Definition of Christian

[Chuck Naill]

I wish some members with an interest in discussing this topic were available. If there are those for which my posts have turned, you off. I apologize. Please post your understandings.

[TSherbs]

... If there are those for which my posts have turned, you off.

"If," Chuck?

[dneal]

Ah, here is some more of that obsession with *me.* This is getting odd, Chuck. I'm not doing anything you suggest about defending myself against these stupid aspersions. I've now posted this twice (on two different threads).

Yeah, it is odd when people are obsessesed with you and invoke your name for no real reason other than they live in your head.

Here's an example:



What if EoC has aquired it?? And this is all a giant lab experiment?? dneal once also wrote that he considers FPGeeks a psyche experi that he looks over. Freaky possibilities. And now, who knows who our alerts and emails go to....

You're da bomb, Jon. Get some sleep, brother.

edited to add: oh yeah, I am three hours ahead....I am the tired one....

You're a liar. That's nothing but bullshit. I'll treat you with rude contempt for this lie, you McFuckety McFuckFace Liar...

That's how conversation works for you, right?

If you go back and look, since your memory from one thread to another seems challenged; you'll probably find that I was referring to certain woke morons in this subsection as being little more than a psych experiment. What else would you do when you discover humans impervious to reason?



Get back on the topic.

The topic is Jesus' divinity. You've yet to address it.

[Chuck Naill]

... If there are those for which my posts have turned, you off.

"If," Chuck?

This wasn't for those that are their own god's, Ted. You can't turn someone off that has no switch. Your light is off and you've thrown away the switch.

The nonsense that you and Chip have posted didn't progress the topic. Again, more cynicism and anger than anything else. My HS English teacher was the same angry, cynical person as you depict. He did me great harm. Yes, I have a fear of those who become their own god, and will be an advocate for the children.

However, that you think I messed up the thread is just how delusional you've become, and how little you understand the New Testament writers. It was this message that got Jesus crucified and Paul beheaded. What did you think it was about, drag performer story time? Wake up a smell the coffee, Ted. Forget what you think you know and find out if it's true or not for yourself. Since you are retired and all, stop coming here and approach it you would instruct a student to do. It is obvious you have no clue based on the things you post. Growing up in church or being a preachers kid is not always an advantage in spiritual formation. Sometimes it is a deterrent.

"7 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do so that I may inherit eternal life?” 18 But Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not give false testimony, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth.” 21 Looking at him, Jesus showed love to him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But he [a]was deeply dismayed by [b]these words, and he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

[TSherbs]

Well, like I said.

Religious righteousness and demonization. Perhaps we should use this as the "definition of Christian."

If you're worried about damage from contact with non-Christian ideas, then perhaps you shouldn't hang around sermonizing to atheists on a fountain pen website. There are all sorts of fora out there for believers, some quite heavily moderated to remove dissent, animus, etc. Some very smart religious people run them and participate (I have been a member of some, although not now for at least 10 years). You might find more of what you are looking for.

[Chuck Naill]

Well, like I said.

Religious righteousness and demonization. Perhaps we should use this as the "definition of Christian."

If you're worried about damage from contact with non-Christian ideas, then perhaps you shouldn't hang around sermonizing to atheists on a fountain pen website. There are all sorts of fora out there for believers, some quite heavily moderated to remove dissent, animus, etc. Some very smart religious people run them and participate (I have been a member of some, although not now for at least 10 years). You might find more of what you are looking for.

Like you, I find this discussion interesting and profitable. How better to formulate into words what you are thinking about and studying.

Outsiders have opinions about Christianity. They think they know how they should act or what they should say. They do not, probably, impost those same standards on themselves. Below is what happened to Jesus when he told them about their Jewish history. Was he being overly righteous and demonizing? You can look it up to see what he said if interested, Ted.

From Luke 4,
"So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw Him down over the cliff. Then passing through the midst of them, He went His way."

Outsiders may want to be wooed into these discussions, but then it's too much like selling the message. The message has an affect, and it is no always what people want to hear. John wrote, "who-so-ever". Folks make their own decisions how to live. No one comes to the Kingdom by accident. And, you won't be able to blame me or a fondling priest for how you choose to live your life.

[Chuck Naill]

Some are calling for a boycott of The Chosen film over a Pride Flag seen on the set. This is as misguided as the beer or Target boycott. I’m curious about what these people are for? We know what they are against.

[TSherbs]

... And, you won't be able to blame me or a fondling priest for how you choose to live your life.

WTF does this mean? I have never done this, either.

Why would anyone engage with you on this topic when you twist and lie about what people say?

To make clear:

1) You (the poster named "Chuck") have absolutely nothing to do with my basic position regarding my personal faith. My posting here on it is an occasional intellectual (or merely habitual) exercise that has no impact on my beliefs or my journey. I rarely say anything about that (my personal journey) and certainly am not interested in public responses to it on an internet thread. I reserve such conversations only for private correspondence and my family and friends in "real" life.

2) My objections (and "concern over") the systemic abuse of children by the Catholic priests (and other religious persons) has also had nothing to do with my personal spiritual journey. Nothing at all. My objections are about justice and law and consequences or the hollow righteousness of religious believers that don't properly acknowledge that religion (and spiritual authority) has been full of rank terror and abuse throughout its history. Religious abuse has nothing to do with whether I think that there is a God or not or that the Bible stories have anything to say to me. My adult beliefs were shaped long before the crimes against children were known to me.

So, as I have said before, stop writing bullshit conclusions about me. Stop assuming that you know anything about me or my faith. Write about your faith only, and stop sermonizing to others. Unless, of course, you want some unvarnished replies in return. This last comment from you is just another of those uncharitable swipes you take toward people. I am not seeking to "blame you" for my lack of faith. I don't know why your ego has placed you in that position of connection or importance to me in this regard. You are irrelevant to my faith, my criticism of abusers, whatever and everything.

This thread started as a question by someone who had lost belief in the "divinity" of Jesus and asked if that meant that he was no longer a Christian. Over time many twists and turns have occurred here, but you seem bent on turning this thread into a discussion (promotion) of the idea of "discipleship." That is all about you, Chuck, and as far as I can tell--only you. You've done this now to this thread for page after page. No one else has taken up the mantle with you. No one even seems interested in that specific idea, and definitely not as a minimum definition of what it means to be a Christian. Don't blame others or give them a hard time or demonize them if they disagree with you.

Or go ahead and demonize. Like I said, maybe that is what you are actually demonstrating makes "a Christian."

[Chuck Naill]

I am not responsible for you or to please you, Ted. If you are not interested in discipleship, stop responding and you'll not read another post to address you.

Yes, the thread began with the divinity of Jesus. That is not provable, so the conversations went elsewhere. This is where discipleship for anything provides experiential validation. If you are interested in learning to do something, you get a teacher. Their skills as a teacher and their words will determine the quality of your experience along with the appropriate effort on your part. However, it did not appear the OP was interested in any type of curriculum of study, just wanted to know if he was still a Christian. Maybe he never was, but thought he was.

You've twisted this thread in the direction that you preferred, and I've responded that what you believe is not according to anything the scriptures would allow. I really don't know why you even post on this thread and have said so. What you seem to want is a pissing contest between you and anyone that disagrees with you are any thread. the reason you can't have decent conversations isn't because your skills are superior. I can't think of another member that has to constantly use four letter words to describe what you are talking about. Not that I care, just an observation.

Please put me on your ignore list. If your value here is only to post links that most of us already know about, it is the reason you are not being engaged. Maybe you and Chip can use the PM feature and all your troubles with the most toxic members will disappear. I've been accused of a lot of things, but never a mind reader. I have no idea what's going on in your mind, that is if you have one.

[TSherbs]

I am not responsible for you or to please you, Ted. No shit, Sherlock. That is what I just told you after you suggested that I blame *you* for my religious viewpoints.


... I have no idea what's going on in your mind, that is if you have one. Ah, that lovely Christian spirit, right on cue and right "on topic" as you claimed. So, your sensibilities are more upset by profanity than by, say, thousands of priests abusing tens of thousands of children? Which fact is actually more "profane"? Some vulgar language between adults, or thousands of abused children? (and you have the gall to say that I don't "care about children"). Get your priorities straight. You guys who criticize me for vulgar language crack me up with your faux refinement and decorum where a lie and a sharp aspersion are justified but a vulgarity is sin. Where telling someone that they "have no mind" or lying is more acceptable than just saying "fuck off." I prefer the direct, honest route: Go fuck yourself, Chuck. The Brits know how to do this right.

Each time I see you lying, you're going to get more of the same. Lying for Jesus is no better than just lying for yourself.

[Chuck Naill]

Good grief, Ted. 😂

[Chuck Naill]

Another way of thinking about God, as a spirit as the scriptures tell us. God is the creative element that creates and governs the universe, and spirit is the creative element in human nature, the image of God in mankind. Dallas Willard

The purpose of the law was to keep the people of God on the right life path.

The message of Jesus is to put the law inside a person so they naturally come to happily accept and do those laws and to be helped by the Holy Spirit.

There is no law against treating others as you want to be treated.

[dneal]

You both do realize you're just declaring your "correct" answer, about something impossible to know, over and over again. Right?

That's the problem with politics and religion - and particularly religion.

The point of the thread wasn't about which impossible-to-prove belief is true, because that's futile. The point of the thread was the variety of doctrine, its history, etc...

Jesus' divinity, like trinity doctrine; comes later in Christianity.

[Chuck Naill]

I do understand your perspective, but when the OP decided his position, for him, was no longer tenable, there most likely was a reason. Was he adequately informed internally? What was his experience or expectations?

I do not mean to give my correct answer, or force it in another person. My motivation is to provide as scriptural support as I can about what Jesus said. Of course, I’d you don’t believe that Jesus didn’t actually say anything, that’s an option you can choose.

I saw my primary conversation with those with some interest in discussing the text.

[Chuck Naill]

Can’t edit on my iPhone, this is a link for why I am promoting the concept of discipleship.
I thinks it’s central to the OP’s experience.
https://dwillard.org/articles/rethinking-evangelism

[dneal]

I do understand your perspective, but when the OP decided his position, for him, was no longer tenable, there most likely was a reason. Was he adequately informed internally? What was his experience or expectations?

I do not mean to give my correct answer, or force it in another person. My motivation is to provide as scriptural support as I can about what Jesus said. Of course, I’d you don’t believe that Jesus didn’t actually say anything, that’s an option you can choose.

I saw my primary conversation with those with some interest in discussing the text.

Chuck, I think this is a perfect thread for you to contribute to. I'd recommend going back and browsing the conversation from the beginning, with particular emphasis on jar's posts.

Yes, there are distractions and disruptions. EoC trying to turn it into something else (first a question of "categories" and then just an atheist demonstrating that there are no conclusive proofs for god's existence - which is hardly the topic. There are TSherbs occasional distractions, some nonsense about hissing in the garden and then the word-salad jar correctly points out. Again, when you realize it's just a string of emotion typed out, it's more apparent and explains why it's 'devoid of meaning' (or however jar put it).

The flip side was (I believe) Matteob, distracting and basically calling everyone who disagreed with his selections and interpretations of verse - and conclusions derived - as heretics. You're not that far along, but definitely on that side of the aisle. Citing the Bible to justify the Bible is a circular argument. Adding the multitude of contradictions, mistranslations, manipulations, and interpretations; you can easily end up with a Southern Baptist and Catholic explaining why the other is going to hell based on how they practice their interpretations of a book. That gets old really quick. You'll find a few Twain quoted in the earlier parts of this thread summarizing that notion.

But the evolution of the Church, much of it documented, is fascinating. Trinity doctrine is an evolution, not an original concept. How did it get there and why?

With all the denominations (each claiming to have the "true religion"), what is the origin for their differing views?

[Chuck Naill]

I will do as you say @dneal, go back and review.

Just as Jesus didn’t condemn the woman caught having sex with a man other than her husband, I condemn no one.

My ambition is to seek the Kingom of God and all that means.

In The Shack, McKinsey asked Jesus if there was but one path to him. The reply was that Jesus would use any path. This is anathema of course to the Evangelicals. I’m only interested in the true path.

Dallas Willard was radical. I know of no church which practices what he taught. Ironically, he only taught what Jesus said .

[dneal]

Only Jesus taught what Jesus said. Everybody else gets it secondhand.

[Chuck Naill]

Only Jesus taught what Jesus said. Everybody else gets it secondhand.

I don't want to assume I understand your point. Care to clarify?

[dneal]

Just a little tongue in cheek pedantry, but it's relevant in this topic's context.

The only record of what Jesus taught was recorded by someone else, so we get it all secondhand. The children's game telephone is a good example of the problems with relaying information from one person to the next.

Paul claims to have met the spirit of Jesus, who spoke to him. In this case, again we only have Paul telling us what Jesus said.

Then you add centuries of men determining what was "authentic", what should be added to the Canon, and what should be omitted (sometimes under punishment of death). Different denominations have different Bibles, and I'm not talking about King James or New International. Books are added or omitted in cases.

It's problematic, to say the least.

[Chuck Naill]

Just a little tongue in cheek pedantry, but it's relevant in this topic's context.

The only record of what Jesus taught was recorded by someone else, so we get it all secondhand. The children's game telephone is a good example of the problems with relaying information from one person to the next.

Paul claims to have met the spirit of Jesus, who spoke to him. In this case, again we only have Paul telling us what Jesus said.

Then you add centuries of men determining what was "authentic", what should be added to the Canon, and what should be omitted (sometimes under punishment of death). Different denominations have different Bibles, and I'm not talking about King James or New International. Books are added or omitted in cases.

It's problematic, to say the least.

Yes, this is what I figured you meant, and it is true. That said, we accept the philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and others from the same era. It can be just as much a problem to not accept as to accept if it is done blindly. The atheist uses just as much faith as I do.

There are two factors at play, what Jesus said and the experience of those following him. The latter is what allowed the Jewish sect to expand into the Gentile nations. No one is going to follow something that doesn't produce the desired results, answer the questions that mankind has always asked, and what it means to live a good life. Each of the NT books addresses these questions.

Imagine a world where loving your neighbor as you love yourself existed? However, that is only part of the good news. We might want to love our neighbor but lack the power to consistently do so. This is where the Spirit of God comes into play.

Christianity has become for many Evangelicals as only the forgiveness of sin and going to Heaven when you die. For many Christians, their experiences do not match the experiences depicted in the New Testament. This has led to asking what would Jesus do and Christians are not perfect, just forgiven. These ideas have not led to transformed lives where righteousness, peace, and joy are experienced.

The message of Jesus was to offer a new option. The Kingdom of God is now readily available to those who would change their minds, turn around, and reconsider. This is echoed with the Apostolic writers and later writers. This idea is echoed in the Lord's Prayer. If this is a valid idea, the prospect would then ask, how. How to enter into this new option. The answer is to become a disciple. I could apply this to playing a musical instrument, becoming a marksman, or learning a new skill. We enter into a type of mentoring program and learn from a master. What is fueling this endeavor is human intent.

If you were to disciple a new student in how to play a guitar, you would expect them to do what you asked them to do because you know if they do so they will experience success. This is why Jesus said to teach the apprentices to do what he said to do. Think about the modern Evangelical institution and how many of them are actually attempting to obey the simple, straight forward practice of living so that you love others as you love yourself or to be a good neighbor. It is not even a consideration.

Just as Jesus didn't condemn the woman caught in adultery, I cannot condemn the LGBQ community or drag performers. Yes, Evangelical leaders treat these people with distain. What Jesus did was to offer them the Kingdom of God. This is what I am trying to do here. What we are on the inside is more important than the outside. It is a life long process.

I will do as you say later next week when I have time to review what has been posted on this thread.

[Chuck Naill]

I’ve reviewed the first three pages. The discussion seemed to center around labels and what members remember from creeds and denominations. I think you introduced Universalism.

I’ll continue, but this so far, using something we are familiar with, it’s like discussing music genres and guitar strings with a new guitar student. They will sort these issues out later.

The concept of being an apprentice and having a mentor should resonate with most readers here. This is the idea I hope to advance.

[TSherbs]

..., I cannot condemn the LGBQ community or drag performers.

You smear them with suggestions of wrongdoing repeatedly. You ask me to defend their motives (assuming that they are evil or injurious) repeatedly. You ask the law to restrain them in ways you do not ask others to be restrained. You repeatedly question their outlook on life and even suggest that they don't even know who they themselves are. You have done these things repeatedly on this thread and other threads.

You're a Christian hypocrite liar.

[Chuck Naill]

I’m sure I am, Ted. If I must choose between protecting children over LGBQ influence or Drag performances with children, I’ll protect the children. I would be as vocal if the influence were heterosexual groups.

Jesus didn’t tell the women to keep on practicing adultery. He did admonish his students not to trip up little ones. This is the standard I aspire toward, not having your standards or praise.

Now, back to the topic.

[dneal]

..., I cannot condemn the LGBQ community or drag performers.

You smear them with suggestions of wrongdoing repeatedly. You ask me to defend their motives (assuming that they are evil or injurious) repeatedly. You ask the law to restrain them in ways you do not ask others to be restrained. You repeatedly question their outlook on life and even suggest that they don't even know who they themselves are. You have done these things repeatedly on this thread and other threads.

You're a Christian hypocrite liar.

“Conversation”

[TSherbs]

I’m sure I am, Ted. If I must choose between protecting children over LGBQ influence or Drag performances with children, I’ll protect the children.

Only your prejudice makes you think that you must make this "choice." That is your judgment at work. You constantly feel there is a need to choose to defend children from these things that you perceive as threats. That perception is your judgment at work, that judgment that you just falsely bragged (lied) that you don't have.

I am happy to discuss the topic, but as I said, each time you lie I am going to point it out. Faux Christian righteousness and superiority deserves no better.

[Chip]

Here's a summary of massacres, wars, murders, tortures, and other atrocities by christians since the early days.

By any standard, it seems to be a violent and murderous exercise of "faith."

https://stellarhousepublishing.com/victims/

If you don't have the guts to read it, then don't comment. Check?

[Chuck Naill]

I’m sure I am, Ted. If I must choose between protecting children over LGBQ influence or Drag performances with children, I’ll protect the children.

Only your prejudice makes you think that you must make this "choice." That is your judgment at work. You constantly feel there is a need to choose to defend children from these things that you perceive as threats. That perception is your judgment at work, that judgment that you just falsely bragged (lied) that you don't have.

I am happy to discuss the topic, but as I said, each time you lie I am going to point it out. Faux Christian righteousness and superiority deserves no better.

Yes, I do make judgements. I choose to drive the speed limit, but those drivers that do not, I do not despise them. I try to stay out of their way. People that carry guns, I do not hate them, but I do stay out of their way. It is the same with those for whom I have some responsibility. I would not take any child to a library drag book read. Others can do what seems best for those for whom they are accountable. I would not take a child of mine to a drag book read in order to appear acceptable to some groups of people.

No, I have not found that you want to discuss the topic, Ted. You want to control the narrative, and that is fine. It is a free forum and not moderated, but you cannot define what the scriptures plainly say about what Jesus taught and what he said for his present and future students or apprentices to do.

I will continue to post topics of interest. I suggest you do the same.

That some people calling themselves Christians have done horrible acts does not contradict the words of Jesus. Discussing those horrible historical acts is not my interest. My interest is New Testament Discipleship.

[Chuck Naill]

We had a wonderful weekend off the grid. A prominent group was conducting a fly-fishing introductory class and it made me think about discipleship. I mentioned to the folks I was with about it and they agreed that conducting a discipship class the same as a fish fishing class was a good idea. I intend to explore the idea.

Several things came to mind,
1. The people in the class wanted to be in attendance.
2. They were attentive and practiced the skills introduced.
3. The leaders were just people who were a little further along in the process.
4. The leaders mentioned another class for those interested.

[Chuck Naill]

@dneal, I followed your suggestion and read some older posts. It seems the topic evolved into discussions about how Christianity relates to other religions and some discussion about books and videos.

From the OP, "I was raised a Catholic but I haven't been to a church in a long while. As I read and learn, I started to question and I no longer believe in divinity of Jesus. I still believe in God. What does that make me?"

My experience with a typical Catholic person is that they are not a group who reads the scriptures for themselves. I am sure there are exemptions. In fact, when I was growing up as a Baptist, the members didn't read the Bible probably because of the KJV version was difficult to understand and the reading skills were poor. The members depended on the preacher to tell them what to do and think. I remember being introduced to the NASB version and being better able to read for myself. I was enlightening and I immediately noticed that much of how I was raised was tradition and not rooted in the scriptures.

Ultimately I was able to shake the high school English teacher's atheism and recognized it for what it was. This didn't occur because I had a teacher or a member of a church. It was because I simply read the text for myself.

If I were to relate this to fly fishing, it would be similar to a person who had the finest equipment available, but were unable to show the skills necessary to fly fish. They just carry the poles around like Baptists carry their Bibles. Ultimately some would, like the OP, decide that fly fishing is a myth, but continue ask if they can be considered a fly fisherman even if they no longer believe in fly fishing.

Then some, like Chip, tells them he's read that some fly fishermen have done great evil in the world by wearing felt soles. Some, he might add, are pedophiles. The he would post photos of him fly fishing. Ted would say he doesn't believe Trout exist and so those who are interested in fly fishing are wasting their time.

[TSherbs]

Yes, I do make judgements..

Then you admit to your bragging lie.

[TSherbs]

...Ted would say he doesn't believe Trout exist and so those who are interested in fly fishing are wasting their time.

Another stupid lie.

[Chuck Naill]

Not at all. You've shown yourself to make statements, not rooted in anything but opinion, as factually true.

[dneal]

Not at all. You've shown yourself to make statements, not rooted in anything but opinion, as factually true.

What's really funny is how many times he posts that he is no longer going to participate in a thread, only to come back and threaten it again as he realizes he can't substantiate any of his [new] declarations of fact - which seem to arise from a weird belief in the ability read the hearts and minds of people he has never met.

[TSherbs]

Not at all. .

Yes, it is a lie. Whenever you try to summarize my thinking or points, you err. You have not been reading or interpreting correctly. As I note, stop trying to summarize my thinking. You don't know what you are talking about.

[dneal]

Not at all. .

Yes, it is a lie. Whenever you try to summarize my thinking or points, you err. You have not been reading or interpreting correctly. As I note, stop trying to summarize my thinking. You don't know what you are talking about.

LOL!!! This from the guy who selectively quotes out of context and then interprets it to mean the opposite?

Somebody doesn't know what they are talking about, but the total lack of self-awareness or reflection is amazing to watch.

[Chuck Naill]

Summarize your thinking? You are an atheist who thinks the soul is a myth trying to participate in a Christian definition discussion.

I can see this idea exemplified in your posts. It’s invaded your thinking. It’s why you can’t bring yourself to support an unborn child under 20 weeks. You’ve soothed yourself in thinking they don’t have a soul, so nothing lost.

It’s why you think you have the moral high ground supporting reading time with Drag Queens over children.

No one is making stuff up about you. I read your posts and assume you’re serious.

[TSherbs]

No one is making stuff up about you.

That entire bit about fishing is made up. And "wasting one's time"...that's utter bullshit. It is not wasting one's time to seek spiritual life, and I would never say so. You just make shit up to smear your perceived antagonists.

Again, stop making crap up. You don't know what you are talking about.

[Chuck Naill]

How can there be a spiritual life if the spirit doesn’t exist?

The problem isn’t anyone making stuff up. Maybe you blacked out and don’t remember.

[Chip]

Why are christians, as a group, so dangerous and violent?

A few thoughts: The christ myth emphasizes his victimhood, at the hands of the Jewish elite and then the Romans. The most prevalent icon is of Jesus on the cross. Thus, people who profess christianity tend to characterize themselves as victims, even when they are aggressors, colonizers, and oppressors.

This delusion of victimhood leads to fantasies of revenge, retribution, and "taking back" what has been stolen, etc.

A present example of this is the way Trump's posture as a victim appeals so strongly to white christian nationalists, evangelicals, and other devout believers.

[Chuck Naill]

The problem with atheism is that it's leaders have a history of gross sexism and infighting. Dawkins argues that female rape victims are not trustworthy if they had been drinking. Some have said they are atheists but don't want anything to do with the Atheist Clergy. This sort of sounds like some religions.

Can we get back to the topic? I think the atheists have their hands full taking care of their own issues. Dawkins sounds like he is full of himself which sounds like a couple of folks around here. Maybe they feel victimized.

And, I suspect those people sending me spam emails, where I have won, are not disciples of Jesus. I suspect they are atheists. Maybe retired cowboys who never had a retirement or SS tax. Hopefully they married well or have a trust fund.

[dneal]

Let me help you get back on track.

Can someone be a Christian if they do not believe Jesus was divine, and/or Trinity doctrine?

Why or why not?

[Chuck Naill]

From Sam Harris, “There’s something about that critical posture that is to some degree intrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women,” said the bestselling author of The End of Faith. “The atheist variable just has this—it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.” It seems to me, judging from recent events, that atheist men are the fragile flowers here—they, not women, are the ones wilting under criticism.

[Chuck Naill]

Let me help you get back on track.

Can someone be a Christian if they do not believe Jesus was divine, and/or Trinity doctrine?

Why or why not?

He claimed to be God. He told his students to make apprentices of him, teach them to do what he said, and to engulf them into the Trinitarian Community. He said the most important act was to seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

[TSherbs]

How can there be a spiritual life if the spirit doesn’t exist? .

You have a narrow understanding of spirit, obviously. This is your Christian prejudice (or myopia, take your pick).

There is a spiritual life without a Christian God or any god at all, you just don't read widely on the topic or understand it.

Furthermore, you are still a liar when you attempt to paraphrase what I would say (which has been my point).

[TSherbs]

In the meantime, please continue to assume that Dawkins /Hawkins/Harris epresents all atheists. It's amusing.

/sarcasm

[dneal]

Let me help you get back on track.

Can someone be a Christian if they do not believe Jesus was divine, and/or Trinity doctrine?

Why or why not?

He claimed to be God.

No, he didn’t; and this point already came up and was debunked by the verses that preceded the one used to substantiate the claim.

[Chuck Naill]

Make no mistake @dneal. It is fine with me if you want to think otherwise, but you'll have to do so with no Biblical support.

There are many texts that demonstrate that Jesus considered himself equal to God. He forgave sins, claimed to be one with the Father, accused of blasphemy by the Jewish leaders, and was the word (logos) that brought the creation into being. The gospel of John is a good source if interested.

"We don't stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy: because you, being a man, make yourself God." John 10:33.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.". John 1:1 The Greek word logos means: word, reason, etc.

His commissioning to his first students is also instructive of how Jesus considered himself to be as a member of the Trinitarian Community.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely, I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

The question for someone considering Jesus is, would you want him to be just a man? Would you want to be empowered to live the life he taught was available? Would you want a relationship with God and to be able to get in on what he is doing. Does Jesus' teaching produce a better life that you are currently living. These are simple and easy to consider.

Jesus didn't teach his student to go out and try to talk people in becoming Christians. He didn't say to build buildings and force members to give 10% of their income. If you notice how he handled those that questioned him, you are left with the idea that he didn't over explain himself. I sense that he expected the hears to respond with some effort to learn and understand. I do the same as his apprentice.

I remember around 1979, when I was just doing my self-study, a new neighbor found out of was a Christian and told me she was also. She was a member of a group called The Way International. She was insistent that Jesus was not God. She did me a great favor because every time she made a claim I dove into the scriptures. If interested, I encourage your to do the same. This way, it is something you decide and not something I pushed you into.

[Chuck Naill]

In the meantime, please continue to assume that Dawkins /Hawkins/Harris epresents all atheists. It's amusing.

/sarcasm

Just as Chip's posts don't include all Christians, which was also amusing. I am going to continue to explore what these atheists are saying and doing. They remind me of all that atheists say they despise about religion. It should be clear to you that the problem isn't religion. It is humanity.

[dneal]

Make no mistake @dneal. It is fine with me if you want to think otherwise, but you'll have to do so with no Biblical support.

You said Jesus claimed to be God. The burden of proof lies with you, not me.

[Chuck Naill]

Make no mistake @dneal. It is fine with me if you want to think otherwise, but you'll have to do so with no Biblical support.

You said Jesus claimed to be God. The burden of proof lies with you, not me.

Nope, it is your question @dneal. It is up to you to find out for yourself. I'll be more than happy to help you along the path at any time. At least read my post next time before abstracting a sentence like you are critical of Ted for doing. ;)

[dneal]

Nope. Not only did you not answer the questions, you asserted that Jesus claimed to be God.

If you can't substantiate that, it's fine with me; but there's no need to try to weasel out of it.

[Chuck Naill]

I think the next great revival in the American Christain Societies will come from those discovering the first time, Christian Spiritual Formation and correspondingly, discipleship. The reason is because of the experiential nature of a transformed heart. It is easy to loose interest in trying to be something for which there is no experience. The OP might be one of those who never experienced anything of value. The reason is because the American gatherings have taught outward obedience rather than inward transformation.

The American church since being politicized has focused on the external. They want to ban homosexuals and trans people from meeting with them. They want to females in leadership. As noted in his epistles, Paul noted that many types of people had decided to become students of Jesus. When people decide to take Jesus up on his offer to enter the Kingdom of God aka the Will of God, they will have a transformational experience. As I like to say, a person with an experience has an advantage over a person with a theory.

[Chuck Naill]

Nope. Not only did you not answer the questions, you asserted that Jesus claimed to be God.

If you can't substantiate that, it's fine with me; but there's no need to try to weasel out of it.

Read what I posted. Afterwards, if you have more questions, we can discuss.

[dneal]

You have it precisely backwards.

You're free to believe whatever you want about unknowable things. Jesus is God is Holy Spirit, Jesus is divine, whatever.

But if you're going to say things like "Jesus claimed to be God", you incur a burden of proof. Your deflections simply show that you have none.

It's really simple. Post the chapter and verse where Jesus says "I am God". That's what claiming to be God would be. Instead, you rely on your interpretations.

-edit-

I'll just add that there's a big problem with Jesus' exclamations to God, while he was being crucified; if he is God (or claimed to be).

Did "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" refer to himself, or someone else? Was he saying (according to your logic) "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?"?

[dneal]

So back to the point of the thread.

Can someone be a Christian if they do not believe Jesus was divine, and/or Trinity doctrine?

Why or why not?

[Chuck Naill]

So back to the point of the thread.

Can someone be a Christian if they do not believe Jesus was divine, and/or Trinity doctrine?

Why or why not?

Yes, someone can believe they are a Christian and not think Jesus is God. Why? People can think all sorts of things. Jesus encountered questions. He responded with outcomes based on what he had done and was continuing to do.

How can someone know they are a Christian? What would serve as proof? Would this kind of evidence be something they would want to experience?

On the other hand, and please forgive me for using your post to say more than you're asking, how can someone know they are an apprentice? This is a better idea because we know that an apprentice is not just a title since activities are occurring. Anyone is free to say they are anything, but an apprenticeship requires inflow and outflow.

[dneal]

I agree with the majority of your points, and your questions are key to the discussion.

I’m not so sure “apprentice” is the right word. That usually relates to skill development in a vocation. Perhaps it works for the clergy, but doesn’t seem apt in the context of Jesus. What would you be apprenticing for in that context? Deification? Seems absurd, hence the question of the word choice.

[welch]

Let me help you get back on track.

Can someone be a Christian if they do not believe Jesus was divine, and/or Trinity doctrine?

Why or why not?

Just brushing by:

- The Council of Nicea defined an orthodox Christian as one who agrees to the creed agreed upon there. That is the original, and most basic definition.

- However, the question of "those who called themselves Christian" at the time -- in the reign of Emperor Constantine: who was Jesus? All flesh, all spirit, God come to earth? Jesus, in the gospels does not claim to be God. When people ask, he turns it around: "Who do you think I am?"

- Arius, a Christian elder from Egypt suggested that Jesus was son of God, begotten by God before time, but still, created by God. There were "same-ists" and "dissimilarists", with the Arians being more or less what I called "dissimilimarists". Both were Trinitarians, but from a different angle.

I am a third-generation (or fourth?) Methodist. Somehow, through all the years of Sunday School, through all the years in the church choir, and all the years listening to sermons, I always thought of Jesus as the Son of God. I never quite understood how Father and Son could be the same. Mostly, I let that go until I took a medieval theology course that began with St. Augustine. The more I read of the theologians, and the more I read of Roman / Byzantine history before 1000 CE, the more I concluded that they had never come to a satisfactory answer. Yet, Constantine's successors massacred people, such as the Monophysites, who believed Nicea but seemed to lean a little much one way or the other. (Monophysites argued that Jesus was completely divine, all spirit. In what way, asked the
orthodox" did he suffer on the Cross? Or, then, how can some Roman soldiers kill God?) In fact, the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople fell out with the Western Church when the Bishop of Rome. the Pope, change the Nicene Creed at the request of Charles the Great. Eventually, the Pope and the Patriarch excommunicated each other.

Oh...when I joined the church at twelve, we all learned, discussed, and recited the Apostle's Creed. It seems to be a simplification of Nicea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed

Here is wiki on the Creed of Nicea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

[Chip]

The Patriarchy Marches On.

The Southern Baptists (perhaps as a way of recovering from their enormous sex-abuse scandal) are getting rid of women who lead congregations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/13/us/southern-baptist-movement-women-pastors.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

[dneal]

Excellent post welch.

[Chuck Naill]

Excellent, @dneal got his question answered and didn’t have to lift a finger. 😂

[dneal]

I didn't have a question. I paraphrased the OP's for the sake of discussion.

You are back to your old routine. "LOL's" because there is no substance behind your opinions, which becomes obvious when you're challenged on them.

I was just curious how long it would take.

[TSherbs]

Let me help you get back on track.

Can someone be a Christian if they do not believe Jesus was divine, and/or Trinity doctrine?

Why or why not?

Just brushing by:

- The Council of Nicea defined an orthodox Christian as one who agrees to the creed agreed upon there. That is the original, and most basic definition.

Yep. I said this toward the beginning of the thread. Seems pretty straightfoward to me.

Nicene Creed: (most relevant part to this discussion)


I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

Apostles' Creed: (most relevant parts to this discussion)


I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

[dneal]

Let me help you get back on track.

Can someone be a Christian if they do not believe Jesus was divine, and/or Trinity doctrine?

Why or why not?

Just brushing by:

- The Council of Nicea defined an orthodox Christian as one who agrees to the creed agreed upon there. That is the original, and most basic definition.

Yep. I said this toward the beginning of the thread. Seems pretty straightfoward to me.

No, you didn’t. Here’s your first post:


There is no universally accepted definition of what a "Christian" is. Major denominations don't even agree. And Jesus provided no specific definition.

And excessive verbiage on this matter strikes me as the hissing of the serpent in the garden.

The second is agreement with an irrelevant comment about labels.

The third:


There is no one definition of a "Christian." There never has been, either.

Some have said "this." And some have said "that."

We should strive, I think, to get beyond the "this and that." I even think that Jesus would have recoiled at this kind of parsing, but that is, of course, wild speculation on my part. But initially he must have had many followers who were illiterate and called forth only by the force of his presence and power of his parables. Those first fishermen were not given definitional tests. I think that Jesus was much more of a mystic than most Christian sects acknowledge.

Then you start your word salad. “Jesus was neither x nor y…”, and other emoting various strings of nonsense in both “Bumper sticker and broadside”, as jar put it.

You like to call Chuck a liar, but here is one of yours; blatantly obvious.

[Chuck Naill]

If, Jesus is who he said he is, it would demand obedience and worship.

As long as people keep him and arms length and focus on what people think he is, they will not experience what he said his students would experience.

However, for those who seek him, he can be found. It’s our choice. No one is to blame for our decisions. And, no one is trying to talk us into something we don’t want.

[Chip]

It’s our choice. No one is to blame for our decisions. And, no one is trying to talk us into something we don’t want.

As long as we're mucking about in the basement of history, here's a choice bit:

The Codex Theodosianus (Eng. Theodosian Code) was a compilation of the laws of the Roman Empire under the Christian emperors since 312. A commission was established by Theodosius II and his co-emperor Valentinian III on 26 March 429[8][9] and the compilation was published by a constitution of 15 February 438. It went into force in the eastern and western parts of the empire on 1 January 439.[8]

"It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans.... The rest, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative (Codex Theodosianus XVI 1.2.)."[10]

Forced conversions of Jews were carried out with the support of rulers during Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages in Gaul, the Iberian peninsula and in the Byzantine Empire.[11]

More on forced conversions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

[welch]

If, Jesus is who he said he is, it would demand obedience and worship.

As long as people keep him and arms length and focus on what people think he is, they will not experience what he said his students would experience.

However, for those who seek him, he can be found. It’s our choice. No one is to blame for our decisions. And, no one is trying to talk us into something we don’t want.

Jesus does not say who he is. He turns the question around: who do you think I am? That makes it no matter of obedience.

[Chuck Naill]

He truly did. When his student said “we don’t know the way”. He replied, “I am the way”.

But, you show the state of the people who say they are Christians. No experience with the scriptures.

[TSherbs]

Dear lord.

We know the scripture, Chuck.

The line you quoted isn't "who" he is and isn't even on the topic in question.

You're a piece of work.

[dneal]

He truly did. When his student said “we don’t know the way”. He replied, “I am the way”.

But, you show the state of the people who say they are Christians. No experience with the scriptures.

So “the way” = “God”?

I don’t have a thesaurus handy, but I’m pretty sure there is a little bit of interpretation going on there.

Again Chuck, it’s simple. Cite the verse where Jesus states he is god, or post lol and emoji’s. We know what it means when you do the latter.

This is an academic theological discussion. If your faith isn’t strong enough to handle it, you might find a topic that isn’t so difficult for you.

[TSherbs]

... No experience with the scriptures.

By the way, that is another flat lie.

Again, when you write about other members here, you often are either ignorant or just a sinning liar.

[Chuck Naill]

I provided the text two days ago, @dneal. Go back and read if interested and the resources provided. Or, read what Welch posted and accept that information. Do what you want. I'm just a person suggesting you change the way you think because the Kingdom of God is readily available. I can help if you decide to become a student of Jesus, but I cannot provide the motivation.

Did you approach learning to play a guitar by challenging your teachers or by applying yourself and practicing what they said? Did you make them prove something that you thought was not true? How foolish you are. You treat this as something strange. It is a close as the nose on your face and you won't look for it. Test it and prove it to yourself and then you will have experiential understanding and not an academic consideration. If you try it and it doesn't work, forget about it.

[Chuck Naill]

... No experience with the scriptures.

By the way, that is another flat lie.

Again, when you write about other members here, you often are either ignorant or just a sinning liar.

I've corrected you with well-known scriptures. Remember you said Jesus never said anything about bringing the body under control as Paul did? You said Paul had mental problems. Anyone with a smidgeon of scriptural experience would see that you don't have even a basic understanding. So, no. I am not a liar.

[TSherbs]

... No experience with the scriptures.

By the way, that is another flat lie.

Again, when you write about other members here, you often are either ignorant or just a sinning liar.
. So, no. I am not a liar.

Yes, you are. Your animus against those who are not Christian and interpret the scriptures differently blinds you and makes you false. And I keep telling you this and you persist anyway with your false statements. That's lying. Another example of Christian righteousness gone awry.

[dneal]

I provided the text two days ago, @dneal. Go back and read if interested and the resources provided. Or, read what Welch posted and accept that information. Do what you want. I'm just a person suggesting you change the way you think because the Kingdom of God is readily available. I can help if you decide to become a student of Jesus, but I cannot provide the motivation.

Did you approach learning to play a guitar by challenging your teachers or by applying yourself and practicing what they said? Did you make them prove something that you thought was not true? How foolish you are. You treat this as something strange. It is a close as the nose on your face and you won't look for it. Test it and prove it to yourself and then you will have experiential understanding and not an academic consideration. If you try it and it doesn't work, forget about it.

If you provided the text, you should have no difficulty directing me to it. I must have missed it.

You said Jesus claimed to be God. You haven't posted anything where Jesus claimed to be god. You have posted the odd verse or two, and then interpreted it to mean he said he was God.

Jesus' divinity, and trinity doctrine; is the topic. There is ample evidence that this notion was not the case in the early church, and it evolved - which is why I recommended you pay particular attention to jar's posts.

Your guitar analogy is ridiculous.

I don't begrudge you your leap of faith. What you leapt over is the unknowable and unprovable. Faith is the point - believing something you can't hope to prove. The harder you try to prove it though, the less credible your faith is.

I can help if you decide to become a student of reason, but I cannot provide the motivation. ;)

[Chuck Naill]

I provided the text two days ago, @dneal. Go back and read if interested and the resources provided. Or, read what Welch posted and accept that information. Do what you want. I'm just a person suggesting you change the way you think because the Kingdom of God is readily available. I can help if you decide to become a student of Jesus, but I cannot provide the motivation.

Did you approach learning to play a guitar by challenging your teachers or by applying yourself and practicing what they said? Did you make them prove something that you thought was not true? How foolish you are. You treat this as something strange. It is a close as the nose on your face and you won't look for it. Test it and prove it to yourself and then you will have experiential understanding and not an academic consideration. If you try it and it doesn't work, forget about it.

If you provided the text, you should have no difficulty directing me to it. I must have missed it.

You said Jesus claimed to be God. You haven't posted anything where Jesus claimed to be god. You have posted the odd verse or two, and then interpreted it to mean he said he was God.

Jesus' divinity, and trinity doctrine; is the topic. There is ample evidence that this notion was not the case in the early church, and it evolved - which is why I recommended you pay particular attention to jar's posts.

Your guitar analogy is ridiculous.

I don't begrudge you your leap of faith. What you leapt over is the unknowable and unprovable. Faith is the point - believing something you can't hope to prove. The harder you try to prove it though, the less credible your faith is.

I can help if you decide to become a student of reason, but I cannot provide the motivation. ;)

John 10, @dneal. Here, I'll do your homework.

" Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Jesus students considred him God, I posted John chapter one for your review.

Paul had a profound experience which caused him to change his mind.

The book of the revelation of Jesus shows John considered Jesus as God.

What others, who have experienced Jesus' teachings consider him to be divine. Why else would they follow him?

Is this point holding you back from considering Jesus? As you say, I cannot provide you with motivation either.

Has Willie Nelson ever claimed to be a guitar player? Is there proof Usian Bolt considers himself the world's greatest sprinter? Did he ever claim to be? No, we know them by their actions. If they make claims, we test them. Jesus claimed that his apprentices would experience abundant living. The only way for me to prove this to you is for you to test it for yourself. I am more than happy to continue to answer your questions. I find none of this challenging. These are questions Jesus experienced, "But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” I answered them for myself in 1979 and continue to learn every day. I have experienced abundant life and continue to seek more. This is what every person that puts their trust in Jesus does. As Paul says, "until Christ is formed in you".

[Chuck Naill]

... No experience with the scriptures.

By the way, that is another flat lie.

Again, when you write about other members here, you often are either ignorant or just a sinning liar.
. So, no. I am not a liar.

Yes, you are. Your animus against those who are not Christian and interpret the scriptures differently blinds you and makes you false. And I keep telling you this and you persist anyway with your false statements. That's lying. Another example of Christian righteousness gone awry.

No, no, no again. I have no animus. You do. You more than anyone here have drug this thread through the mud. Your anger and emotional diatribes convict your guilt. Your incessant controlling make conversation impossible. The only person you get along with who frequently posts is Chip. You ignore more than you participate with. Why you continue to respond to me is confusing. At least @dneal is asking questions. You already think you know it all.

You say you grew up in this and decided you are now an atheist, but I see no evidence from anything you have ever posted that tells me you ever had a true experience with Jesus. You had a "christian" experience.

I demonstrated that your atheist clergy do the same things that you accuse Christians of doing. This should give you pause, but it doesn't.

[TSherbs]

You already think you know it all.


I'll just stick to your lies, then, like this one right here.

Once again, your Christian righteousness makes you think that this is accurate. You mistake my certainty around knowing myself and determination to call out your lies (false aspersions) as my feeling that i "know it all," You couldn't be more wrong, Chuck.

And that doesn't mean I feel I know it all. It means I don't, Mr. Christian.

[dneal]

Chuck, you seem to have missed the verses that follow John 10:33

34*Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
35*If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—
36*do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
37*If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
38*but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

Again, Jesus does not claim to be God.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, you seem to have missed the verses that follow John 10:33

34*Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
35*If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—
36*do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
37*If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
38*but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

Again, Jesus does not claim to be God.

I think we are not interpreting the passage the same @dneal. For me, it is clear. It is clear Jesus was who is said he was and it is clear his students understood him to be the Son of God. Ultimately, you will decide as we all must do. If Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, helped hurting people have a good life, he was demonstrating realm of where God's will was being exercised or the Kingdom of God. In fact, he said if you don't believe in me, believe in the things the Father is doing through me. If you decide to become a disciple, you will experience the same power working through you. Are you at all interested?

Since man is created in the image of God, we are gods in the vernacular of scripture and in experience. You are a god in the sense that you choose, make plans, create, build, etc. God respects your right to choose. He isn't forcing anything you don't want. Again, the guitar analogy is applicable. You didn't learn without your personal intention to learn. It wasn't thrust upon you.

These can be had for a song. Find The Message New Testament. I found one in leather for less than $10. This is a good reading version. Read what the students wrote about Jesus. This will help you understand better. If I am an apprentice and following a master tradesperson, I will not need for them to tell me who they are, I will experience whether they are who they claim to be. Willie Nelson doesn't need to tell you he's a song writer. There is the evidence to support who he is.

Thank you for continuing to be engaged.

[dneal]

Chuck, I was brought up in the Southern Baptist church. I’ve read the Bible and have one in the house.

Unlike you, I am not advancing my spiritual beliefs in lieu of the academic argument.

I have seen no text where Jesus simply and clearly claims to be god. You have not produced it, but select verses that require interpretation; while ignoring the related verses that contradict the interpretation.

John 8 is more relevant

40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things.

53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.

Why is Jesus referring to someone else?

[Chuck Naill]

Is the Holy Spirit God?

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, I was brought up in the Southern Baptist church. I’ve read the Bible and have one in the house.

Unlike you, I am not advancing my spiritual beliefs in lieu of the academic argument.

I have seen no text where Jesus simply and clearly claims to be god. You have not produced it, but select verses that require interpretation; while ignoring the related verses that contradict the interpretation.

John 8 is more relevant

40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things.

53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.

Why is Jesus referring to someone else?

If you were raised a Baptist, you would already know something of the three ways God is expressed in the scripture from the beginning to the end. Just like you are a son, a father, and whatever else you are that expresses your being. You being a son is not less than you being a father to your children or child.

We are made up of body and soul and spirit. God is a spirit who no one has ever seen. Jesus represents the body of Gods expression just as your body does.

Jesus promised his students the gift and engulfment of the Holy Spirit so that they might have the power to do what he commanded.

You shouldn’t decide before you’ve truly read and studied the scriptures what you think Jesus is. You do so at your own loss for all that God has in store for you.

[dneal]

I know the doctrine. I don’t see the textual evidence to substantiate it. Different interpretations result in different denominations (now that they stopped killing each other for “heresy”

Your last comment leans to Pascal’s wager, which is the antithesis of faith.

I don’t subscribe to the “have faith, or else” theory. Jesus never taught that either. Love one another isn’t a difficult concept. Buddha taught that 500 years before Jesus’ birth. You might be surprised to find he also used the same parables. The prodigal son? Buddha, 500 years earlier.

Buddha: "The avaricious do not go to heaven, the foolish to not extol charity. The wise one, however, rejoicing in charity, becomes thereby happy in the beyond." (Dhammapada 13.11)
Jesus: "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." (Matthew 19.21)


Buddha: "Consider others as yourself." (Dhammapada 10.1)
Jesus: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6.31)


Buddha: "Let us live most happily, possessing nothing; let us feed on joy, like radiant gods." (Dhammapada 15.4)
Jesus: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6.20)


Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words." (Majjhima Nikaya 21.6)
Jesus: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also." (Luke 6.29)


Buddha: "During the six years that the Bodhisattva practiced austerities, the demon followed behind him step by step, seeking an opportunity to harm him. But he found no opportunity whatsoever and went away discouraged and discontent." (Lalitavistara Sutra 18)
Jesus: "When the devil had finished every test, he departed from him until an opportune time." (Luke 4.13)

I’m not Buddhist, by the way.

[kazoolaw]

John 8 is more relevant

40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things.

53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.

Why is Jesus referring to someone else?
Continuing in John 8-

58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” NIV
"I am" is a common translation of the name of God. Exodus 3:13-14:

"Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”
God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
(emphasis added)

The reaction of the Jews in John 8:59 ("At this, they picked up stones to stone him...") and the reaction in Mark 14:62-63 ( "The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy....) was the same.
Both audiences saw Jesus saying He is God, which was blasphemy.

[dneal]

kaz - They accused Jesus of claiming to be god, and he denied he was doing that.

Let’s take your verse and substitute ‘God’ for ‘I am’. The sentence becomes: “…before Abraham, God”. While that’s simply a doctrinal truism, it also applies to the context of ‘fathers’. They claim Abraham, and Jesus points out that God comes before Abraham.

Now we’re stuck with two different interpretations, with no way to know which is true. Kierkegaard and his requisite leap becomes relevant again, or Whitehead’s “The final appeal is to intuition”. If these things were easily demonstrated or proven, there’s no need for faith

I accept that there are interpretations. The whole Bible is interpretation, translation, selection, etc…

The fact remain that there is no text of him declaring directly, but there is text that becomes nonsensical when you apply that idea, and there are outright contradictions with the notion.

The ‘Jesus said he is god’ argument only makes sense if you interpret it that way, and ignore all the contradictory verses (or interpret your way around them).

Again, I don’t begrudge anyone their beliefs. I will argue the facts. The fact remains there is no simple and obvious declaration, and we can see the period in history where the idea is completely absent and when it is introduced.

Perhaps a less contentious analog is the different views of Mary, particularly between Protestants and Catholics. Each will cite their doctrine as proof, which is unconvincing to the other. I enjoy the history and academic discussion.

[TSherbs]

It's interesting that Christians don't agree on the answer to this question. I was raised being taught that Jesus was intentionally ambiguous in his reply, for more than one reason. But, I don't offer that as a definitive interpretation, nor do I argue in favor of any definitive interpretation of such a complex, ambiguous, and at times ambivalent text.

[TSherbs]

I don't even believe that Jesus said most of these things, but as with all fiction (and non-fiction), interpretations can be made and discussed.

[kazoolaw]

kaz - They accused Jesus of claiming to be god, and he denied he was doing that.

Let’s take your verse and substitute ‘God’ for ‘I am’. The sentence becomes: “…before Abraham, God”. While that’s simply a doctrinal truism, it also applies to the context of ‘fathers’. They claim Abraham, and Jesus points out that God comes before Abraham.
.

You could substitute any number of words, but why would you? The difficulty with that approach is expecting Jesus to talk as a 21st century English speaker. Doing so, however, does allow one to avoid dealing with Exodus.

John 8:56-57 seems clear that Jesus was being specifically confronted about His identity: “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” NIV

We may agree that Jesus didn't use the formulation of His response you would prefer. Not doing so doesn't make His statement any less clear, or direct. The Jews understood His assertion of divinity by their reactions, the high priest labeling His response as blasphemy.

You said "...and we can see the period in history where the idea is completely absent and when it is introduced." Are you saying that the verses in Exodus, John, and Mark were absent from the Bible, and introduced later? That's not an argument I'm familiar with.

[Chuck Naill]

I know the doctrine. I don’t see the textual evidence to substantiate it. Different interpretations result in different denominations (now that they stopped killing each other for “heresy”

Your last comment leans to Pascal’s wager, which is the antithesis of faith.

I don’t subscribe to the “have faith, or else” theory. Jesus never taught that either. Love one another isn’t a difficult concept. Buddha taught that 500 years before Jesus’ birth. You might be surprised to find he also used the same parables. The prodigal son? Buddha, 500 years earlier.

Buddha: "The avaricious do not go to heaven, the foolish to not extol charity. The wise one, however, rejoicing in charity, becomes thereby happy in the beyond." (Dhammapada 13.11)
Jesus: "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." (Matthew 19.21)


Buddha: "Consider others as yourself." (Dhammapada 10.1)
Jesus: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6.31)


Buddha: "Let us live most happily, possessing nothing; let us feed on joy, like radiant gods." (Dhammapada 15.4)
Jesus: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6.20)


Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words." (Majjhima Nikaya 21.6)
Jesus: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also." (Luke 6.29)


Buddha: "During the six years that the Bodhisattva practiced austerities, the demon followed behind him step by step, seeking an opportunity to harm him. But he found no opportunity whatsoever and went away discouraged and discontent." (Lalitavistara Sutra 18)
Jesus: "When the devil had finished every test, he departed from him until an opportune time." (Luke 4.13)

I’m not Buddhist, by the way.


I left the Baptist denomination when I was 24. I was ordained a deacon before I was a "believer". I haven't been a member of a church since 1995.

Jesus contrasted the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees with the righteousness of Kingdom living. The former was an external state of being correct while the soul was not changed. As you know, it is possible to do nice things for the wrong reasons. Jesus taught to do the right things for the right reasons, love. He continues that it is not enough not to sleep with your neighbor's wife. A person in the Kingdom of God loves their neighbor and seeks their good.

I must say something about rule keeping. It cannot be accomplished on our own. Just try living by the Ten Commandments for a week. It is when we come to realize that not lying, not sleeping around, not wanting our neighbor's possessions is good for our lives. The Ten Commandments will produce a healthy body and soul. Later Paul explained that the Law was given to keep the People of God in the way of Salvation until Jesus came. The point for the disciple isn't keeping rules, it is being filled and empowered by God's Spirit so that you naturally and easily do what he right. There is rest because you are not longer tryng to be good. In Peterson's bible he interprets Paul, " I stopped being the law man and became God's man".

Jesus was not promoting poverty as a means for entering the Kingdom of God. The "Be Attitudes" were not a new set of rules that the followers would have to perform. The point was, even if you are poor, this doesn't prevent you from entering the Kingdom of God.

Being slapped and offering the other cheek or going the "extra mile" is a departure of loving you friends and hating your enemies. This is turning over your well being to God's care.

All of this is summed up by entering into what God is doing, the Kingdom of God. Jesus said, don't worry about food, clothing, and shelter, first seek the Kingdom of God and His kind of being right. Do this first and allow the other stuff to work it's way out because you are loved and cared for by your father in the heavens. Rest!! Stop working yourself to death.

[Chuck Naill]

It's interesting that Christians don't agree on the answer to this question. I was raised being taught that Jesus was intentionally ambiguous in his reply, for more than one reason. But, I don't offer that as a definitive interpretation, nor do I argue in favor of any definitive interpretation of such a complex, ambiguous, and at times ambivalent text.

Based on my studies, and experience in all of my educational experiences, learning requires rigorous application of personal intent to learn. Often Jesus' students would ask for clarification. He used a type of teaching methods that would allow his followers to easily remember the lessons. Anyone reading his answer to the person asking who a neighbor is will know learn who their neighbor was. I've said this before, today Jesus might use a homosexual or trans person instead of a Samaritan.

The Royal Law, as it called, to love God with all your body, soul, mind, and strength and you neighbor as yourself will result in a good life. Treating others as yourself will result in a good life. Learning to love unconditionally will result in a wonderful life. Coming to see these things as life in abundance is what Jesus was talking about. I have found that what is important is easy to understand. For example, Jesus said he was sending a helper, a paraclete in the Greek, someone to help live as the apprentice he wanted his followers to become. We are able to get in on what God is doing and he empowers us to be able to pull if off.

All authority has been given to me in the heavens and on the Earth. Therefore, go make me apprentices and engulf them into the Trinitarian Community. And, I will never leave you ever. I will be there along side of you until the end of the age. Like Dallas Willard wrote, the early students knew they would be fools not to do what Jesus was saying was available.

[dneal]

You could substitute any number of words, but why would you? The difficulty with that approach is expecting Jesus to talk as a 21st century English speaker. Doing so, however, does allow one to avoid dealing with Exodus.

To be clear, you chose from any number of words and asserted "I am" is a substitute for "God". I merely applied it, and we see the result.

The 21st century english speaker argument is flawed (and a deflection), since we're all reading translations of one sort or another. Did Jesus speak in Olde English? Greek? Are you and I fluent in ancient Hebrew, with the original manuscripts on hand to discuss?

The answer is of course "no", so for better or worse we're stuck with translations and interpretations. Spanish, French, Korean, etc... I doubt Jesus spoke any 21st century version of those either.

We can argue interpretations, but that’s just arguing subjective opinions - which lead to appeals to authority or consensus, for the unknowable. I’m not asking for interpretation, but clear unambiguous statements. Jesus seemed able to be clear on a host of other topics.


John 8:56-57 seems clear that Jesus was being specifically confronted about His identity: “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” NIV

We may agree that Jesus didn't use the formulation of His response you would prefer. Not doing so doesn't make His statement any less clear, or direct. The Jews understood His assertion of divinity by their reactions, the high priest labeling His response as blasphemy.

I have no expectation or requirement for his formulation. I merely look at claims (like yours substituting "God" for "I am"), apply it, and examine the result. It's nonsense, usually; or contradicted elsewhere. You are singling out two verses and ignoring any contradictions. Like I said, these sorts of conclusions are only possible through selectivity and interpretation.

The numerous references Jesus makes to another distinct entity (God or his father) also become problematic.

Here is one example:

John 7:28 Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, “Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own authority, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, 29 but I know him because I am from him and he sent me.”

"I am" is present three times. Does it still mean "God"? or is it used in the literal and usual sense?

If the assertion is that Jesus is God, Jesus words above make no sense as he is referring to a separate entity. His exclamations on the cross also make no sense. Again, “my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?”, becomes “me, me, why have I forsaken me?”. I'm not interpreting anything. I'm applying the divinity and trinity assertions and examining the result.


You said "...and we can see the period in history where the idea is completely absent and when it is introduced." Are you saying that the verses in Exodus, John, and Mark were absent from the Bible, and introduced later? That's not an argument I'm familiar with.


It's not an argument I'm making. You perhaps should peruse the original discussion, with particular attention paid to jar's posts. Various ecumenical councils are a matter of history. We know that in 325, the first council of Nicaea addressed the godhead question and Arius' position was rejected. Jesus' divinity was not canonized until that point. Even afterward (as noted in the early thread), non-trinitarian doctrine existed (e.g.: Unitarians).

The only basis for those positions is interpretation.

--edit--

I will make a concession to avoid a pedantic or semantic argument. I said the we can see a period where the idea [of Jesus' divinity] was completely absent. That of course is more absolute than I intended. So to clarify: We see a period where there is no formal establishment or resolution of the idea, which occurs during the first council of nicaea.

[Chuck Naill]

The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”
Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

John 4

Another plain indication who Jesus thought he was.

What is more important is the engage he had in broad daylight with a female and a Samaritan. When she decided to have a theological discussion, he corrected her, but also gave her an understanding of the engulfment of the HS. "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” Jesus is God as the HS is God. This is explained by Jesus to engulf the apprentices into the Trinitarian Community. It isn't either or, but all.

The verse said he had to go through Samaria, he didn't. He could have gone around Samaria. He had to go because he was, as we can, get in on what the Father is doing. We are taught, by Jesus, to pray, "our father..."

[dneal]

And there he says he is the messiah, not that he is god.

Unless you interpret it differently, making him say something he clearly is not.

[Chuck Naill]

And there he says he is the messiah, not that he is god.

Unless you interpret it differently, making him say something he clearly is not.

The Messiah was prophetically foretold just as the Forerunner was foretold. Both unique and with a specific purpose. Obviously Nathaniel expressed it well.


One of my favorite exchanges,
"The next day Jesus decided to set out for Galilee. Finding Philip, He told him, “Follow Me.” Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the same town as Andrew and Peter.

Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the One Moses wrote about in the Law, the One the prophets foretold—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

“Can anything good come from Nazareth?” Nathanael asked.

“Come and see,” said Philip.

When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, He said of him, “Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is no deceit.”

“How do You know me?” Nathanael asked.

Jesus replied, “Before Philip called you, I saw you under the fig tree.”

“Rabbi,” Nathanael answered, “You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

Jesus said to him, “Do you believe just because I told you I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these.” Then He declared, “Truly, truly, I tell you, you will all see heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

Can you see that Jesus isn't like me and you? We've offered many ways to describe him. In the Revelation of Jesus, he is described as a slain lamb and the first born from the dead. I think you might be able to see a theme.

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.

The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life."

What Paul's concept was is clear, "for in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form". Remember, he was involved in both Roman and Greek cultures. Where did Paul get the idea that Jesus was God? He was a student of Gamaliel and would have understood the Jewish idea of the Messiah.

[dneal]

Chuck - I appreciate the effort and devotion, but none of that addresses the claims of Jesus.

If you want me to accept Paul's claims of speaking with Jesus, should I also accept Joseph Smith's claim of doing that very thing?

Why is one a great Apostle, and the other a madman (from the not-LDS perspective)?

Mohammed claimed to receive God's message from Gabriel. Should I accept those claims too?

I posted it earlier, but it seems worth repeating (in full, this time).

“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also. I would not interfere with any one's religion, either to strengthen it or to weaken it. I am not able to believe one's religion can affect his hereafter one way or the other, no matter what that religion may be. But it may easily be a great comfort to him in this life--hence it is a valuable possession to him.” - Mark Twain

[TSherbs]

Is the basis of this current discussion that to be "a Christian" one must accept the claim that "Jesus was/is God"?

The OP addressed the question of the "divinity" of Jesus, which seems a different point. Jesus can be "divine" (especially as part of the Trinity) without being God themself. I was never taught, in my religious upbringing, that Jesus was God (for what that is worth).

[dneal]

Is the basis of this current discussion that to be "a Christian" one must accept the claim that "Jesus was/is God"?

The OP addressed the question of the "divinity" of Jesus, which seems a different point. Jesus can be "divine" (especially as part of the Trinity) without being God themself. I was never taught, in my religious upbringing, that Jesus was God (for what that is worth).

How many years has this thread been going on, and you ask this question?

What other divinity is relevant to a monotheistic religion where the god warns not to have any other god before him?

[Chuck Naill]

@dneal, regarding this topic, compare always anyone’s teaching with the scriptures. Errors and cults begin by an adulteration or adding to the teachings of Jesus and then his students.

[dneal]

Chuck - different denominations of American Protestants read the same scriptures and arrive at different conclusions. Southern Baptists believe alcohol is forbidden, and even rationalize that ancient grape juice wasn’t fermented. Methodists have no issue with it.

Twain: "The Christian's Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same, but the medical practice changes."

As noted in the first pages, there are Trinitarians and non-trinitarians. They read the same Bible and come to different conclusions. The history of Christianity is rife with bloodshed over different interpretations.

I’ll quote more Twain.

“Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion -- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight."

And lastly:

"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: 'Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is.' Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."

[Chuck Naill]

Why quote Twain regarding anything related to this discussion? Was he regarded as scholarly on these various topics? Maybe he was an atheist and needed to sooth himself a bit like Ted does.

The whole alcohol issue stems from post Civil War addictions. It is an unfortunate, but understandable reaction.

Even a casual reading of the text would demonstrate that Jesus turned the water into a better wine that originally served.

Matthew 28:18-20 is a clear source for the Trinatarian theology.

Since you are a strict literalist regarding Jesus not being Gos. I’m now surprised that you mention alcohol 🍺 or the Trinity as a debate idea. The scriptures make it clear. There are even OT references.

[dneal]

Because they’re pertinent.

The origin of the alcohol issue is interesting history (if correct), but you ignore the point that two large Protestant denominations do not agree on the meaning of the same text. Twain addresses that notion.

I’m not a strict literalist.

Don’t think I missed your dodging of the gist of the post.

[TSherbs]

...Maybe he was an atheist and needed to sooth himself a bit like Ted does.


Go fuck yourself, Chuck.

[dneal]

...Maybe he was an atheist and needed to sooth himself a bit like Ted does.


Go fuck yourself, Chuck.

Don’t forget to alert Eric to your uncivil post.

He has probably designated a special inbox for your emails.

[Chuck Naill]

Because they’re pertinent.

The origin of the alcohol issue is interesting history (if correct), but you ignore the point that two large Protestant denominations do not agree on the meaning of the same text. Twain addresses that notion.

I’m not a strict literalist.

Don’t think I missed your dodging of the gist of the post.

Okay, I'll address Twain. I wouldn't want to get of your bad side.

What he says is true, but the issue isn't that Jesus is wrong about loving your neighbor. Jesus is correct. Loving your neighbor, which also includes being honest with them, would transform civilization today if practiced. Do you agree or disagree? What Twain noticed was people going to church who are not disciples of Jesus. They are not learning from him how to live their lives. It could be that many people think the simple charge to love others as you love yourself to be impossible. It is impossible perhaps because it means they are going to have to give something up and that something is too precious to them.

Yes, people considering themselves Christian have performed horrible things, but again, this doesn't negate or weaken Jesus teaching. The teaching of Jesus is simple and straight forward. It is not hard to comprehend. It has nothing to do with alcohol. In fact, Paul addresses that topic in Romans chapter 14. He states what the Kingdom of God is and isn't.

So how, if the teaching is so straight forward, have so many not properly understood? How did the Jews in Jesus time turn 10 commandments into over 600 laws and why? They are people. People are the problem. They have the capacity to be their own god. They have a will and exercise it.

As I pointed out to Ted, his atheist leaders say the same things the Christians do on women and trans people. I see a theme. People do what they do and hide behind science and religion. Some hide behind patriotism. Some behind philanthropy\, some behind Mark Twain's ideas. However, in all of our hiding, not screwing your neighbor's wife will be a way to have an abundant life. It is just that those who want to will scream legalism or decide the idea is archaic, or some think God is unkind and does not understand, or some decide the Bible is no for today. I've been hearing the shallow excuses for decades now. Until you see the laws as love, you will not get what God intended. The Apostle Paul said the whole of the law is summed up in loving God and your neighbor as you love yourself. Jesus said the same. This isn't hard or obscure or difficult. Man makes it difficult for himself.

In all of this, the simple, easy to understand, idea of leaving all the matters of life to someone else who can actually take care of us and seeking his kind of being right and his Kingdom stands today, this morning, as an option for anyone and everyone no matter who they are or what they have done or said. It will not happen because you finally decided that Jesus, as Paul said, is God in the flesh. It will occur only when a person decides to take a chance and become a disciple.

Being a disciple is different than becoming a Christan. Anyone can tell if someone is a disciple because they are either doing what their master says or attempting to, or they are not. I'll use the guitar analogy again, if you are learning to play, your life will take on the characteristic of one who wants to learn. That many guitarists may have done mean things or are into drugs is a dodge. If you want to play a guitar you focus on the skills and the music. You decide you want to and you find out how. This is exactly, as I told you before, is what it takes to become an apprentice of Jesus.

" And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” As Bob Dylan once noted, all men will serve somebody.

And,
"“Today I am giving you a choice of two ways. And I ask heaven and earth to be witnesses of your choice. You can choose life or death. The first choice will bring a blessing. The other choice will bring a curse. So choose life! Then you and your children will live."

We all have choices; God reserves for us a freedom. I want life.

[dneal]

What Twain noticed, and pointed out with his usual acerbic wit; is the tribalism and hypocrisy of humans when it comes to religion.

What you have been doing throughout the thread is asserting your interpretations as the "True Religion" (as Twain puts it), and ignoring that everyone else thinks their interpretations are also correct.

I do appreciate the attempts to substantiate with scripture Jesus' claim that he is God. I find them problematic and unconvincing.

Any interpretation that results in logical contradiction is flawed. Trying to further interpret your way out of it, creating more contradictions, appears to be rationalizing rather than reasoning.

This comes full circle to (again) having to make a leap of faith, which is choosing to believe something you cannot prove. If you find discomfort in your "proofs" being critiqued; that appears to say more about the depth of your faith because you're relying on the "proof".

I have my own beliefs. While I can list the reasons, I can't "prove" them any more than you can prove yours. I'm comfortable with that, and the possibility I might be wrong. There's room in my worldview for change or adjustment with new information.

It seems one commonality to "the definition of Christian" is following Jesus' teachings. Unfortunately, there are differing opinions on what those teachings are.

[Chuck Naill]

Did I use "true religion" in my posts? If I did, I shouldn't have. I could care less about religion.

Since we agree that the definition of a Christian is following Jesus' teachings, I am satisfied and pleased this is your summation. Since the Bible is readily available in many versions, it shouldn't be that hard to discover, for anyone remoting interested to determine what Jesus said and asked his disciples to do. More often than not, actually reading the text is the last thing people think to do.

Paul said "Pure Religion" is to help orphans and widows and being uncorrupted by this world.

[TSherbs]

...As I pointed out to Ted, his atheist leaders ....

What bullshit. I have no "atheist leaders" and certainly have not quoted any in this thread.

Every time you try to summarize me, it's a fail, and usually a smug lie.

[dneal]

Every time you try to summarize me, it's a fail, and usually a smug lie.

How convenient that you don't do that very thing to others.

[dneal]

Did I use "true religion" in my posts? If I did, I shouldn't have.

?

I introduced Twain's use of it, and referenced it in parentheses. If you're confused about it or the relevance, post 601 should make it clear.

[Chuck Naill]

I’m still finding it difficult to connect the dots with Twain’s man on the street opinions. I am not faulting you for posting. What I am hoping to accomplish is, to encourage readers to simply read the scriptures without anyone’s help, including my commentary ,and then to form an independent interpretation. It is not intellectually honest to dismiss Jesus without personally evaluating.

If he said he was the way, someone may ask “way to what”. Ask what he meant by the Kingodm of God. What “abundant life “ and who qualifies? These are all discoverable. The OP could have accomplished the same without posting this thread, but I’m glad he did.

[Chuck Naill]

I think might address some of @dneal's comments regarding interpretations. The Southern Baptist use a verse in First Timothy to prevent females from having authority over a male. The word translated authority is authenteo. This Greek word can be translated domineering or authority derived from the person exercising the authority. Exousia is also translated authority but as derived or delegated authority and is more used elsewhere.

The context of where Timothy was an elder is important to consider as context is always essential when forming accurate interpretations. Ephesus was where the temple of Artemis was located. Artemis was female. The context of where Timothy was serving was a place of strong dominating women. With this context in mind, a better understanding of the writer can be sought. Plus, a short review of Paul's letter to the believers at Rome, chapter 16 indicate clearly that women were serving in various roles including leadership positions and being praised and valued by Paul.

What I noticed when I was a Baptist was that interpretations turn into traditions and it is those traditions that come to be held onto rather than a clear rendering of the text.

[dneal]

Just got home from my niece’s wedding. I’ll explain Twain tomorrow.

[Chuck Naill]

If you want, but not because I need to have him explained. I saw where he read Thomas Paine, maybe Age of Reason. I read Paine myself and it did make me skeptical,as it did him.

Being skeptical can actually work in our favor if it causes us to do enough personal study to come to some sort of conclusion. Being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical is not something for which I want in my life on matter like these. Paul encourages Timothy not to get into endless discussions about words, as we have here. "Remind them of these things, and solemnly exhort them in the presence of God not to dispute about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the listeners.". If you want to believe Jesus isn't God, do so, but make sure for yourself that you are doing so for yourself and not to win an argument. It is not going to change my view for you to think otherwise.

[Chuck Naill]

Dr. Willard has introduced me to the concept of Christian Disciplines. These can or may include times of solitude and silence, journaling, fellowship, serving, giving, committing passages of scripture to memory, or any activity that allows you to receive, by grace, what you cannot achieve by direct effort. He says the practices of these are not heroic or suffering. They are not to earn merit. "Grace is not opposed to effort but opposed to earning".

We know from Jesus life, that he incorporated these disciplines into his life. I got away to lonely places. He prayed. He heard what the Father was doing and what he should do.

I would like to read about Native American Spirituality or Religions if anyone knows of a good primer.

[dneal]

If you want, but not because I need to have him explained.

"Explain Twain" meant I'm offering to connect the dots and the relevance to the topic, in response to your earlier comment:


I’m still finding it difficult to connect the dots with Twain’s man on the street opinions.

Twain isn't criticizing religion per se. He's criticizing Man and differing interpretations, and what often results. I think it's obvious, but will elaborate if you like.

[dneal]

@dneal, regarding this topic, compare always anyone’s teaching with the scriptures. Errors and cults begin by an adulteration or adding to the teachings of Jesus and then his students.

Here's a good example of Twain's pertinence. To reiterate one of the quotes:

"The Christian's Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same, but the medical practice changes."

This is a point I don't think you've acknowledged yet. Twain is pointing out the fact that we see various schisms in christianity, arrived at from different interpretations.

What is considered a cult by one group is considered the true interpretation by another.

[Chuck Naill]

"Explain Twain" meant I'm offering to connect the dots and the relevance to the topic, in response to your earlier comment:


I’m still finding it difficult to connect the dots with Twain’s man on the street opinions.

Twain isn't criticizing religion per se. He's criticizing Man and differing interpretations, and what often results. I think it's obvious, but will elaborate if you like.

He was critical of the hypocrisy of loving one's neighbor and then doing them harm, for which he saw. As far as complaining about interpretations, the people complaining never arrive at a place of having their own interpretation, but it serves as good fodder if you need some to convince yourself you are better just like you are and you don't need hypocrites around.

However, if your point in posting was that no definitive description of a Christian exists because there are many interpretations, you do yourself no favors. We wouldn't approach science that way and we know there are many ways to interpret science. We learned that during the pandemic. Wear a mask when a aerosolized virus abounds or choose not to, but you wouldn't choose not to because there were too many interpretations of science, that would be foolish.

[Chuck Naill]

As I have been pointing out, what Jesus told his students to do is clear and not subject to various interpretations. The Matthew 28-18-20 can be read here with Greek text included, https://www.abarim-publications.com/Interlinear-New-Testament/Matthew/Matthew-28-parsed.html

Jesus may not satisfy some here by claiming to be God, but it is clear that he considered himself to have had all authority in Heaven and Earth given to him.

I always as why the "therefore" is there for. Anyway, go and make disciples is clearly his intention. Not go overseas, but as a practical, natural, living of one's life, or as you travel make disciples.

As you go about your lives, make students and teach them how to do all that I have said to do. This is why a Master Plumber Program would ask their master students to make plumbers out of the apprentices. Teach them how to sweat copper, make 90 degree turns in the pipes, and how to cut pipe properly.

The problem isn't interpretation. The problem is, the people in church leadership are not disciples themselves. The idea of discipleship that is usually taught is for people to get involved in ministry or serving in some needed church activity.

[dneal]

The “Greek text” is being parsed.

Did a Hebrew living under Roman domination speak or write in Greek?

[Chip]

Interesting linguistic analysis.

https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2015/10/did-jesus-speak-greek/

[dneal]

That hypothesis wraps up with an awful lot of “if’s”.

Those stones with Greek inscriptions, with captions dating some several centuries after his death, are especially convincing.

Woke Archie’s Google-Fu fails again.

78336

[Chuck Naill]

Tough crowd...LOL!! What is this, stand up??? :)

[Chuck Naill]

I am reading Dr. Willard's The Great Omisson this morning. Dallas makes an interesting observation, "the loss of self is the central reality of 19th and 20th century thought". He contrasts this with Greek and biblical writers who considered the soul as a entity in it's own right, the ordering principle and source of life.

Jesus asked what profit a person obtain if the gets it all but loses his own soul. A soul is something to guard. It explains why I am concerned about children being tripped up by drag performers, and why atheism can be so damaging. It is why we shouldn't give our support to autocrats. And, most importantly, it explains why the human heart is searching for what is true, good, virtuous, and pure.

If we follow one rule, to love others as we love ourselves, no matter what, our inner person will experience abundance of life and joy. I am not there yet, but I sense I am on my way.

[Chuck Naill]

I am reading G.K. Chesterson's The Everlasting Man. He doesn't spend much time with it, but he introduced the idea that Jesus' movement and philosophy was not dependent upon a particular political system or culture. For example in his day slavery did exist. It was also true of the culture for which Paul ministered. Maybe this is a stretch of the intended concept, but it caused me to consider the current politicalization of Evangelicals. Jesus' philosophy can exist and thrive where abortion is legal or illegal. It can exist where trans surgery for minors is accepted and legal. The movement of Jesus transcends what mankind is currently thinking to do is best. IT doesn't fair better during social unrest or peace. It is simply not affected. The Kingdom of God isn't dependent upon heaven and Earth.

[Chuck Naill]

While this has nothing to do with the topic, there are two factors facing American Christians in the news. One is the Southern Baptist's clinging to a debatable interpretation of a communication the Apostle Paul had with his young student, Timothy who was to become the new sects leader in Ephesus. The other is the continued mass exodus of Americans from attending services.

On the surface it would be easy to say that the American Evangelical Institutions are out of step with modernity. I don't think that's it. I think, based on observations and my own history that people have never experienced what the early believers experienced. People can only pretend so long. Jesus has basically been ignored.

In the church where I attended as a child, we had a two prong service on Sunday AM and PM. In both services education took place and predominately by females. This is no longer the case. There have been no weekly classes in services where I attended since I left the Baptist church.

There is also no education in how to study the scriptures.

Since Jesus' words are so clear, it is ironic that institutions designed to worship him would also ignore to simply do what he said. It wouldn't matter if it were a female or male involved in making disciples and it would not require a building, a paid pastor, or money, besides giving to the poor. House meetings were the normal meeting place.

Perhaps all of this that is now occurring will finally cause people to take Jesus' teachings seriously and test, try, and prove him to be who he said he was and would do.

The way to serve those outside the church is to present the Kingdom of God availability and trust God to bring about the inner change that he wants. This goes for straights and gays, trans and normal. bank robbers and child molesters, murderers and preachers, and truck drivers and hedge fund managers. Where those folks learn to live their lives as Jesus would if he were them. They would begin the long obedience in the same direction as Nietzsche said would produce something worth living.

[Chip]

‘Duck Dynasty’-backed musical about Jesus closes ahead of schedule in The Colony

‘His Story: The Musical’ was originally scheduled to run until at least September 2023 at Grandscape in The Colony.


https://dmn-dallas-news-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer/yRWsV-MoT9ol-VLZna5XUtrclEQ=/1660x934/smart/filters:no_upscale()/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/dmn/C5LEYRDQNRA5NJ2IMRCFH3KFEM.jpg
The cast of Anna Miriam Brown's "His Story: The Musical," which premiered in May at Grandscape in The Colony.(Jeremy Daniel)

By José Sánchez Córdova

5:11 PM on Jun 20, 2023 CDT

His Story: The Musical closed Sunday, one month after its premiere at Grandscape in The Colony. The show was originally scheduled to run until at least September.

A now-deleted announcement on the production’s Instagram account invited guests to a free, final performance June 18 at 7 p.m. Another Instagram post confirmed that the musical was closed. Spokesman Keith Sherman told The Dallas Morning News that the show closed because of a lack of ticket sales.

“At the end of the day, not enough people bought tickets to come and see the show,” he said.

Excerpt– full text at–

https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-entertainment/performing-arts/2023/06/20/jesus-musical-his-story-suddenly-closes-in-the-colony/

[Chip]

https://i.imgur.com/wDWeoyI.jpg

[Chuck Naill]

Never was a Duck Dynasty fan, if that matters.

[Chuck Naill]

More regarding Duck Dynasty
https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/902803/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-cheated-wife-affair-daughter/

[TSherbs]

update on rate of church attendance in America:

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4067776-church-attendance-below-pre-pandemic-levels-gallup/

[Chuck Naill]

As I’ve been trying to explain, discipleship isn’t the American model. When it is, you’ll see an interest.

[TSherbs]

While I was browsing some poems by Hafez today, I hit this droll gem:




The
Great religions are the

Ships,

Poets the life

Boats.

Every sane person I know has jumped

Overboard.

That is good for business,

Isn’t it,


Hafez?

[Chuck Naill]

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

“I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.”.

Two of my favorite poets.

[Chuck Naill]

Something about joy might be appropriate to an established definition of Christianity. It is something oft discussed in scripture, but poorly, if ever, experienced today. A working definition is a pervasive and consistent sense of well-being.

My first church gathering taught be about objective textual interpretation at the expense of my heart. There was only truth. My second experience was an exuberant sort of Christian entertainment of my senses, but no teaching. I remember thinking that the ideal setting would be both.

Can the human heart have joy in the midst of pain and suffering? Yes, it is possible. The first step for me was to think it possible. Once a person thinks a thing they can decide to pursue and see if in fact it is possible. Human intent is always an essential ingredient for change. As Dr. Willard said many times, grace isn't opposed to effort. It is opposed to earning".

[Chip]

As Dr. Willard said many times, grace isn't opposed to effort. It is opposed to earning".

Say what? Do you mean learning? Is it that rich man /eye of the needle riff?

[Chuck Naill]

"It is by grace you are saved, not of works, lest any man boast". This is the idea that salvation is not trying to be good. What Dr. Wlllard is talking about is a process of apprenticeship where we practice disciplines like silence and solitude to achieve what cannot be achieved by direct effort.

The eye of the needle was a real gate in the Jerusalem Wall. No, that is a reference to people who have so much wealth that the idea of giving it up to follow Jesus makes it more difficult. Our wealth, family, reputation, etc must become secondary to become equipped for Kingdom living. There is nothing wrong about loving our family and having money.

Jesus wasn't advocating poverty. The point of any type of apprenticeship is to put yourself into the hands of a master. I am sure you have had a similar experience where you had to trust the person teaching you to put yourself into their hands and trust that what you were being taught would work. Often people who think they are the smartest person in the room are the most difficult to train or teach.

[TSherbs]

I am reminded, Chuck, that you have alluded to an English teacher who you felt was trying to steer you away from your faith. Whether he succeeded or not, I don't know (I don't recall if you said). Let me assure you that that is not *my* purpose here at all. I have had these kinds of discussions about faith and Jesus hundreds of times, and I think about them more than once a week. As I have said, I have read several books about the historical Jesus and was raised in a church and was even "born again" for a while. I have known Jesus and the Bible and faith intimately, at least from my perspective, and even though I no longer believe in a god, I have not forgotten my experiences with Christianity, and I am engaged in a spiritual quest every day. My strongest push back here has been against your proselytizing, not your faith. I push back against your *judgments* and prejudices that seem to be to me rooted in your faith (which to me is belief in a fiction) rather than being more open-minded with a broader sense of fairness and justice. But I am not out to change your mind about your faith. You can believe anything you want.

But asking others to share your beliefs or your conclusions made from those beliefs...that is a different story.

[TSherbs]

Jesus wasn't advocating poverty.

I am not sure what you mean by "advocating poverty." Jesus did ask his disciples to give up their homes, give up their families, and lead a life of journeying from town to town with no food and very little clothing. He told the disciples to accept food and shelter from residents, or move on to the next town. This isn't exactly what we would call "poverty" today, but it is a life of no possessions and no guarranteed meals or shelter. That is pretty close to mendicant, homeless. This is one of the reasons that monks and nuns take a "vow of poverty" in some Catholic sects. It's because Jesus said so and did so himself (according to the story).

[Chuck Naill]

He didn’t and they didn’t.

What you are referring to is a mission he sent them on. Those were the strategies to travel light and depend that the provisions would be available.

Let me say this, and hear it well, I am not selling Jesus. I could no more cause you to come into the kingdom than I could take wings and fly. It is your decision to go for a t or reject.

There is a concept that you’ve not understood in your studies and such, the priority is to first seek the kingdom of God and trust Jesus to supply all the other stuff.

My treasure in the secular sense is my family, not fountain pens or anything else. What Jesus asks of me it to seek him over them and to trust him for the outcomes. I’ve worked through this as an apprentice.

[TSherbs]

He didn’t and they didn’t.

What you are referring to is a mission he sent them on. Those were the strategies to travel light and depend that the provisions would be available.

"a mission"? You think that he meant this as a once-and-done? Why do you circumscribe the message so much?


5 These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not [f]go [g]in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, [h]preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven [i]is at hand.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give. 9 Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, 10 or a [j]bag for your journey, or even two [k]coats, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his [l]support. 11 And whatever city or village you enter, inquire who is worthy in it, and stay [m]at his house until you leave that city. 12 As you enter the [n]house, give it your [o]greeting. 13 If the house is worthy, [p]give it your blessing of peace. But if it is not worthy, [q]take back your blessing of peace. 14 Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

This strikes me as being about a lot more than "traveling light". I've never heard your interpretation before (that it is about traveling light on a single mission).

This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about the topic of "Poverty" from several angles: Catholic understanding of the ethic and practice of 'Poverty'. (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12324a.htm#:~:text=The%20vow%20of%20poverty%20may, appreciable%20at%20a%20money%20value.)

[TSherbs]

Or how about this passage from Luke? How do you interpret this remonstrance that his disciples "give up everything you have" in order to be able to follow him?


31 “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

Although I was never raised Catholic (and certainly am not one now), I have always thought that the Catholic monastic orders (with vows of poverty) most closely adhered to the ideas of Jesus and the practices that he recommended (even required, in some passages).

[Chuck Naill]

Or how about this passage from Luke? How do you interpret this remonstrance that his disciples "give up everything you have" in order to be able to follow him?


31 “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

Although I was never raised Catholic (and certainly am not one now), I have always thought that the Catholic monastic orders (with vows of poverty) most closely adhered to the ideas of Jesus and the practices that he recommended (even required, in some passages).

These are good questions and often misunderstood. That passage you posted is about counting the cost of discipleship and whether getting in on what God is doing is an option you want to consider. Jesus knew, brilliantly, that things get in our way of pursuing a goal. For example, if you were to decide to purchase a musical instrument and learn to play, you would count the cost of the endeavor. So, if you are not willing to practice long hours and become a student, you would not waste your money.

Remember the parables about the treasure and pearl? The person(s) sold all they had to purchase something for which they saw as having great value. This is the lesson Jesus was teaching. When you find something, in this case the Kingdom of God, you come to realize the value is so great, you do all you can to enter.

The spiritual disciplines such as being frugal, spending times in silence and solitude, fasting, giving, study, and mediation can be a means of spiritual transformation. When we turn off the noise, and quiet our spirits while harnessing our bodies, we can hear. Jesus practiced this and it is recorded him going to lonely places and fasting. They were to acquire something that he could not get by direct effort. This produces the character whereby we can live our lives as Jesus would if he were us. We become able to love God and others as ourselves because we have been transformed inwardly.

The goal is to live in the kingdom and have a conversational relationship with God. We learn that we can, we find out how, and do it. As Jesus said, it is the Father's desire to give us the Kingdom. At this point, I am not selling you anything. I am simply casting a vision that something is within the realms of possibilty to experience. The next step is intent. God doesn't force and I hate to be pushed. The next step is having a means, this is where the disciplines and becoming a student allows it to occur.

Now, you might say, "well Chuck, there are times when you don't seem to being doing what you say will occur". Sadly, this is true. Part of becoming an apprentice is making mistakes. However, we have a Lord that does not condemn. As Paul said, I am not there yet, but I press on to the prize. Over time, and with practice, we come to have our capacities expanded. I have noticed that I am changing. I still struggle with things, but less so.

[Chuck Naill]

Jesus said that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you cannot get into the Kingdom. The he said, first seek the KOG and "his" righteousness. He had previously explained that it is not enough to be sleeping with your neighbor. It was important that you were not lusting to have sex with them. He used the image of a cup where people have a tendency to look clean on the outside, while being unclean on the inside.

While practicing spiritual disciplines is very useful, it does not earn you anything. It is important to note Paul noted that some teachers where advocating ascetic practices such as harsh treatment of the body and abstaining from foods in not Kingdom living. The KOG is being the right kind of right, a clean inward person, having peace, and joy (a consistent and pervasive sense of well being)

[TSherbs]

Or how about this passage from Luke? How do you interpret this remonstrance that his disciples "give up everything you have" in order to be able to follow him?


31 “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

Although I was never raised Catholic (and certainly am not one now), I have always thought that the Catholic monastic orders (with vows of poverty) most closely adhered to the ideas of Jesus and the practices that he recommended (even required, in some passages).

These are good questions and often misunderstood. That passage you posted is about counting the cost of discipleship ... Yes, of "giving up everything that you have." It says, "everything that you have."



The spiritual disciplines such as being frugal, spending times in silence and solitude, fasting, giving, study, and mediation can be a means of spiritual transformation. The Luke passage sounds like more than "being frugal." In my readings, Protestants tend to downplay the idea of actual divestment of property and "voluntary poverty" and service to others. As I said, I feel that the Catholic monastics actually approach this most closely. I think Jesus was actually saying, "Give up your current lives, give up your money and possessions, ready your soul, and minister to the poor and outcast now." The "prosperity churches" skew this even further, IMO.

[Chuck Naill]

Yes, treating all that you hold dear as refuse, dung, or rubbish for the prize of knowing Christ. There is no value in giving up everything unless you are giving it up for something of greater value. To misunderstand and think you are making yourself look good only leads to the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.

[TSherbs]

Yes, treating all that you hold dear as refuse, dung, or rubbish for the prize of knowing Christ....

This is what he means by eating only the food that is offered you, and give up everything, and take only one coat not two?

Do you think that monastics who take a vow of poverty are actually *not doing* what Jesus meant?

[Chuck Naill]

Yes, treating all that you hold dear as refuse, dung, or rubbish for the prize of knowing Christ....

This is what he means by eating only the food that is offered you, and give up everything, and take only one coat not two?

Do you think that monastics who take a vow of poverty are actually *not doing* what Jesus meant?

Again, this was a special mission, they’re first alone, two by two. Later 70 were sent out. This, like Paul’s specific messages to Corinth was not to be used to prevent Baptists from having female pastors. Ted, consider the context always.

I am saying that if your wealth is keeping you from the KOG, give it way. If it is not, there will be no benefit. For you it might be having sex with hundreds of people. You might need to give up sex if it keeping you out of the KOG. Or, if through disciplines like silence and solitude or meditation you can gain control of your body, you will not need to give up sex. You’ll develop the spiritual formation by which you won’t want to live that way anymore. Play very close attention, this is only required if someone sees the kingdom as a treasure or pearl of great price. Living without sex accomplishes nothing otherwise.

Two things are essential, love God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself. Do this and you will live. Again, this is for apprentices to Jesus only.

[TSherbs]

Yes, treating all that you hold dear as refuse, dung, or rubbish for the prize of knowing Christ....

This is what he means by eating only the food that is offered you, and give up everything, and take only one coat not two?

Do you think that monastics who take a vow of poverty are actually *not doing* what Jesus meant?

Again, this was a special mission, they’re first alone, two by two. Later 70 were sent out. This, like Paul’s specific messages to Corinth was not to be used to prevent Baptists from having female pastors. Ted, consider the context always. What are you talking about? I am not discussing the gender of ministers.


I am saying that if your wealth is keeping you from the KOG, give it way.Fine, say what you please. I just don't think that Jesus was saying that. And some other people, very dedicated to the teachings of Jesus, think the same wy that I do (the monastic tradition of the Catholic church). I see that you didn't answer my question about whether you think that the monastics interpret Jesus's words wrong. Do you think that they are misguided? I linked an entire webpage on all the aspects of voluntary "poverty" that Catholics find credence in, and they link it back to the teachings of Jesus and the actions of the disciples. You started this by saying that Jesus did not advocate poverty. I remain unconvinced that that is an accurate description of Jesus's words and actions on the topic. It seems to me that he strongly advocated poverty for those who could and would manage it. It was the manner in which he expected his closest followers to ready themselves for their work and for the coming of the end of the world.

[Chuck Naill]

You said you were a basketball coach once. I’m sure you set up scrimmages. The missions Jesus sent his students on can be considered a scrimmage.

[Chuck Naill]

Yes, treating all that you hold dear as refuse, dung, or rubbish for the prize of knowing Christ....

This is what he means by eating only the food that is offered you, and give up everything, and take only one coat not two?

Do you think that monastics who take a vow of poverty are actually *not doing* what Jesus meant?

Again, this was a special mission, they’re first alone, two by two. Later 70 were sent out. This, like Paul’s specific messages to Corinth was not to be used to prevent Baptists from having female pastors. Ted, consider the context always. What are you talking about? I am not discussing the gender of ministers.


I am saying that if your wealth is keeping you from the KOG, give it way.Fine, say what you please. I just don't think that Jesus was saying that. And some other people, very dedicated to the teachings of Jesus, think the same wy that I do (the monastic tradition of the Catholic church). I see that you didn't answer my question about whether you think that the monastics interpret Jesus's words wrong. Do you think that they are misguided? I linked an entire webpage on all the aspects of voluntary "poverty" that Catholics find credence in, and they link it back to the teachings of Jesus and the actions of the disciples. You started this by saying that Jesus did not advocate poverty. I remain unconvinced that that is an accurate description of Jesus's words and actions on the topic. It seems to me that he strongly advocated poverty for those who could and would manage it. It was the manner in which he expected his closest followers to ready themselves for their work and for the coming of the end of the world.

If the monastic tradition was to earn something from God, it was a misunderstanding. If it was to bring the body under control, maybe, if whatever they were struggling with could be helped by the practice.

Not everyone struggles the same way. Where your treasure, that’s where your heart will be.

He didn’t advocate poverty. That’s a gross misunderstanding or misapplication of his teachings.

There is nothing wrong or immoral with having money. There is nothing wrong with eating or having a cold beer. One of tue fruits 🍎 of the Spirit is self control. If you don’t have anything, there is nothing to control.

[Chuck Naill]

The idea is, whoever comes after Jesus must let him lead. We don’t find ourselves by fighting for it. We can gain it all and lose ourselves.

In a kingdom there is a king. The king gets to do what he wants.

Whatever the price we have to pay is worth it. However, first we must have a vision. What is going on here God?? What is this kingdom stuff??? Let me understand and I’ll decide if it’s worth the effort or cost.

[TSherbs]

If the monastic tradition was to earn something from God, it was a misunderstanding. and Jesus' 40 days in the wilderness? Was this to get his body under control? Why go through deprivation if it is not for coming closer to God? Isn't everything about getting closer to God, including Jesus' multiple warnings that money and privilege can get in the way?



He didn’t advocate poverty. That’s a gross misunderstanding or misapplication of his teachings. We disagree on this. As I said, I think the monastics try to conform best to the teachings of Jesus. They put their money where their mouth (vows) is...so to speak.

[Chuck Naill]

Does it matter what you think? I’m reminded of the atheist HS English teacher. He had opinions based on things not going his way. He was cynical and negative as I remember. He wasn’t the sort of person I wanted to become, but he did change my teenage mind.

[TSherbs]

Does it matter what you think? ...

What? What has now flipped your switch?

It matters to me, obviously. In the same way that what you think matters to you. For the rest of the universe, what we think doesn't matter at all.

Back to the topic?

[Chuck Naill]

What our heart is will determine the sort of life we will have. Our heart is revealed by what is thrown at us in life. It will determine how we handle a job loss, a house fire, an unplanned pregnancy, having the opportunity to be honest or not, whether we sleep with our neighbor's spouse, or if we will give money to someone in need. All of these events require us to be in the proximity of people. If we give away everything, we will have nothing to share, but if your "everything" prevents you from being able to get something of great value, what's the point in having?

The apprentice gives up their right to do as they please so they can learn how to do something well. Surely most of us can relate how we give ourselves to a teacher so we can learn. Learning requires practice of course. There will be opportunities a person around others will experience that a hermit cannot.

I wouldn't want anyone to think becoming a student of Jesus is just a matter of giving up something. It is more, give up something to get something better. He promised abundant life. Abundant life is an experience of something good and satisfying. It isn't being miserable.

[TSherbs]

"Does it matter what you think?"

[Chuck Naill]

Does it matter? Yes, if one is seeking to know something it matters. If someone wants to start a controversy, not so much. There is a tendency we all face in learning, does something change our minds or do we cling to what our minds have decided is true. That later state does not produce knowledge, but confirmation of something we have previously decided is true.

When someone uses words like, "I am not convinced" or "smarter people think", or "are you saying you disagree with a tradition", they are not showing a desire to learn. Also, when a person says, I've read commentaries or I've read the Bible and am familiar, the mind is closed for any further investigation. In this sense, it does not matter what they think, because they aren't really thinking.

Atheism has always intrigued me. The common reason given is, how could God exist with all of the evil that exists in the world. There is no one person that I know of who wants their ability to think as they wish and live accordingly to be taken away, yet we blame, our concept of, God. God gives you the right, as I do, to be an atheist. He will not take that away from you. Therefore, we cannot blame God who gave us the rules of the road, that if just for purely medical reasons, if followed, would reduce stress, depression, anxiety, and hypertension.



And, you can blame religion for all the world's evil and convince yourself that being an atheist is a more enlightened position to hold, but does not matter? It matters to you, but how can I be bothered with it?

Apprenticeship to Jesus is a measurable concept. You will either becoming a better person, being more mentally healthy, making better decision, valuing things differently, or you won't. It is really a money back guarantee. If it doesn't work, stop practicing is a simple matter. Don't think I am proselytizing. I am no more doing so as you do with your political link posting or gender thread posting where you are simply posting about what you care about and the perspective you have.

[Chip]

Atheism has always intrigued me. The common reason given is, how could God exist with all of the evil that exists in the world.

Theodicy: noun
—the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil.
ORIGIN: late 18th century: from French Théodicée, the title of a work by Leibniz, from Greek theos ‘god’ + dikē ‘justice’.

Are you familiar with the word?

≈*≈*≈

I avoid the word atheism because it implies the existence of a god or gods as the norm, and a lack of recognition of that as a fault. Why should I disbelieve in something that, in my experience of the world, does not exist? The prefix "a" is often used to signify a lack or deficiency, e.g. amoral, asexual. It is also binary, like a computer chip that can register only yes or no.

Here's a short essay on the topic.

The Japanese Word, Mu

Robert Pirsig

Yes and no…this or that…one or zero. In the basis of this elementary two-term discrimination, all human knowledge is built up. The demonstration of this is the computer memory that stores all knowledge in the form of binary information. It contains ones and zeroes, that's all.

Because we're unaccustomed to it, we don't usually see that there's a third possible logical term equal to yes and no which is capable of our understanding in an unrecognized direction. We don't even have term for it, so I'll have to use the Japanese mu.

Mu means "no thing." Like "quality" it points outside the process of dualistic discrimination. Mu simply says, "no class: not one, not zero, not yes, not no." It states that the context of the question is such that a yes and a no answer is in error and should not be given. "Unask the question" is what it says.

Mu becomes appropriate when the context of the question becomes too small for the truth of the answer. When the Zen monk was asked whether a dog had Buddha nature he said "Mu," meaning that if he answered either way he was answering incorrectly. The Buddha nature cannot be captured by yes or no questions.

That Mu exists in the natural world investigated by science is evident. […] The dualistic mind tends to think of Mu occurrences in nature as a kind of contextual cheating, or irrelevance, but Mu is found through all scientific investigation, and nature doesn't cheat, and nature's answers are never irrelevant. It's a great mistake, a kind of dishonesty to sweep nature's Mu answers under the carpet. […]

When your answer to a test is indeterminate it means one of two things: that your test procedures aren't doing what you think they are or that your understanding of the context of the question needs to be enlarged. Check your tests and restudy the question. Don't throw away those Mu answers! They're every bit as vital as the yes and no answers. They're more vital. They're the ones you grow on.

--Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

[Chuck Naill]

I don’t fault people for being an atheist or using the term. I’m commenting on their reasonings. I use the word because they do.

When someone says they have not experienced God, how vast is that experience?

Science relates to what can be experienced by the five senses. If we are looking for god that way, we are limiting our field of experience.

Jesus taught his students to say yes or no, nothing further. Yes, I will or no I won’t.

[TSherbs]

Atheism has always intrigued me. The common reason given is, how could God exist with all of the evil that exists in the world. I have not said this, nor has this been the topic here. Why are you bringing this up?



There is no one person that I know of who wants their ability to think as they wish and live accordingly to be taken away, yet we blame, our concept of, God. God gives you the right, as I do, to be an atheist. He will not take that away from you. Therefore, we cannot blame God who gave us the rules of the road, that if just for purely medical reasons, if followed, would reduce stress, depression, anxiety, and hypertension. I have no idea what this is about. I don't blame "God" for anything because no god exists.


And, you can blame religion for all the world's evil... I have never done this, nor would I ever.

Your posts become strangely disconnected from the topics in focus.

[TSherbs]

When someone uses words like, "I am not convinced" or "smarter people think", or "are you saying you disagree with a tradition", they are not showing a desire to learn. Your conclusion here is incorrect.


Also, when a person says, I've read commentaries or I've read the Bible and am familiar, the mind is closed for any further investigation. In this sense, it does not matter what they think, because they aren't really thinking. [my emphasis added] Wow, this conclusion is wildly inaccurate. People who read the opinions of scholars "aren't really thinking"? You can't be serious. Right, Chuck? You don't really mean this.

[TSherbs]

We were on the topic of poverty and Jesus' teachings on it, and now you have shifted your focus to a criticism of atheists and/or those who read other documents and commentary on the meaning of Jesus' teaching. You know, like listening to a sermon on a Biblical passage, but instead you read it. And you call upon some historians who have studied Palestinian history and the Aramaic and Hebrew. And maybe even some Catholic historians who know the history of the earliest church.

This is what you call closing down the mind to learning? This is what you call, "not really thinking"?

[Chuck Naill]

Basically, I am posting concepts to two people who have little or no interest in the topic. Chip posted his thoughts. You post your thoughts, and I post mine. You’re the only one complaining. Are you going to report me? You wouldn’t be happy in a pie factory.

[TSherbs]

I'm simply not happy because you drift off the topic and and start telling me that I am not interested in learning and not doing any thinking.

I complain rather than returning the "compliment," but if you deride me more I am just likely to flip you off.

We are interested in what you say on this, Chuck. We just don't respond positively to your Christian exceptionalism and superiority. If you want camaraderie in that regard, there are plenty of Christian fora that will provide it. I have been members of some. They will give you more agreement than you will get here (from the look of things over the past year or so).

[TSherbs]

... You wouldn’t be happy in a pie factory.

That's just silly to write. Besides, I like blueberry pie very much, thank you.

[Chuck Naill]

Your response says it all. Please, report me. Use the f word five times in a sentence.

[TSherbs]

What the faith, Chuck? Why are you such a faithing fool for your faith? Why do you preach one thing, but then faithing do another? Don't be a faithing jerk!

How's that for the f word five times? ;)

[Chuck Naill]

Why do you pretend to be so tolerant and aren’t, Ted. Why are you so hateful and angry? Might be a time to go in a different direction,Ted.

[TSherbs]

Why do you pretend to be so tolerant and aren’t, Ted. Why are you so hateful and angry? Might be a time to go in a different direction,Ted.

Maybe it's time for you to stop needling people with needless criticism when we are on a topic. Maybe it is time for you to acknowledge that I only give you a hard time when you turn your focus off the topic and onto personal derision. For example, the only time I call you a liar is when you turn away from the topic and make some sort of wildly inaccurate summary of how I feel inside (like, "you are so hateful and angry"). You have no idea what you are talking about and repeatedly get me wrong.

[TSherbs]

Why do you pretend to be so tolerant and aren’t, Ted. Why are you so hateful and angry? Might be a time to go in a different direction,Ted.

Chuck, I'm just goofing with you after you made that silly reporting remark and then the 5 f words remark. I'm just playing around with your aspersion to show you that I am *not* angry. I'm just goofing.

[Chuck Naill]

You've fooled me several times into thinking you are taking this topic with a degree of seriousness. This is why I try to provide you with information that you may not be familiar with and that might actually show that Evangelicals are not following Jesus. They are not doing what the first century followers did and this would explain why Christianity in the US looks as it does.

Jesus didn't teach poverty. He didn't suggest monasteries. He expected his followers would be anyone and everyone and people who live in society in all professions. Jesus was not gay. It was laughable when you first mentioned it. Jesus wasn't ruled by his body, so for you to think so just points out your lack of knowledge on the topic, but now I understand, you just posted that stuff because you are goofy.

These topics are beyond the physical, so you won't understand it's significance by using only your senses. As the scriptures say, God is spirit. Those that worship him related to him spirit to spirit. Many traditions have similar practices. Chip mentioned Native American traditions. I don't think we have to take the same path. I think the primary thing it to seek. One can do that as an atheist or agnostic. Seeking is the first step.

Jesus said it is the Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. I wouldn't want anyone to read your posts and think they had to sell off the property and become a hermit. So, I have to respond.

[TSherbs]

Your conclusion here is incorrect.


Also, when a person says, I've read commentaries or I've read the Bible and am familiar, the mind is closed for any further investigation. In this sense, it does not matter what they think, because they aren't really thinking. [my emphasis added] Wow, this conclusion is wildly inaccurate. People who read the opinions of scholars "aren't really thinking"? You can't be serious. Right, Chuck? You don't really mean this.

I'll repeat this, then, to show you that I am serious: your conclusions are wildly off-base.

What appears to be happening is that your Christian exceptionalism ("only certain kinds of Christians--such as myself--know the true meaning of the Biblical texts) has produced in you a reactionary defensiveness where you blame others for oblecting to your erroneous conclusions and accuse others of not wanting to learn and even of "not thinking" if they seek other points of view other than the ones you value.

Do you not see how that is such an intellectual turn-off to the curious? You twaddle and taunt people all over these threads and then accuse me of not being "serious" on this topic?

A "serious" student of faith and learning would read more widely than you do, would read historical books on Jesus and read comparative religious studies that look at the history of religious traditions across the world. Those adults who know that there is more information out there in the world about Jesus and the early Christian movement and Judaism and Islam and Buddhism and HInduism (etc) but who DONT read them and think about them are the ones, to me, who are not "serious."

[dneal]

That was a great post TSherbs - particularly the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.

Seriously.

[Chuck Naill]

Your conclusion here is incorrect.


Also, when a person says, I've read commentaries or I've read the Bible and am familiar, the mind is closed for any further investigation. In this sense, it does not matter what they think, because they aren't really thinking. [my emphasis added] Wow, this conclusion is wildly inaccurate. People who read the opinions of scholars "aren't really thinking"? You can't be serious. Right, Chuck? You don't really mean this.

I'll repeat this, then, to show you that I am serious: your conclusions are wildly off-base.

What appears to be happening is that your Christian exceptionalism ("only certain kinds of Christians--such as myself--know the true meaning of the Biblical texts) has produced in you a reactionary defensiveness where you blame others for oblecting to your erroneous conclusions and accuse others of not wanting to learn and even of "not thinking" if they seek other points of view other than the ones you value.

Do you not see how that is such an intellectual turn-off to the curious? You twaddle and taunt people all over these threads and then accuse me of not being "serious" on this topic?

A "serious" student of faith and learning would read more widely than you do, would read historical books on Jesus and read comparative religious studies that look at the history of religious traditions across the world. Those adults who know that there is more information out there in the world about Jesus and the early Christian movement and Judaism and Islam and Buddhism and HInduism (etc) but who DONT read them and think about them are the ones, to me, who are not "serious."

What are you serious about, Ted? What are you reading or have read? Has your research produced in you to sort of person you want to be? When I read your posts where you emotionally destruct, I have to question if whatever you think is doing you any good. You do it often enough for show a pattern. Then you cool down and say you're just joking. I need you to respond to, what are you serious about and why and is it working.

"But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body. Ecclesiastes 12:12 What I have done is come to see the New Testament as a collection of communications for apprentices, written by apprentices, for the purpose of mentoring apprentices. I cannot be a plumbing and electrical apprentice at the same time. However, these other traditions have something in common as do ancient philosophies. Since Dallas Willard was a philosophy professor, he has shown what these other traditions have in common. Some of the questions these try to answer is, who is a good person and who is well off. My question is, how do I come to be able to naturally and easily love others as I love myself. What are your questions, Ted?

You want to talk about Jesus sexual orientation, that Jesus taught poverty, or vilify Paul. You want to argue now Christain Exceptionalism. You'll eventually find something else to complain about. This is endless with you. And each time you double down with not a smidgeon of anything, but smarter people think and I am not convinced. Well, what would it take to convince?

So, I am on this path, practicing, and learning from others who have come before me. I experiment, test, and see if I improve. What I am doing here is sharing my progress and providing the scriptures and other resources, such as spiritual disciplines. "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?". How can I communicate better with you?

Let's say a person reads broadly, more broadly than either of us. Is that person better off? Have they become a good person. Do they have the capacity to love others who hate them? At some point we have to land on something for which we think has value, the "pearl of great price" or the treasure the trespasser found buried in the field. When you find something that works, you stop looking.

Jesus told his students not to cast their pearls before swine. Pigs can't eat pearls and so, they have not value for a pig. What do you value, Ted?

[TSherbs]

. What do you value, Ted?

I value an interesting discussion about Jesus and poverty, without personal derision or remarks about who knows the Bible better, or who wants to be a better person.

I value staying on the recent topic of Jesus and poverty.

The thing I am most interested in is that you dismissed the monastic vows of poverty as a misunderstanding of what Jesus asked of some followers and even as a misunderstanding of how to get closer to God or to being a good person. The monastic tradition is long established in Christianity. I have never heard anyone critique it as misguided. Nearly every religion has its monastic branch. These are all misguided attempts at being a dedicated follower of their faiths?

[Chuck Naill]

Okay, what is your position about Jesus and poverty?

What do you see as the value of the monastic tradition. You'll remember Martin Luther was in a monastery. These are his reasonings, not mine, “There is no doubt that the monastic vow is in itself a most dangerous thing because it is without the authority and example of Scripture. Neither the early church nor the New Testament knows anything at all of the taking of this kind of vow, much less do they approve of a lifelong vow of very rare and remarkable chastity.” Martin Luther.

If I remember, Luther discovered Romans 4 where Paul explains, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness". This was some 430 years before Moses was given the rules of the road. So, Abraham didn't even have the law. He was wealthy. David was wealthy. Matthew the tax collector was wealthy. There were wealthy women underwriting the needs of Jesus' ministry. I don't remember Jesus telling Matthew to become poor. He just invited him to follow. His point to "the rich young ruler" was to point out that while he, the young man, considered himself righteous as a keeper of the law, his treasure wasn't the law or becoming a good person on the inside, but his wealth was his treasure. Had he given up his wealth, he would have still had to decide whether to become an apprentice of Jesus.

I trust that I have not been disrespectful to you with these words. I chose them carefully.

Back to poverty, if my wealth is preventing me from becoming an apprentice, I need to make a decision. Is it worth it. However, being poor does me no good if I think it does or puts me in a better standing with God. Jesus said the poor would always exist. I have been around some very angry poor people. Poor people aren't actually any nicer than a rich person.

[TSherbs]

Okay, what is your position about Jesus and poverty? Chuck, are you even reading what I write? I already stated my "position". I stated that I believed that Jesus did, in fact, "advocate" poverty, and I quoted the passages that I was thinking of, and I refered to the monastic tradition, and I linked the Catholic services page that explained all of their positions relative to various kinds of "poverty." I already did this in this thread.

*I* don't persoanlly "value" monasticism for a god because gods don't exist. I am not discussing what *I* value.

I simply stated that I thought that you were incorrect in stating that Jesus did not advocate poverty. I never stated that *everyone* should be poor, netiher did I say that poor people are better than rich people or any of the other things that your mind squirrels off onto. I stated one thing: I believe that Jesus did in fact (especially in Luke) advocate voluntary poverty. In many other places he discusses the problems that wealth brings. Repeatedly. There is a spiritual reason that monastics take vows of poverty. I am not here to defend them, except from the facile dismissals that you treat them with. I am not saying that *everyone* values vows of poverty, because of course they don't. Especially Protestants, who very clearly ended up linking economic propserity with the idea of having been chosen by God to succeed materially (the nexus of Christianity and capitalism).

Why apologize for quoting Martin Luther? I was happy to read his remarks, and unsurprised to learn them. And I agree, there is no such "vow" in the gospels. Just some other emphatic statements about "giving up everything that you have." It's not a vow or a requirement. It's simply an emphatic statement from the alleged "Son" of the divine trinity. Some take that statement seriously. Some don't.

[Chuck Naill]

Ted, you are difficult to converse with. I don't know you are intentionally obtuse or just goofing off again.

Jesus never taught a practice of poverty. It was never practiced by his apprentices, and it is never mentioned in the Apostolic writings. The early believers were poor. Collections were taken by Paul and others and distributed to the poor, especially in Jerusalem. They were poor because they were poor, not to earn something from God.

Luther explained exactly why I said what I did about a misunderstanding. However, I suspect the reason these institutions existed was because the common person had no access to the scriptures. Today people have access, but don't think reading them is important. Most, if not all, Chrisitan atrocities can be traced back to leaders getting their followers to do something the scriptures never remotely taught. It is occurring today.

Jesus had to deal with a religious institution like Roman Catholic practices. This is why he said that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees or substitute popes and cardinals, you cannot enter the KOG. His Sermon on the Hill was to poor, illiterate, beaten down people. Why would he have ever told them they needed to be poor to enter the kingdom. What he actually did was teach them and just because they were poor, beaten down, and illiterate, the kingdom of God was readily available. What about being poorer would be considered abundant living? Why would they want any part of it?

I can continue to respond as long as you want. These discussions are useful to me.

[TSherbs]

Jesus never taught a practice of poverty. It was never practiced by his apprentices, and it is never mentioned in the Apostolic writings. That's false. See above in the thread.


The early believers were poor. Collections were taken by Paul and others and distributed to the poor, especially in Jerusalem. They were poor because they were poor, not to earn something from God. There is no reason to believe that all of Jesus' followers and audience were equally poor (without money or status in society). Indeed, that is highly unlikely. And no one said anything about "earning something from God." Why would you add that?

I'm "difficult," as you say, because I don't let you just facilely dismiss clear passages of the gospel where Jesus says the opposite of what you claim.

[Chuck Naill]

I am not dismissing. You are ignoring the context to attempt to force a meaning to confirm something you want to think to save face for inaccurately suggesting Jesus advocated poverty. The passage you are referring is to a wealthy person. Why would this apply everyone?

The demographics of those who followed Jesus are easy to know. His sermon on the mount were these people. Read the text. I’m not posting anything that can’t be easy seen.

Again and again forever, rest assured, Jesus never asked his apprentices to be poor. He did say, change the way you think because the kingdom of God is now an option.

The reason I mentioned earning is because of the Roman 4 passage referenced.

[Chuck Naill]

This isn’t nice, but necessary. Your posts remind me of some evangelical saying God is a Republican based by taking a verse out of context. I can’t think of a verse, but given you imagination, you might be able to think of one.

[TSherbs]

I am not dismissing. You are ignoring the context to attempt to force a meaning to confirm something you want to think to save face for inaccurately suggesting Jesus advocated poverty. The passage you are referring is to a wealthy person. Why would this apply everyone?

The demographics of those who followed Jesus are easy to know. His sermon on the mount were these people. Read the text. I’m not posting anything that can’t be easy seen.

Again and again forever, rest assured, Jesus never asked his apprentices to be poor. He did say, change the way you think because the kingdom of God is now an option.

The reason I mentioned earning is because of the Roman 4 passage referenced.

I didn't reference Romans. It is no part of my point.

"Why would this apply everyone?" --Indeed it wouldn't, which is why I never made that claim. You put that claim in my mouth as if I made it (straw man).

I simply stated that Jesus has, indeed, advocated "giving up everything you have," which to me is unambiguous. I know you like to spin it to not mean what those words say. But I am not convinced by your spin.

And your criticism of monastic tradition I don't agree with at all. I find their commitment and dedication noble, whatever the religion.

[Chuck Naill]

You’re more religious and that’s why it appeals to you. Same with your poverty misinformation.

I referred to Roman 4.

[TSherbs]

What?

[Chip]

Does a Christian have Buddha nature?

[TSherbs]

Does a Christian have Buddha nature?

Not if one clutches to ego and righteousness.

[Chuck Naill]

To pick up on the story about the wealthy young ruler from Mark's gospel, chapter 10.

"And Jesus, looking around, *said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus responded again and *said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 And they were even more astonished, and said to Him, “Then who can be saved?” Looking at them, Jesus *said, “With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”

Why were they amazed? Wealth was considered a blessing from God. So, how could a wealthy person miss out on the kingdom?

Dr. Willard explains that in Jesus time, teaching's goal was to change the individual. Since few were literate, they just listened. Today education is to fil empty vessels without ever expecting a change. The goal now is to test and see if the student can regurgitate the information.

The second question from the disciples was, who then can be saved. Jesus responded that with people it is impossible, but with God all things are possible. It is possible for a wealthy and a poor person to get in on what God is doing.

Paul's letter to the Jesus society at Colosse, who he had never met in person, thanked God for the love they were showing to other disciples, that they had come to have knowledge about what God is doing and how he does it. These were not empty vessels gaining knowledge, they were actually living the message. He goes on to say they were not working by "gritting their teeth", but by the power God was supplying.

If we understand the intent of the message is to change lives, it will become obvious it isn't about entering a monastery or giving up all of one's resources, because that would not change the inside of person. Monasteries and money are external. Jesus taught in order to change how people lived and how they interacted daily in society as his apprentice.

[Chuck Naill]

To further the argument that Jesus didn't teach poverty, we can consider Paul's words in his famous first letter to the Jesus society at Corinth.

" If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. " Throughout Jesus and the Apostolic teachings, love is the most discussed topic. So, for the person deciding to become an apprentice of Jesus, they will learn over time what it means to love others the way they love themselves regardless of being poor or rich. One has no advantage, kingdom wise, over the other. Poor people can be wicked and angry. However, being poor and angry doesn't disqualify you from entering the KOG.

[TSherbs]

To pick up on the story about the wealthy young ruler from Mark's gospel, chapter 10.

"And Jesus, looking around, *said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus responded again and *said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 And they were even more astonished, and said to Him, “Then who can be saved?” Looking at them, Jesus *said, “With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”

Why were they amazed? Wealth was considered a blessing from God. So, how could a wealthy person miss out on the kingdom?

Dr. Willard explains that in Jesus time, teaching's goal was to change the individual. Since few were literate, they just listened. Today education is to fil empty vessels without ever expecting a change. The goal now is to test and see if the student can regurgitate the information.

The second question from the disciples was, who then can be saved. Jesus responded that with people it is impossible, but with God all things are possible. It is possible for a wealthy and a poor person to get in on what God is doing. ....

Of course it is "possible," if you believe in an omnipotent God. No one here in this thread has suggested otherwise.

You keep dodging the issue with misdirection and strawman arguments (you errect counter arguments against claims that have not been made).

I'll just quote Luke again:

18 A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 20 You know the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” 21 And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 23 But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. 24 And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to [g]go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 They who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” 27 But He said, “The things that are impossible with people are possible with God.”

Yes, this is neither a commandment from Jesus (to sell all of one's property) nor a requirement for being saved. No one has claimed such a thing on this thread. It is time for you to stop arguing using this strawman.

This is simply a clear passage where Jesus advocates for the idea of giving up one's wealth in service of the poor. It is literally a request to this one person that he convert his property into coin and distribute it to the poor. This is so clear. That is exactly what the passage states. Yes, Jesus also tells this man that God can even save the rich who don't do this (because that is what an amnipotent God can do).

Monastics, despite your criticism of them (which seems ungenerous of you), simply take these suggestions and recommendations from Jesus and put them into action. It's that straightforward. They take vows of poverty not beause Jesus commanded them to (no one claims that!), but because Jesus clearly warns people and larger audiences about how money can interfere with union with God and the goodness of the soul. It's a choice that people are making. And an example of how Jesus occasionally makes clear his advocacy for "voluntary poverty": the various conditions and circumstances when Jesus recommends that some people rid themselves of wealth and possessions for care of their souls and for other persons at the bottom of society.

Why you keep fighting against this idea is a puzzlement to me.

[TSherbs]

To further the argument that Jesus didn't teach poverty....

"teach poverty" is a vague phrasing of what we have been discussing. You said that Jesus did not "advocate poverty." If your language keeps drifting, then you are changing the terms. I don't even know what "teach poverty" means. No one "teaches poverty."

[TSherbs]

Your basic position, summarized most simply, is that Jesus never told everyone that they had to become poor for God. True. And no one here has claimed that Jesus did say this.

But he did tell some people to give up their possessions to go to work for his mission, and he did tell some other wealthy people to sell everything they had to go to work for the poor, and he did warn audiences that wealth was often an impediment to heaven and to the making of a good soul. So, you can call this not actually "teaching poverty" if that makes you feel better. It's not about "teaching" anything, from my point of view. But is Jesus "advocating" a certain caution about (and suspicion of) wealth and in some cases a giving up of all of one's wealth and property to do the work of God?? -- YES (see above).

[Chuck Naill]

I've never heard him say he had a mission or tell anyone that if they signed up they had to be poor. Where are you getting these ideas? Jesus' message was to seek the KOG and his righteousness. His righteous is what we become on the inside that allows us to love others as we love ourselves.

Giving up resources is making a purchase/trade, if you will, for something more precious. Note, for example, the parable of the treasure found in a field and the pearl of great price. Things to give away might just as easily be thinking this stuff is beneath your academic credentials or thinking you're just too enlightened. There are many more ways than money to miss out. Jesus said, "blessed is the person who is not disappointed in me". Blessed means the highest type of well being. You don't get more blessed by being poor, but being poor is not a disqualification.

Jesus said everyone must take up their cross. A cross is simply not getting your way. Kingdom living is where you don't want your way. You are following someone who you think knows better than you how to live your life. Jesus said is wanted his followers to relax, take the easy yoke, "kick if on back", it is the Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Give means no cost, don't have to hand over your wallet or right a check. You may come to give it all away, but that isn't a cost of membership, if you will.

Just had a thought and one we can all understand. Our wealth can provide a sense of well-being. In that sense, being wealthy might cause some to need less of Jesus' kind of blessing whereas the poor person might grasp at any rope. Neither is any more secure in the KOG, but from our physical being, it might seem the wealth is in a better place in the kingdom of the secular. Again, when you consider these things in light of the people coming out to hear Jesus, this message was profound.

[TSherbs]

I've never heard him say he had a mission or tell anyone that if they signed up they had to be poor. Where are you getting these ideas? ....

I quoted Luke exactly and explained. The way you don't quote what I write but then twist it is execrable. It's a form of lying.

Nevermind, Chuck. You're a liar on this thread. You lie for your god, which I guess justifies it in your mind. To me it just makes you a skittish and stubborn Christian liar.
Maybe this is part of a fundamental definition, then, of Christianity: "a religious belief in a man called Jesus as the 'son' of a monotheistic god who requires lies in rationalization of the retainment of wealth."

[TSherbs]

This is what I mean by you being a prevaricator, simply dodging out of a skittish defense of your god and your Jesus:

First, you tell me this:



Again, this was a special mission, they’re first alone, two by two. Later 70 were sent out.

Then you write this:


I've never heard him say he had a mission or tell anyone that if they signed up they had to be poor. Where are you getting these ideas?

I only used the word "mission," liar, because *you* did. Where am I "getting the idea from," liar? From YOU.

[Chuck Naill]

This is what I mean by you being a prevaricator, simply dodging out of a skittish defense of your god and your Jesus:

First, you tell me this:



Then you write this:


I've never heard him say he had a mission or tell anyone that if they signed up they had to be poor. Where are you getting these ideas?

I only used the word "mission," liar, because *you* did. Where am I "getting the idea from," liar? From YOU.

The context of my use of mission earlier was after you said Jesus expected his students to live in poverty and used a special event or mission that he sent out 12 of his students on a type of scrimmage. Jesus wasn't running a mission or recruiting people to help. I am not a liar. I am simply trying to explain passages to a person that continually shows they do not understand, but think they do, and has not a smidgeon of interest. This isn't an easy task, but I figure that someone might read and decide to study for themselves.

[TSherbs]

I know the fucking context. I'm the one reminding you that *you* used the term to describe the scene that i pointed out. Then you acted incredulous that I would use the term.

That's dissembling, which is a form of prevarication. I know you justify for your god. I'm going to point it out anyway. This is what I mean by a kind of skittish and defensive stubbornness. It produces in your post a dishonest treatment of topics. You continually shift words and phrases onto others who don't use them. You did it repeatedly with dneal regarding the Covid stuff, and you do it with me here.

[Chuck Naill]

I know the fucking context. I'm the one reminding you that *you* used the term to describe the scene that i pointed out. Then you acted incredulous that I would use the term.

That's dissembling, which is a form of prevarication. I know you justify for your god. I'm going to point it out anyway. This is what I mean by a kind of skittish and defensive stubbornness. It produces in your post a dishonest treatment of topics. You continually shift words and phrases onto others who don't use them. You did it repeatedly with dneal regarding the Covid stuff, and you do it with me here.

You didn't use it in the same context that I did. It matters. Context is a key to understanding this topic. It is important for any topic. You can't just throw around stuff because you want to and expect it to be accepted. Your failure to understand the context led to your poverty error. It also led to your thinking monasteries are a good thing until you heard it from someone who was actually in one and discovered the truth. No double standards, okay!! You wouldn't allow me to do it.

Nope, you are the problem, Ted. I am pleased you and @dneal are getting along now. ;) Maybe you and he can have wonderfully honest discussion on why you were wrong to get a vaccine and not vote for Trump. We shall see, buddy. Thanks for the f bomb. Someone should report your post.

[TSherbs]

Jesus wasn't running a mission or recruiting people to help. I am not a liar.

He most certainly did recruit people! What the fuck are you going on about? His recruiting scene is one of the most famous stories in the gospels.

You are either a liar or just twisted mentally (or both--they are not exclusionary conditions).

[TSherbs]

. It also led to your thinking monasteries are a good thing until you heard it from someone who was actually in one and discovered the truth.

If you think I have changed my mind about monastic life, you are sorely mistaken.

Report whatever the fuck you want about my language. Your dodgy games don't deserve better. Lying is worse than vulgarity, dude.

[Chip]

I've never heard him say he had a mission or tell anyone that if they signed up they had to be poor.

How could you have heard him say anything?

Curious choice of a word. Obviously, you weren't present at the time and he wasn't taking notes, so anything you know must have either been read or in the voice of some bible-quoter.

[Chuck Naill]

. It also led to your thinking monasteries are a good thing until you heard it from someone who was actually in one and discovered the truth.

If you think I have changed my mind about monastic life, you are sorely mistaken.

Report whatever the fuck you want about my language. Your dodgy games don't deserve better. Lying is worse than vulgarity, dude.

I'm not trying to change your mind. How absurd. You have no interest in the topic.

I've never lied one time. You would not be able to point out one lie, because I haven't. I've explained my understanding and you don't like it and want to argue about something for which you haven't devoted much, if any, attention.

You are the one repeating a threat to report a post, not me.

[TSherbs]

... Thanks for the f bomb. Someone should report your post.


You are the one repeating a threat to report a post, not me.

Nah, not *you*. *You* would never do such a thing....

Another lie from you.

[TSherbs]

The context of my use of mission earlier was after you said Jesus expected his students to live in poverty and used a special event or mission that he sent out 12 of his students on a type of scrimmage. [my emphasis added]

This is a bold lie. I never said such a thing, and would never use such words. This is how you misconstrue what I said.

[Chuck Naill]

The context of my use of mission earlier was after you said Jesus expected his students to live in poverty and used a special event or mission that he sent out 12 of his students on a type of scrimmage. [my emphasis added]

This is a bold lie. I never said such a thing, and would never use such words. This is how you misconstrue what I said.

You wrote:
"Jesus did ask his disciples to give up their homes, give up their families, and lead a life of journeying from town to town with no food and very little clothing. He told the disciples to accept food and shelter from residents, or move on to the next town. This isn't exactly what we would call "poverty" today, but it is a life of no possessions and no guarranteed meals or shelter. That is pretty close to mendicant, homeless. This is one of the reasons that monks and nuns take a "vow of poverty" in some Catholic sects. It's because Jesus said so and did so himself (according to the story)."

So, no, I am not being dishonest.

You had previously used as an example of where Jesus told the young man to give his money to the poor and follow him as an example of where Jesus expected his students to live in poverty. Again, I am not being dishonest.

[TSherbs]

The context of my use of mission earlier was after you said Jesus expected his students to live in poverty and used a special event or mission that he sent out 12 of his students on a type of scrimmage. [my emphasis added]

This is a bold lie. I never said such a thing, and would never use such words. This is how you misconstrue what I said.

You wrote:
"Jesus did ask his disciples to give up their homes, give up their families, and lead a life of journeying from town to town with no food and very little clothing. He told the disciples to accept food and shelter from residents, or move on to the next town. This isn't exactly what we would call "poverty" today, but it is a life of no possessions and no guarranteed meals or shelter. That is pretty close to mendicant, homeless. This is one of the reasons that monks and nuns take a "vow of poverty" in some Catholic sects. It's because Jesus said so and did so himself (according to the story)."

So, no, I am not being dishonest.

You had previously used as an example of where Jesus told the young man to give his money to the poor and follow him as an example of where Jesus expected his students to live in poverty. Again, I am not being dishonest.

At least your quoting me now. Yes. Now put that up against your summaries of what I said. I didn't say that Jesus sent them on a scrimmage. Or that Jesus was "teaching poverty." Or that Jesus was making poverty a requirement. Or that he was asking "everyone" to be poor.

[Chuck Naill]

The quote demonstrates what you think. Further quotes would only demonstrate the same. At least now you know I am not a liar. I just have a better memory of our conversations.

You quoted the passage above and compared it to vows of poverty taken by nuns and monks. The two do not relate. The Bible passages is about the scrimmage, not a practice Jesus expected or taught. He just simply said for them, as they went their way, to make disciples when he commissioned them, see Matthew 28:18-20 for a more complete idea of his command.

[TSherbs]

You quoted the passage above and compared it to vows of poverty taken by nuns and monks. The two do not relate.

They don't "relate"? You're crazy. You just deny history.

Again, I'm flummoxed by your opposition to the idea of voluntary poverty in Christianity and monastic life. All you have said is that it isn't *required* by Jesus (correct, and no one said it was), and you quoted Martin Luther saying it was "dangerous" (one sentence, no context given. Of course, Luther opposed several Catholic practices). All the rest that you write is sermonizing off this topic.

What's your opposition to the practice of *some* Christians volunteering their lives to God and giving up all of their wealth and possessions (as Jesus asks the rich man in Luke)? What is your opposition to some Christians choosing to do this, if they want? Why don't you respect this option?

[Chuck Naill]

Luther entered the monastery because he believed, at the time, the best way to serve God was by abandoning his family, his home, and the world.

I do not deny history. Jesus was not establishing a method for ministry/discipleship using the verse you have been using.

We have been discussing Christianity on several threads over time. Sometimes you have been critical of what some have done throughout history and in modern times as it has become a political movement. Therefore, it is important to me to point out that voluntary practices can lead to some disastrous results. Some believed enslaving Africans was scripturally based. Some believed that Donald Trump was God's messenger.

Contrast that with Jesus own words, very simple and straightforward, easy to understand, seek first the Kingdom of God and his kind of being right and all these things you are worried about will be taken care of, aka relax. Then later his commission, to make apprentices and teach them what he had told them to do. What did he tell them to do? To love God and their neighbors as they loved themselves by being empowered to do so by the Holy Spirit.

[Chuck Naill]

I am reminded of the incidents of pedophilia. Would it not better marry than voluntarily becoming celibate?

[TSherbs]

... Therefore, it is important to me to point out that voluntary practices can lead to some disastrous results.

This is your reason for not respecting the choice of others to join monasteries? That it *might* turn out bad? What, more badly than the thousand other ways that Christians have justified prejudice, hatred, misogyny, murder, and genocide?

That's all you have? That it *might* go badly? As in, badly *how*?

[Chuck Naill]

... Therefore, it is important to me to point out that voluntary practices can lead to some disastrous results.

This is your reason for not respecting the choice of others to join monasteries? That it *might* turn out bad? What, more badly than the thousand other ways that Christians have justified prejudice, hatred, misogyny, murder, and genocide?

That's all you have? That it *might* go badly? As in, badly *how*?

Excellent point and thank you for listing, "other ways that Christians have justified prejudice, hatred, misogyny, murder, and genocide". Those practices can only occur when people act either ignorantly or have been misinformed. What I am attempting to do is to focus on what Jesus said and then later the first apostles, and practices by first century Jesus societies rather than actions, practices and restrictions, that were added later.

Yes, "might go badly" is appropriate to say. For example, a man entering the priesthood and taking a vow of celibacy, might go badly. It has occurred and you've pointed it out. However, it doesn't always go badly.

[TSherbs]

[
Excellent point and thank you for listing, "other ways that Christians have justified prejudice, hatred, misogyny, murder, and genocide". Those practices can only occur when people act either ignorantly or have been misinformed.

That's your explanation for Christians acting badly?

You are quite the religious apologist. Impressive wall of rationalization you have erected around your thinking.

Why is it, then, that the word of God has so little lasting power for good over its followers? Surely, the "living word" of the Messiah would have more effectiveness, since only human ignorance would misdirect its followers. Does the word of God have so little strength next to a paltry human characteristic like ignorance? The promise of manna in heaven for eternity? And yet Christian belief is falling in this country? Odd, no?

[Chuck Naill]

It is a rare thing for a person to be is a pastoral/teacher position and be this honest about the problems within the Evangelical gatherings, but this is one for those interested.

"The result we get is the natural outcome of the basic message we are preaching and that outcome is shocking to some people. What is the alternative? Well, we can try preaching the gospel Jesus preached in the way He preached it. We could try that. In my own life as a young, very green Southern Baptist pastor it came as a shock to me when I realized that Jesus was not preaching what I was preaching, and then I realized that I had been taught that I was not supposed to preach what he was preaching. In fact, in one way or another, that teaching has become standard. We today do not know how to preach what he preached. The idea grows up that Paul had one gospel and Jesus had another, which is patently false once you look at the texts. You’d never get that idea from the New Testament unless you were told it must be there."
https://dwillard.org/articles/failure-of-evangelical-political-involvement

[Chuck Naill]

[
Excellent point and thank you for listing, "other ways that Christians have justified prejudice, hatred, misogyny, murder, and genocide". Those practices can only occur when people act either ignorantly or have been misinformed.

That's your explanation for Christians acting badly?

You are quite the religious apologist. Impressive wall of rationalization you have erected around your thinking.

Why is it, then, that the word of God has so little lasting power for good over its followers? Surely, the "living word" of the Messiah would have more effectiveness, since only human ignorance would misdirect its followers. Does the word of God have so little strength next to a paltry human characteristic like ignorance? The promise of manna in heaven for eternity? And yet Christian belief is falling in this country? Odd, no?

Your best question to date. The reason is very simple, doing what Jesus told his students to do and those students carrying on the same commission is not being followed. The lasting power stems from learning that Jesus is saying the KOG is now available and deciding to become an apprentice which will result in a HS led process by which anyone and everyone can live their lives as Jesus would if he were them.

The word works for those that decide to become Jesus' friend and trust him. It has always worked. It will work today as it did in the first apostles.

What is falling away what Jesus said, "repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand". This will last until the end of the age as well as his involvement and empowerment to live in that kingdom.

[TSherbs]

If it is a good question, why don't you answer it? You *reply,* but it is not an answer to the question.

I'll try again: why can't the power of Jesus' message beat the measley weakling resistance of human frailty? Why is Christian religious faith declining in America in such circumstances where, as you claim, the message is so clear and the power of an omnipotent God is behind it?

[Chuck Naill]

If it is a good question, why don't you answer it? You *reply,* but it is not an answer to the question.

I'll try again: why can't the power of Jesus' message beat the measley weakling resistance of human frailty? Why is Christian religious faith declining in America in such circumstances where, as you claim, the message is so clear and the power of an omnipotent God is behind it?

I'll try again. See if you like this answer better than the previous.

Jesus's message does beat "the measly weakling resistance" by transforming the mind. Our spiritual formation is based on our experiences and choices we have lived through. The is why it is called "formation". When a person experiences Christian spiritual formation, they will begin to have experiences and make choices that will change how they think and act. An example might be, they don't lose their temper when wronged. Not because they grit their teeth, but because it is no longer important to have their way.

When a person discovers the option of entering the Kingdom of God and becoming an apprentice of Jesus, they experience a Holy Spirit lead spiritual transformation of their mind. This can be accomplished by practicing solitude, silence, meditation, and fasting. This will enable "the weakling resistance of human frailty" to be transformed so that we are no longer slaves to our bodies.

To answer the second question, the reason "Christian faith is declining" is simply because the Kingdom of God and Apprenticeship to Jesus has never been experienced. If you went to most churches, discipleship is a new member class where you are taught how to witness and tithe.

Had you experienced what I am talking about, you would understand what I am saying, or you would be telling me about it.

"The Evangelical “Gospel” and the Lack of Character Development

The current Evangelical understanding of salvation has no essential connection with a life morally transformed beyond the “ordinary.” Evangelicals are good at what they call “conversion.” They’re not good at what comes later, because what is preached by them as the gospel has no necessary connection to character transformation. Post-World War II Evangelicalism is, basically, fundamentalism in doctrine minus the pugnacious attitude. Unfortunately, fundamentalism defined itself in terms of correct belief, but not in terms of practice. Correct beliefs were a big and important issue and still are. I don’t question that. But now we must understand that we’ve developed a doctrine and an understanding of belief that does not entail action. It’s psychologically false, and biblically false in terms of the language there used, but that’s just the way Evangelicalism has developed. “Saving faith” has no necessary implication for becoming Christlike. The idea of Jesus as “Teacher,” as “Master,” and so on, became code language among liberals in the pre-World War II era for “merely human.” So if you talked about Jesus as a Teacher, that meant you were dismissing Him as Divine Lord, and “Teacher” disappeared from the fundamentalist (and then the Evangelical) vernacular. And, of course, where you don’t have teachers you can’t have students. So discipleship gradually disappeared during the 20th Century. Discipleship has historically been the process of association with Jesus and His people in which you become like Him. That disappeared from Evangelical practice."
https://dwillard.org/articles/failure-of-evangelical-political-involvement

If Jesus is ignored as someone who knows something, he becomes someone from which knowledge cannot be learned. Is it any big mystery that American Christianity is diminishing? Of course not. It is not actually Christianity at all.

Here is a question for you, Ted. If Christians were the sort who championed others over themselves, would you want to live in that economy? Would you think a world controlled by loving others as you love yourself would go out of fashion? I do expect you to answer.

I always love to hear George C. Scott in the Dicken's Christman Carol say, "“I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach.” If somone who decides to be an apprentice of Jesus would say, "I will honor my neighbor over myself...." This would transform the world.

[Chip]

Second try: Chuck. You claimed to "hear" what Jesus said.

Please explain or I'll mobilize the little men in white coats.

[dneal]

Second try: Chuck. You claimed to "hear" what Jesus said.

Please explain or I'll mobilize the little men in white coats.

Cheap shots from the underbrush?

[TSherbs]

I'll try again. See if you like this answer better than the previous.

Jesus's message does beat "the measly weakling resistance" by transforming the mind.

But it doesn't. In ever increasing numbers. And throughout its history, the churches have been full of sin and crime, and the Christians have exacted terrible damage on themselves and others.

The message seems weak, attenuated, when you look at the big picture. It looks like a brand losing its market share in the USA.

[TSherbs]

I read about another Pew study this morning that showed that even among American Republicans, Christian belief and church attendance is down over the last 15 years. It's hard to see how this message is "winning" in this country.

[Chuck Naill]

The current message isn't working, and no one should be surprised. I'm not. What I am attempting to do is inform you of the difference you see today with what Jesus and the first apostles wrote and experienced.

The message or gospel of Jesus was knowledge for those first disciples that allowed the listener to know how to live. This isn't even a factor today, how to live. Jesus today isn't even considered smart. Churches are not involved in character development.

First century apprenticeship resulted in "progressive character transformation" and "routine obedience". Obedience to actually do what 1 Corinthians 13 defines as love. Not obedience in a set of rules you must follow, but in having the mind transformed so that you love from what is inside your spirit/heart. One routinely does what Jesus said would produce joy, a consistent and pervasive sense of well-being.

When somebody decides to explore this path to the KOG, they will gain experiential knowledge. It is why the early followers suffered, died, and were killed. It was something for which they could not give up. It wasn't just head knowledge.

This is much different than believing what your parents taught you and that you were supposed to believe so you could go to heaven when you die.

The scriptures were not always available and translators like John Wycliff were persecuted for translating them into English. In every time there have been voices that have allowed those that seek to return to the foundation of what Jesus did and taught. One cannot simply say Christianity doesn't work using proof of modern practices as a source. It has taken me since 1979 to discover apprenticeship with Jesus. When you reconsider the New Testament as a collection of writings by apprentices, for other apprentices, so they can know how to live, you don't have to worry about who wrote the books. Either what the books say works experientially, or they don't. If they don't, forget it. Move on and find another path that allows you to live right and brings you joy and peace.

I read and hear way too often, and especially of old men, who are miserable, cannot sleep, worry, have no peace, and are angry. As long as these people remain, there is a place for apprenticing to Jesus. And, it is never too late. Willard calls it the VIM method of vision, intent, and means. If you think this might be for you, decide you are going to do it and find out how.

[TSherbs]

... Is it any big mystery that American Christianity is diminishing? Of course not. It is not actually Christianity at all.

"actually not Christianity at all"? Wow. That's quite a charge of heresy against upwards of 200 million self-described Christians in America.

And *you* have special access and understanding of what the "real" practice would be? That's quite an insider position, Chuck. You must feel quite accomplished and secure in your understanding.

[Chuck Naill]

You think it is not working, Ted. You are convinced by reading polls. Have you ever considered if modern ideas are incompatible with what Jesus said? I didn't work for you. Could your experience have been based on something other than what Jesus said?

I'm just trying to stay engaged, Ted. For me, it helped me consider that there might be a better and more first century historical path. From what you know, does modern practices resemble what the first students were experiencing? Did you experience what they wrote they experienced? It sure wasn't for me. I had to move around, read, and reconsider that maybe what I had thought was incomplete. Maybe incomplete is more accurate for some. There is more and I want to let them know so.

This addresses your posts,
" We need to ask, if the gospels preached today were the ones originally preached, would there be such a thing as Christianity now? I don’t think so. It is now accepted that you can be a Christian forever and not become a disciple. A disciple is someone who is with Jesus learning to be like Him. That’s a disciple. Actually, that’s a disciple in any area. A child in third grade learning long division is a disciple of their teacher. They’re with them learning to be like them with respect to a certain discipline. That’s what discipleship is. If I’m a disciple of Jesus, I’m learning from Him how to lead my life in the Kingdom of God as He would lead my life in the kingdom of God if He were I. How would He do that? I’m learning from Him. I’m not learning to lead His life. He did very well with that and that’s done and over with and we don’t need to do that again. What is at issue now is my life. How am I going to lead my life?

These deserve to be answered and the concerns addressed by anyone considering this path toward discipleship.

[Chuck Naill]

I was 24, in a Baptist church, and having a discussion with the pastor about having a Methodist rebaptized to join the church. He told me it was Biblical and in The Baptist Faith and Message. I went home and studied and realized it wasn't. I came back to him and told him what he said was not in the Bible. He countered it was a tradition. I told him to hell with tradition. As Wycliff noted, the scriptures take priority and prevent abuse and worse.

[TSherbs]

Living without sex accomplishes nothing otherwise. .

I'm just noticing this now.

What did "living without sex" accomplish for Jesus? Or, do you think that he was not a virgin when he died?

[Chuck Naill]

Living without sex accomplishes nothing otherwise. .

I'm just noticing this now.

What did "living without sex" accomplish for Jesus? Or, do you think that he was not a virgin when he died?

Living without sex or giving all your money away to the poor does not, in a of itself, produce character. It does not result in moral knowledge. When decide Jesus was brilliant and expect him to know what he is talking about, you decide to trust him just like you trust that a doctor knows how to address your medical needs. You expect him to have a degree of knowledge. Jesus had knowledge of how to live a good life, how to know what is right and what is wrong. Oddly, I had a person recently say it was not possible to love your neighbor as you love yourself. First step is to see loving another person as you do yourself as a good way to live. Then you decide to figure out how to do it. Think of all the societal problems that would be remedied by everyone acting that way.

Yesterday you said something about Mike Pense trying to force his religion. He might be, but more than that, he is talking about moral knowledge or what is right and wrong, good and evil. On the other hand, you have a different opinion and are trying to force your way with what you think is right and wrong, good or bad. Where did you get your knowledge? Mike got his from God. It is not something he invented inside of himself or just arbitrarily decided to think.

Being a disciple isn't fath, in the sense that most people think. It is faith that causes you to consider that Jesus might have something of value to offer. Over time, in apprenticeship, the faith becomes experiential knowledge of how to have a good life, full of joy.

[TSherbs]

Living without sex accomplishes nothing otherwise. .

I'm just noticing this now.

What did "living without sex" accomplish for Jesus? Or, do you think that he was not a virgin when he died?

Living without sex or giving all your money away to the poor does not, in a of itself, produce character. It does not result in moral knowledge. When decide Jesus was brilliant and expect him to know what he is talking about, you decide to trust him just like you trust that a doctor knows how to address your medical needs.

I don't see an answer to my question here: What good did Jesus receive from abstaining from sex? Or do you think that he did not abstain? I ask because he was the "messiah," and because he is typically considered to have been celibate, and thus would be the most famous Christian celibate.

[Chuck Naill]

I responded to the question in context to what I wrote which is relevant to our conversations about poverty and the monastic tradition.

[TSherbs]

I don't see an answer to my question here: What good did Jesus receive from abstaining from sex? Or do you think that he did not abstain? I ask because he was the "messiah," and because he is typically considered to have been celibate, and thus would be the most famous Christian celibate.

Ok, I'll ask it as a new question then.

Was Jesus a celibate?

[Chuck Naill]

Apparently!

[TSherbs]

In Matthew 19, Jesus also tells some men in the crowd that some persons choose to be celibate. In fact, he defends the practice when the crowd says that if we can't divorce and remarry, then it is better not to marry at all. Jesus actually agrees, although he says that celibacy is only for *some* people. So, is it "better" to marry than to be celibate (you ask me)? Jesus addresses this with this answer: not always. This is in the same chapter that he tells the rich man that to be "perfect" he must sell all of his wealth and property, give the money to the poor, and "follow me." I see in this chapter both a defense of voluntary poverty AND of celibacy, contrary to your criticisms of the practices. Jesus is not saying that ALL people MUST do these things (that has been your strawman argument). Of course not. But in both cases Jesus does say that he supports these sacrifices (of money, of sexuality) for some people. These are FAMOUS cases, Chuck. I don't understand why you resist them so much.

[Chuck Naill]

To be perfect it to be whole or complete.

There is no resistance. I’m conversing with where you appear to be in all of this. You don’t understand, but you think you do.

Paul discussed marriage and celibacy. He said if you couldn’t control yourself, marry. If you’re single and not married don’t seek to be as a practical manner in which to live, not in a rule or law, but consideration.

[TSherbs]

.... You don’t understand, but you think you do.

Is this similar to how you think that in America they do not practice actual "Christianity"? Your special sense of Christian exceptionalism that even stands above the rest of America's 200 million believers?

Just to bring this entire conversation back to where I joined it: I have shown precisely where in the gospels Jesus "advocates" for voluntary poverty, and now additionally where he advocates for celibacy (not for everyone, in either case, but for *some*).

These are two of the vows that some monastics take voluntarily, following the words of Jesus himself (if you take the gospels to be an accurate record of what Jesus said). When, Chuck, you say that monastic living and the words of Jesus do not even "relate," this is when I know that you are engaged in a deep psychological and intellectual resistance to the idea of some people choosing relative poverty and choosing celibacy in their service to the Christian God. You say that you are not "resisting" these ideas, but you only address my passages and questions under repeated questioning from me and then simply claim that I am wrong because I don't understand (and then you spin off into sermons on other topics).

Here is the only reason that I entered this conversation recently:

You said that Jesus did not "advocate poverty." I entered and demonstrated that he in fact did, in a few specific cases.

You said that celibacy was a questionable practice. I noted that Jesus (famously) defends the idea of celibacy for *some* individuals.

I asked why you did not respect these practices (traditions) when Jesus himself defends or advocates for both of them. You replied that I did not understand. I don't think that I am the only one who doesn't "understand" your thinking here, Chuck. Either you haven't put what you're thinking clearly, or you are simply stating personal opinions (your perogative, but when you speak for Jesus or the gospels, it is pretty easy to fact-check you and see if you are correct).

You've even claimed that America does not practice real Christianity. Which side are you on, the false Christianity with 200 million others, or the real side with just....you?

[Chuck Naill]

What you posted was was not anything to do with volunteering to perform any religious practice. I’ve explained the context and why Jesus didn’t teach religious practices. Simply, they do not result in spiritual transformation.

Nothing to do with exceptionalism.

Celibacy in the sense of a religious practice is not the same as deciding to remain single or not married.

Evangelicals in the US are not teaching apprenticeship to Jesus. Since Jesus told his first students to make disciples, even you should be able to recognize, this isn’t occurring. And. It is the reason you see the nonsense done by people who would refer to themselves as Christians.

[Chuck Naill]

Instead of arguing, people should consider what knowledge provides for an abundance of living. Was Jesus correct? Is living in a mentality by which we treat others as equals or as more important than ourselves going to work produce a good life? Churches should become laboratories. Test these concepts and theological principles as we would any ideas of physics.

[Chuck Naill]

Ted’s probably resistant to any consideration that Jesus might know what he’s talking about. It would mean Ted would have to change his mind. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for made up mind to enter the KOG.

[TSherbs]

I'm right here, Chuck. Why are you writing about me, rather than to me? I am not the subject here.

[Chuck Naill]

Why are you offended? We are not having a private conversation. My posts aren’t for you necessarily. If you get something, fine. It is not as if you are “my most excellent Theophilous.”

[TSherbs]

Celibacy in the sense of a religious practice is not the same as deciding to remain single or not married.


Jesus was discussing unmarried celibacy for God. He described it as living the life of a "eunuch" for "the sake of the kingdom of heaven." He says to the audience, "He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” In other words, "This is fine for some people." The passage is both about not having sex AND denying it for God. It says so, in plain words.

[TSherbs]

Why are you offended? I'm not. And I am not the subject. I have to say this so many times around here. Let's stay on the topic of the Bible.

[Chuck Naill]

Celibacy in the sense of a religious practice is not the same as deciding to remain single or not married.


Jesus was discussing unmarried celibacy for God. He described it as living the life of a "eunuch" for "the sake of the kingdom of heaven." He says to the audience, "He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” In other words, "This is fine for some people." The passage is both about not having sex AND denying it for God. It says so, in plain words.

Yes, who is able…….Ted.

[Chuck Naill]

Why are you offended? I'm not. And I am not the subject. I have to say this so many times around here. Let's stay on the topic of the Bible.

I’m trying, but you keep going down rabbit holes.

[TSherbs]

Celibacy in the sense of a religious practice is not the same as deciding to remain single or not married.


Jesus was discussing unmarried celibacy for God. He described it as living the life of a "eunuch" for "the sake of the kingdom of heaven." He says to the audience, "He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” In other words, "This is fine for some people." The passage is both about not having sex AND denying it for God. It says so, in plain words.

Yes, who is able…….Ted.

Yes! Finally, got you to acknowledge what Jesus is saying. But why you say he does not mean it as a religious practice is beyond me (he says, "for the kingdom of heaven"). This is what I mean as "resistance." For some reason you keep resisting (dragging your feet, slow to acknowledge) the common clear meaning of what Jesus--your savior--says in some places about giving away one's money, living as with virtually nothing, or even being celibate....if one chooses. Jesus either asks the persons to do some of this, or he states to his audience that that choice is fine. This is what I have repeatedly called voluntary poverty or monastic vows.

[TSherbs]

Why are you offended? I'm not. And I am not the subject. I have to say this so many times around here. Let's stay on the topic of the Bible.

I’m trying, but you keep going down rabbit holes.

That's a fucking joke. Rabbit holes? *I* go down rabbit holes? Note how many times I have to trim your sermons and editorializing out of my responses in order to keep you focused.

[Chuck Naill]

Why are you offended? I'm not. And I am not the subject. I have to say this so many times around here. Let's stay on the topic of the Bible.

I’m trying, but you keep going down rabbit holes.

That's a fucking joke. Rabbit holes? *I* go down rabbit holes? Note how many times I have to trim your sermons and editorializing out of my responses in order to keep you focused.

You think this is all about Ted!! You, as an atheist, have some oddball sense of knowledge and/or responsibility. Lol!!’n 😂😂

If you were a preacher’s child, discribe the gospel message you were taught.

[TSherbs]

Why are you offended? I'm not. And I am not the subject. I have to say this so many times around here. Let's stay on the topic of the Bible.

I’m trying, but you keep going down rabbit holes.

That's a fucking joke. Rabbit holes? *I* go down rabbit holes? Note how many times I have to trim your sermons and editorializing out of my responses in order to keep you focused.

You think this is all about Ted!! ...

What? Are you on sedatives, or something? What the fuck are you talking about, "all about Ted"?

The last post on topic here was mine, Chuck. Get back on the topic.

[TSherbs]

Celibacy in the sense of a religious practice is not the same as deciding to remain single or not married.


Jesus was discussing unmarried celibacy for God. He described it as living the life of a "eunuch" for "the sake of the kingdom of heaven." He says to the audience, "He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” In other words, "This is fine for some people." The passage is both about not having sex AND denying it for God. It says so, in plain words.

Yes, who is able…….Ted.

Yes! Finally, got you to acknowledge what Jesus is saying. But why you say he does not mean it as a religious practice is beyond me (he says, "for the kingdom of heaven"). This is what I mean as "resistance." For some reason you keep resisting (dragging your feet, slow to acknowledge) the common clear meaning of what Jesus--your savior--says in some places about giving away one's money, living as with virtually nothing, or even being celibate....if one chooses. Jesus either asks the persons to do some of this, or he states to his audience that that choice is fine. This is what I have repeatedly called voluntary poverty or monastic vows.

Here's that post.

[Chuck Naill]

No idea how to diagnose your profundity,
Ted. I just considered your experience being a preacher kid.

I wasn’t!! I had to learn this on my own.