Questions from a Doubting Christian

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Isn't Scripture supposed to be "dead"? Otherwise, why would we seek Christ?

If Scripture was "alive," they would be no point in seeking Christ and no purpose for Christianity. Christianity would be a Text-driven religion just like Judaism and Islam. But if that was the case, one would prefer to be a Jew or Muslim than to be a Christian. Christianity would be redundant and unnecessary.

Scripture "comes to life" when one discovers Christ, but is otherwise dead. The purpose of Scripture is to lead us to Christ, thereby also leading us to God.

Out of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Scripture is least important in Christianity. Christianity puts more emphasis on a Person that we believe will lead us to God. Christianity is supposed to be independent of Scripture. The purpose of the New Testament is to remind people of what the early Christians believed.

Ideally, we wouldn't need Scripture at all. Christ alone should be sufficient.

Scripture is for novices. But then again, most of us are still drinking milk and not ready for solid food.

Nice trap of circular reasoning. I believe the French call that an "double entendre".

Truth is the Christian Bible is the "Living Word of God"...that is to say that one could read a particular text at one point in their lives and come away with an understanding...then read the same text at another point in their lives, yet the understanding is different (but appropriate for that point in time).

Ideally, Christ shouldn't have had to come here and do what He did to begin with. We screwed that one up royally.

As far as scripture being for novices, well we are told that we all see things through a glass darkly...so since we can't see things clearly (any of us), it's good to have a reference guide to keep us from losing our way.

Even though some may be chewing good steak, it always goes down better with a bit of milk...

v/r

Joshua

[Prober]

I believe we're to read scripture with the aid of the Holy Spirit to fill in the gaps in our understanding...

[Francis king]

yes, as, after all, those flashes of love/beauty/power don't seem to be the directives of a managerial tyrant-God, but appear on the wings of a dove, in the laughter of children, in a burning bush, in dreams and prophesies... bizzare then that we should reduce God to the smallness of man, and be so quick to have faith in the meanest of words...

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Nice trap of circular reasoning. I believe the French call that an "double entendre".

Truth is the Christian Bible is the "Living Word of God"...that is to say that one could read a particular text at one point in their lives and come away with an understanding...then read the same text at another point in their lives, yet the understanding is different (but appropriate for that point in time).
...............
As far as scripture being for novices, well we are told that we all see things through a glass darkly...so since we can't see things clearly (any of us), it's good to have a reference guide to keep us from losing our way.
.........
Joshua

lol

That's one of the ironies of Christianity. We're told that Jesus/Christ leads us to God, yet we need Scripture to focus our minds on the right concepts. If the Bible didn't exist, we'd never learn about Christianity. That is, unless there was someone around to tell the story. Just to make sure Christianity could be traced back to a common source, we wrote down the words of the prophets and apostles.

So the process of preserving Christianity was not achieved by an oral tradition, but solidified in a written text for future generations to read. The purpose of that was to give us an assurance that there was a group of people, 2,000 years ago, that possessed particular beliefs. These beliefs are what we now call "Christianity."

But often what happens is, we allow preconceptions to interfere with our understanding of the Text and what it intends to convey. Scripture is "dead" and "unanimated" when our minds are "far from God." But when the Spirit illuminates our minds, it is "alive" and shines like the noonday sun.

I believe though, that there are times when we need to isolate ourselves as much as possible from Scripture so that our way of thinking won't be confined to the words used to convey and express Christianity. Our beliefs will still be Christianity, but expressed differently. We develop a way of explaining it in our own words, rather than something confined to the terminology found in Scripture.

Sometimes I wonder -- what if Christianity was preserved in an oral tradition rather than a written Text (the New Testament). Would things be different?

By "oral tradition," I don't mean the mere reciting or memorisation of words, but an expression of one's beliefs, possibly inspired by the Spirit. The "tradition" is the practice of orally expressing one's beliefs inspired by something beyond this world. It is also put into the context of what one is experiencing at present.

An oral tradition may inspire people to seek something beyond this world. But I think that ironically, a written Text was meant to serve exactly the same purpose. If this was true, then maybe the problem we often face with a written Text is that we think it was meant to have all the answers, when it's real purpose was to point us to something that could not be found in this world. Following that reasoning, I think the New Testament is our oral tradition. But we have not always treated it as an oral tradition.

There's a big temptation in Christianity to confine oneself to the words and terminology found in Scripture. Perhaps we should start developing our own oral traditions as an exercise to liberate ourselves from that limitation.

The Bible is essentially "dead" to anyone who, upon reading it, does not find God. The Bible is "alive" to the person who reads it and finds God.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

well we are told that we all see things through a glass darkly...

Seeing things through a glass darkly . . . I've been wondering for a while.

Is that some kind of metaphor, allegory or pun?

[cyberpi]

Salt,
I submit that every book would be alive by that standard... but books are not alive. A book does not rewrite itself. A book does not add words to speak another person's language. A book does not fix any mistakes. A book has many authors like a person's life has many authors, and in the Bible those authors span a good number of years. There is another reason that I say this... whatever book is written can never be destroyed. Even if you burn it, cut out the pages, change words, the book and its many forms through time are still in this universe.

What is alive according to the bible and many other books: is God, Jesus, Holy Ghost, all prophets, and people, and hopefully many others who formerly lived. I don't know who all is alive in this world, but the only way a book can change is if someone makes a change. If the book changes then the person might look different. If a person changes then the book might look different.

There is another aspect that something is alive, and that is the rate that it gets copied. Like the genes being copied over and over in cell after cell. I suppose a person could say a book that gets copied is alive. I would disagree though, there again it is the person who does the copying that is alive. The body by itself, like the book itself, is deterministic.

[Dor]

Originally Posted by Prober

I believe we're to read scripture with the aid of the Holy Spirit to fill in the gaps in our understanding...

Actually that depends...Christians read with the Holy Spirit.
Humanist read with their heart. Catholics can not read without the church, Mormans can not read without the Prophet and their extra books, JW can not read without the watchtower.

[Silas]

thumbs up on that one, dor!

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Seeing things through a glass darkly . . . I've been wondering for a while.

Is that some kind of metaphor, allegory or pun?

Well I suppose it could be likened to coming in from a bright sunlit day into a room and then putting sunglasses on. Takes time for the eyes to adjust, and then twice as long because of the dark glasses over the eyes. Hard to see what is really in the room.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Salt,
I submit that every book would be alive by that standard... but books are not alive. A book does not rewrite itself. A book does not add words to speak another person's language. A book does not fix any mistakes. A book has many authors like a person's life has many authors, and in the Bible those authors span a good number of years. There is another reason that I say this... whatever book is written can never be destroyed. Even if you burn it, cut out the pages, change words, the book and its many forms through time are still in this universe.

I would kind of think of the Bible (or any book) as like a television set that gets animated when the power is turned on. The Holy Spirit is like the power supply that supplies the power. But instead of plugging the book into the power supply, you plug the person into the power supply (Holy Spirit). In the real world you'd get killed and electrocuted (ZAP!!!!). In the spiritual world, your mind is illuminated so that what you read from a book like the Bible is "animated." The Book is "turned on" only because the person who reads it is "turned on." There is something electrical that happens between us and the Bible . . .

Oh yes . . . and you see nothing when the power is turned off. No animation.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

What is alive according to the bible and many other books: is God, Jesus, Holy Ghost, all prophets, and people, and hopefully many others who formerly lived. I don't know who all is alive in this world, but the only way a book can change is if someone makes a change. If the book changes then the person might look different. If a person changes then the book might look different.

I'd call that image and signal processing . . . image enhancement and degradation.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Well I suppose it could be likened to coming in from a bright sunlit day into a room and then putting sunglasses on. Takes time for the eyes to adjust, and then twice as long because of the dark glasses over the eyes. Hard to see what is really in the room.

I did a search on Google and it seems that the idea of "seeing through a glass darkly" or "into a mirror darkly" has something to do with 1 Corinthians 13:12. Quite a few movies and episodes in television series have been produced on that idea. One example is that episode on the Star Trek Enterprise series, "In a Mirror, Darkly."

Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part, then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 1 Corinthians 13:12 (NIV)

Apparently the mirrors back then weren't that good.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Dor

JW can not read without the watchtower.

PSALM 83;18

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by mee

PSALM 83;18

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess the Lord Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:5-11

Jesus Christ is above all things.

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him." 1 Peter 3:21-22

Everything is subject to Jesus Christ

"Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.’" Isaiah 45:22-23

Jesus is God.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Dor

Actually that depends...Christians read with the Holy Spirit.
Humanist read with their heart. Catholics can not read without the church, Mormans can not read without the Prophet and their extra books, JW can not read without the watchtower.

That's real funny. I hear that fundementalists can't read without King James...

...though the Latin Vulgate is about 1000 years older, hence closer to the actual time of Christ. The Egyption Coptics as well as the Ethiopian Bibles are even closer to the time of Christ...

Hmmm, as Brian asked, which is more accurate?

[shadowman]

"administrative edit"

I put the initial dialogue with questions answered by dor up at another forum to get additional insight