisdom, knowledge, conviction, etc.', but God Himself.
Jesus, explicitly, is a creation, preordained from the beginning of time, from before all other created things.
First, there is a Greek word for "first created" and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn" and that is what we find here in Colossians 1:15. The Greek for "first created" would be proto with ktizo and it is not used here.
Second, the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can mean the first born child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it can also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall make him My first-born" (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born in his family was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence.
Third, firstborn is also a title that is transferable:
Gen. 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction" (NASB)
Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn (NASB)."
Scripture best interprets scripture. Firstborn does not require a meaning of first created as the Jehovah's Witnesses say it means here. "Firstborn" can mean the first born person in a family and it can also be a title of preeminence which is transferable. That is obvious since Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and is also the first born son of Mary. In addition, He is the pre-eminent one in all things.
(Source=carm.org)
First of all, the translation of verse six is disingenous; it better reads
'...though He was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God
something to be grasped.'
Wrong again. Harpagmos in this instance means 'the act of seizing' as in 'robbery'. Consider the verse as it appears in its original Greek, word for word: "not harpagmos (robbery) hegeomai (consider) to be isos (egual) theos (God)." Young's literal translation reads: "Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God."
Once again, I'm not denying any of the many scriptures you use to describe the unique relationship of Jesus Christ (the Son) to God (the Father). It is you who are denying the many scriptures which also indicate that Jesus Christ is co-equal with the Father. It is no wonder you vigorously dispute the inerrancy of scripture, because where it confounds your premise you assume inaccuracy in the word. Instead of questioning the validity of your assertions you question the validity of scripture, when what you should be doing is taking the whole of scripture as your guide, not just the parts which fit your agenda.
And, you never, ever, ever, ever see 'God the Son' [b]anywhere
in Scripture. If it were such an obvious, transparent, and central teaching
of the NT authors, why is it so glaringly absent?[/b]
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).
The Word was God; the Word is Christ. It doesn't get more obvious and transparent than that.
"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" (John 14:9).
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasColossians 1:15-20
St Paul clearly believes that Jesus was the first born of creation.
The Jehovah's Witnesses and Col. 1:15
(Source = carm.org)
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter wheth ...[text shortened]... he Watchtower which guides them in their thinking and believing.
(15) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
(16) For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
(17) He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
(18) And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
(19) For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
(20) and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the Cross. (NIV)
1. As with all good biblical exegesis, it is important to note the context of the verses and why they would be written and placed where they are. Reading the book of Colossians reveals that the Colossian Church had lost its focus on Christ. Some of the believers at Colosse had, in practice, forsaken their connection with the Head, Jesus Christ, and some were even being led to worship angels (2:18 and 19). The situation in Colosse called for a strong reminder of Christ’s headship over his Church, and the epistle to the Colossians provided just that.
2. These verses cannot be affirming the Trinity because they open with Christ being “the image [eikon] of the invisible God.” If Christ were “God,” then the verse would simply say so, rather than that he was the “image” of God. The Father is plainly called “God” in dozens of places, and this would have been a good place to say that Jesus was God. Instead, we are told that Christ is the image of God. If one thing is the “image” of another thing, then the “image” and the “original” are not the same thing. The Father is God, and that is why there is no verse that calls the Father the image of God. Calling Jesus the image of God squares beautifully with his statement that, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9 and 10).
There are Trinitarian theologians who assert that the word eikon (from which we get the English word “icon,” meaning “image,” or “representation&rdquo😉 means “manifestation” here in Colossians, and that Christ is the manifestation of God. We believe that conclusion is unwarranted. The word eikon occurs 23 times in the New Testament, and it is clearly used as “image” in the common sense of the word. It is used of the image of Caesar on a coin, of idols that are manmade images of gods, of Old Testament things that were only an image of the reality we have today and of the “image” of the beast that occurs in Revelation. 2 Corinthians 3:18 says that Christians are changed into the “image” of the Lord as we reflect his glory. All these verses use “image” in the common sense of the word, i.e., a representation separate from the original. 1 Corinthians 11:7 says, “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God.” Just as Christ is called the image of God, so men are called the image of God. We are not as exact an image as Christ is because we are marred by sin, but nevertheless the Bible does call us the “image” of God. Thus, the wording about being the image of God is the same for us as it is for Christ. We maintain that the words in the Word must be read and understood in their common or ordinary meaning unless good reason can be given to alter that meaning. In this case, the common meaning of “image” is “likeness” or “resemblance,” and it is used that way every time in the New Testament. Surely if the word “image” took on a new meaning for those times it referred to Christ, the Bible would let us know that. Since it does not, we assert that the use of “image” is the same whether it refers to an image on a coin, an image of a god, or for both Christ and Christians as the image of God.
For the entire study, go here...
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=128
31 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by checkbaiterAgain, you are correct in what you assert, but incorrect in what you deny.
Colossians 1:15-20
(15) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
(16) For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
(17) He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ...[text shortened]... study, go here...
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=128
God is He who exalts Jesus Christ, not Christ Himself:
""He saith . . . unto the Son, "Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age; a scepter of righteousness" (Hebrews 1:6,8).
'Firstborn' in every instance relating Jesus Christ to God is indicating pre-eminence, not a Creator-creature relationship.
I pray the Lord may deliver you from this error.
31 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasOkay, so what? He is preëminent of all creation. The interpretation of firstborn as the first thing
St Paul clearly believes that Jesus was the first born of creation.
The Jehovah's Witnesses and Col. 1:15
(Source = carm.org)
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter wheth he Watchtower which guides them in their thinking and believing.
created or as the superior creation doesn't equate with consubstantiality with God. Indeed, the
thorn here is not 'firstborn,' but 'of all creation.'
You again have insisted on a poor rendering of logos and sarx elento and how it was
tabernacled (eskenosen) among us as support for your claim.
You have not made the case that it is obvious that Jesus is God. You have continued to avoid
the half-dozen citations I listed above.
Nemesio
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasFor someone who claimed that I was doing a drive-by earlier, you sure are cherry picking.
Again, you are correct in what you assert, but incorrect in what you deny.
God is He who exalts Jesus Christ, not Christ Himself:
""He saith . . . unto the Son, "Thy throne, [b]O God, [is] to the age of the age; a scepter of righteousness" (Hebrews 1:6,8).
'Firstborn' in every instance relating Jesus Christ to God is indicating pre-eminence, not a Creator-creature relationship.
I pray the Lord may deliver you from this error.[/b]
I addressed this Hebrews passage clearly already. Note verse nine, wherein it says 'Therefore God,
your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.'
It is clear from semantic context that the throne is the throne of God and that the prayer follows
the typical formulation of praising God before attending to the heart of the prayer; that is something
like
'God, you're a great guy. You anointed your chosen one.' Again, a knowledge of the typical
rhetorical devices used by Jewish people would inform you of this as opposed to permitting you a
tortured interpretation where this author (who elsewhere, as I pointed out, distinguishes carefully
between God and Jesus) is somehow equating Jesus with God.
Nemesio
31 Mar 07
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioYour problem issues from a fundamental misunderstanding of Jesus Christ. He is both God and man. However, your misinterpretation of scripture posits the divine nature of God as being entirely separate from Jesus the man, as if outside of his nature and not integral to it. Of course, there is no confusion between the Two (Father and Son), but in Jesus Christ they are nevertheless inseparable. Inseparable, but, as you are thoroughly aware of, not indistinguishable semantically.
Okay, so what? He is preëminent of all creation. The interpretation of firstborn as the first thing
created or as the superior creation doesn't equate with consubstantiality with God. Indeed, the
thorn here is not 'firstborn,' but 'of all creation.'
You again have insisted on a poor rendering of logos and sarx elento and how it was s is God. You have continued to avoid
the half-dozen citations I listed above.
Nemesio
So we run into this problem of semantics, where both Christ's divinity and manhood are represented biblically, which we can either embrace as the mystery it is, or explain away as an impossibility simply because of the semantic problem it poses: how can Jesus be both God and man? Like so many others before you, you let your ideas determine scripture, rather than let scripture determine your ideas. In so doing, at best you will be correct in what you assert, but incorrect in what you deny.
Do you expect me to believe that you are the last bastion of a true understanding of scripture, and that almost all Christendom throughout the last 2,000 years is based upon the false reading, Christ as both a man and God?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....
If you were to meet Jesus Christ in person, how would you differentiate the two (God and man)? If Jesus Christ the man commanded you to do something, would you be able to tell whether the command came from the Father or from Jesus? The truth is, you would not be able to differentiate. Why? Because Jesus Christ is both God and man.
"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" (John 14:9).
This brings us back to John 1:1 -
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Christ, the Logos of God, is 'with' God, and 'is' God, simultaneously. We can distinguish them semantically, but the mystery of their oneness is harder to grasp. Thus, Christ's admonishment: "hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?'
31 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas
Your problem issues from a fundamental misunderstanding of Jesus Christ. He is both God and man.
Once again, you start with an assertion and then ignore those Scriptures inconvenient to it.
However, your misinterpretation of scripture posits the divine nature of God as being entirely separate from Jesus the man, as if outside of his nature and not integral to it. Of course, there is no confusion between the Two (Father and Son), but in Jesus Christ they are nevertheless inseparable. Inseparable, but, as you are thoroughly aware of, not indistinguishable semantically.
There is nothing to support your misinterpretation. There is nothing to suggest that Jesus is co-equal
with
or consubstantial with God, much less 'inseparable' in the sense that He is a manifestation of God.
By contrast, you have failed to demonstrate how the citations of Scripture I provided (wherein St
Paul and Jesus (among others) can be read in any other way than as an attestation of Jesus'
unequivocal subjectivity to God. Jesus says 'God sent me.' Jesus says 'God is good, not me.'
St Paul says 'Jesus will render all to God.' These are explicit and glaring dispositive evidence to
your claim.
So we run into this problem of semantics, where both Christ's divinity and manhood are represented biblically, which we can either embrace as the mystery it is, or explain away as an impossibility simply because of the semantic problem it poses: how can Jesus be both God and man? Like so many others before you, you let your ideas determine scripture, rather than let scripture determine your ideas. In so doing, at best you will be correct in what you assert, but incorrect in what you deny.
The irony is that you are asserting a dogma (Jesus' Divinity) before you read Scripture. I'm not
even testifying to what I believe; I'm reading what the Scripture plainly says -- what the words
attributed to Jesus Himself plainly say -- and drawing logical conclusions based on that clear writing.
Do you expect me to believe that you are the last bastion of a true understanding of scripture, and that almost all Christendom throughout the last 2,000 years is based upon the false reading, Christ as both a man and God?
Well, here's yet another fallacy. It wasn't until well into the second century that the Divinity of
Jesus was even suggested, and it wasn't until the end of the second century that it became largely
(but hardly entirely) Orthodox. That's why I suggested you read the early Church Fathers (that you
scoffed at), because you can see the ambivalence about what Jesus was -- man? spirit? flesh? real?
God? That ambivalence attests to my claim that it is not patent (like you like to pretend) from
the Scriptures.
This is not about my being a bastion of Scriptural rightness. I'm totally cool with your believe in
Jesus' Divinity. What I object to is your claim that such a belief derives from a Scriptural foundation.
It does not. It derives from dogmatic assertions of the second-century Church (which, again, I am
totally fine with).
If you were to meet Jesus Christ in person, how would you differentiate the two (God and man)? If Jesus Christ the man commanded you to do something, would you be able to tell whether the command came from the Father or from Jesus? The truth is, you would not be able to differentiate. Why? Because Jesus Christ is both God and man.
More bald assertions lacking Scriptural support. No where is the 'God and Man' claim found in the
Bible. It is a second-century creedal dogma.
But, taking your silly question seriously for a second, given that Jesus Himself distinguishes between
His actions and the actions of God (since He Himself said that He doesn't do what He wants, but
does the will of God), then, Scripturally speaking, it ought to be patent that the logos of God
speaks through Jesus, but is not equivalent with Him.
"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" (John 14:9).
I'm growing tired of your single-verse citations while ignoring mine, I will indulge this last one before
I expect a little quid pro quo. Consider what Jesus said not just moments before this response in
chapter 13:
Now the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in him. If God has been
glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself and will glorify him at once. (13:31b-32).
Note the words attributed to Jesus so very clearly demonstrate the distinction between God and
His Chosen One. God has been glorified in Jesus, and given that, God will glorify Jesus in God's self,
and will glorify Jesus at once. Jesus His very self distinguishes between Himself and God. Either
Jesus is very, very confused or the author is very, very confused.
Which one do you pick?
Christ, the Logos of God, is 'with' God, and 'is' God, simultaneously. We can distinguish them semantically, but the mystery of their oneness is harder to grasp. Thus, Christ's admonishment: "hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?'
Once again, you (seem to wilfully to) fail to understand morphe. Given, Jesus is the image or
reflection of the very logos of God (which is a manifestation of God). That Philip would claim
to not know God the Father all the while staring at His reflection, the Son, would indeed be confusing
to Jesus. There is no semantic difficulty here.
Again: if you want to claim that this is a great Mystery, go for it. But it is a mystery which post-
dates Scripture (either that or Jesus is repeatedly confused about His own very nature).
Nemesio
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHmm. I know that this is an article of the Apostles' Creed (although not found in the very
Did Jesus descend into hell?
Doesn't hell consist in separation from God?
earliest forms of it, interestingly), but I don't know that there is any Scriptural support for this
claim, either.
Acts 2:31 -- He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh experience corruption -- could
suggest that He went to Hell, but doesn't itself require that He did.
The strongest Scriptural citation for it is I Peter 3:18-20 --
For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring
you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went
and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God
waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight
persons, were saved through water.
along with I Peter 4:6 --
For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been
judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does.
Nemesio
31 Mar 07
Believe what you want about God's word, I will no longer offer your positions any resistance.
All this argumentation, including mine, is of the flesh and does not glorify God. Therefore, I relinquish every argumentative strand and any claim to having won any of them. All this striving has infringed on my peace in the Lord, so this where I exit. Carry on.
May God bless you all.
Peace.
-Epiphinehas
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasI guess ignorance really is bliss...
Believe what you want about God's word, I will no longer offer your positions any resistance.
All this argumentation, including mine, is of the flesh and does not glorify God. Therefore, I relinquish every argumentative strand and any claim to having won any of them. All this striving has infringed on my peace in the Lord, so this where I exit. Carry on.
May God bless you all.
Peace.
-Epiphinehas
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasLooks like we know who the drive-by claimant is now. I think now you know why I would be
Believe what you want about God's word, I will no longer offer your positions any resistance.
All this argumentation, including mine, is of the flesh and does not glorify God. Therefore, I relinquish every argumentative strand and any claim to having won any of them. All this striving has infringed on my peace in the Lord, so this where I exit. Carry on.
May God bless you all.
Peace.
-Epiphinehas
disinclined to even strive to discuss Scripture with someone like yourself: in the face of someone
who truly reads Scripture critically, you stick your head in the sand.
The reason that you feel ill at peace, Epipinehas, is because you are going through what Mary
Magdalene went through: a refractory period. And, like Ste Mary, you have the choice to come to
believe, or to walk away like many of Jesus' would-be disciples when He related a 'hard' saying.
Yes, you can find peace in a blanket denial of my observations about Scripture, but it is a false
peace, one which rests in sticking one's fingers over one's ears and hands over one's eyes. Jesus
never called for blind subjugation, but for an active, inquisitive faith (for why, then, did He entertain
questions from even people seeking His life?), one in which very Truth is questioned and called to
task (Moses said x, but I say y), one which necessarily demanded dialogue and discussion (wherever
two or three are gathered...).
Yes, you can turn to like-minded individuals, ones who say 'Sure, the Bible says dogma x' without
investigating it, and you can feel the sense of belonging and acceptance which is parcel to any
cult. You can wrap yourself in the blanket of security, confident that you're doing the right thing,
but without asking what that thing is.
Or, you can be a follower of Jesus. Mary chose the better part (agathen merida). Which will
you choose?
Nemesio
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by NemesioCould you please indulge my lazy-man's research and tell me what was MM's "refractory period"?
Looks like we know who the drive-by claimant is now. I think now you know why I would be
disinclined to even strive to discuss Scripture with someone like yourself: in the face of someone
who truly reads Scripture critically, you stick your head in the sand.
The reason that you feel ill at peace, Epipinehas, is because you are going through what Mary
...[text shortened]... Mary chose the better part (agathen merida). Which will
you choose?
Nemesio