Deuteronomy Chat (Theology Discussion from Trumperama Thread)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

That's like saying Christianity is the same as the Westboro baptist church? - you're taking a very small minority and branding an entire religion with their stance.

I've an Iranian friend who is presently studying for a Phd at FIT, as it stands is likely to be deported in three months time - he drinks harder than I do and plays poker with me regularly ... he loves BBQ and disk golf ... sound like your expectation of a 'Muslim'? ... perhaps you need to revisit your expectations by actually meeting real people rather than relying on propoganda?

(so yeah that's one of many reasons why I'm somewhat peeved over peoples 'I can't believe anyone is upset by this' style comments in the last few years ... not meaning on this forum, but generally irl and on facebook)

The Westboro Baptist Church is a handful of people with no power in the world. They're a laughingstock in this country.

When we are talking about the Muslim world we have to accept that a large contingent of it support a repressive culture toward women and gays. They support things such as Sharia law. These aren't tiny segments of the population, they are the people who run these countries.

I don't agree with the ban because I think it's beneath a first world country. Also because it isn't done to prevent terrorism. While it is propaganda to suggest that they are all terrorists, it's also propaganda to suggest that they are all progressive happy-go-lucky people. These are countries where women are treated as property and gays are executed. It is fair to question a culture that is prominent in those civilizations and how it fits in with our own.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Westboro Baptist Church is a handful of people with no power in the world. They're a laughingstock in this country.

When we are talking about the Muslim world we have to accept that a large contingent of it support a repressive culture toward women and gays. They support things such as Sharia law. These aren't tiny segments of the population, they are the people who run these countries.

A large part of the Christian churches in my area believe that the apocolypse is required for Jesus to come back and once a year do 'signs of the end of the world' style speeches to try and scare people into believing ... you don't think this is scary to those of us who are rational?

These same churches support things like victimizing minority groups like the LGBTQ sections and other relgions - yes they couch these things in 'God fearing' words like encouraging them to turn away from their sin ... but discrimination and hateful rhetoric is still what it is ..

[Marc Vaughan]

Genocide as encouraged in the bible ...

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 20:17

You must utterly destroy the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, just as the LORD your God has commanded you.

21:2 Then Israel made this vow to the LORD: “If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy their cities."
21:3 The LORD heard the voice of Israel and delivered up the Canaanites; then they utterly destroyed them and their cities. Thus the name of the place was called Hormah (Utter Destruction).

But yeah by all means ignore that side of things and pick upon other religions texts while ignoring your own ..

(sorry but people picking and choosing selectively from the bible is one of my pet peeves)

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

(sorry but people picking and choosing selectively from the bible is one of my pet peeves)

I don't think everybody has to believe the exact same thing or nothing at all.

I'm allowed to be inspired by portions of different religions, all of which I see as imperfect human attempts to connect with similar ideas and spiritual experiences.

If I connect with a story about Jesus and find inspiration to be a better person or to try to connect with something on a spiritual level, I'm not also required to follow thousands-of-years-old Jewish law from the Old Testament.

Like lots of things in life, there's a million ways to process what exactly the bible is, and whether any of it has meaning or value to you or not.

The bible was written by very different people of different times and and of different religious beliefs, and then it was organized by a different group of people at a different time. Once it's accessed by different people with different backgrounds and life experiences, and living in different times under different kinds of governments, there's going to be a lot of different takes on things. That doesn't invalidate everybody's personal experience with religion or spirituality. Non-religious people seem to think that all Christians believe that "God wrote the bible" all at once and than personally gave it to us all at once like a binding employee manual.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Genocide as encouraged in the bible ...





But yeah by all means ignore that side of things and pick upon other religions texts while ignoring your own ..

(sorry but people picking and choosing selectively from the bible is one of my pet peeves)

People not understanding the basics of old law/new law distinctions and then pretending to quote the bible is one of mine.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

To be fair, he said scripture he's read.

This deserves a golf clap at a minimum.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

People not understanding the basics of old law/new law distinctions and then pretending to quote the bible is one of mine.

Nice excuse - strangely muslims make similar ones for their scriptures ... but also while you might give that distinction the bible doesn't ..

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

People not understanding the basics of old law/new law distinctions and then pretending to quote the bible is one of mine.

So you are cool with no chicks talking in church because it is new law?

1 Corinthians 14:34

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

People not understanding the basics of old law/new law distinctions and then pretending to quote the bible is one of mine.

Eh... I think people get too cut and dried about the Old Testament vs. New Testament (and I'd quibble its not old law/new law, but law/gospel, but I'm a Lutheran, so...). It seems far more evidence of a greater understanding of God as time passes. So the later Prophets almost sound more like Jesus than do the Prophets in Genesis.

[molson]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

So you are cool with no chicks talking in church because it is new law?

1 Corinthians 14:34

The role of women and their treatment in law and society is different in the U.S. in 2017 than it was in either the Roman empire or christian community 2000 years ago. An apostle wrote a letter to a church a long time ago about what was going on in that time and place, in a different society and government and place. It's not binding on me or the way I view the world any more than grandfather's ideas about how we should live our lives. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to appreciate Jesus' teachings, or be a part of a christian community. Or appreciate some of the things my grandfather taught me, even though I, born a lot later, am going to have very different views on many other things in society and government.

Are we allowed to admire George Washington or Abraham Lincoln or our great-grandparents even though many of their policy views are a product of their times and very different from the way we view the world today? I think there's certain values that are timeless, and I think a lot of those are expressed in different ways in religious dogma and writings, but specific laws and societal attitudes and forms of government are always going to evolve in human history, and that's a good thing.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Nice excuse - strangely muslims make similar ones for their scriptures ... but also while you might give that distinction the bible doesn't ..

Actually, it very clearly does and it borrows on the ancient greek concept of the tutor/guardian in doing so.

Galatians 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Actually, it very clearly does and it borrows on the ancient greek concept of the tutor/guardian in doing so.

Have you actually studied any theology from the last 100 years? Because my studies indicate the relationship between the Law and the Gospels is still very much an evolving discussion.

I learned how to cherry pick verses to support denominational dogma in Sunday School, too.

And then I learned as a grown up that if it really was that simple, we probably still wouldn't be arguing about how this shit all works out 2k years later.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

A large part of the Christian churches in my area believe that the apocolypse is required for Jesus to come back and once a year do 'signs of the end of the world' style speeches to try and scare people into believing ... you don't think this is scary to those of us who are rational?

I'm sure it is scary to people like yourself. It's supposed to be.

Originally Posted by Jesus Christ, Matthew 10:28(ESV)

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both body and soul in hell"

I wonder, to put the shoe on the other foot, if you've much considered the impact of telling religious people that their core beliefs are not rational?

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

(sorry but people picking and choosing selectively from the bible is one of my pet peeves)

One of mine as well, though I'd suggest you might be doing the same thing here. Specifically as it relates to the very important statements by Jesus in Matthew 5 that you quoted, the first verse you mentioned referred to Jesus 'fulfilling' the law. One big, obvious example of this is in the fact that Christians don't do blood/grain/etc. sacrifices anymore. Why not? Was this not commanded in the Law? The gospels get at this some, but large parts of the book of Hebrews are devoted why that's no longer necessary(Jesus is the perfect lamb, replacing the imperfect system of animal sacrifice as a superior one, dying once for all, etc.). I understand why unbelievers get frustrated with those who manipulate and abuse the Bible, but very often they are doing the exact same thing, though not always intentionally.

Originally Posted by Molson

Non-religious people seem to think that all Christians believe that "God wrote the bible" all at once and than personally gave it to us all at once like a binding employee manual.

I think they are correct on this point. Jesus said that basically in the passage Marc quoted, and Peter said it about the OT and about Paul's writings, and Paul said his message was that which came from Jesus, and ... It's an offensive thing to say in our times, but that doesn't make it less true; rejecting parts of the Bible that you don't like is a decidedly unChristian thing to do. Those who believe the essence of what you've stated are often moral and religious people. It is not logical or accurate to label them Christian however, since they reject large sections of what he did and taught. Examples of this abound, but there is Calvin's "We owe to Scripture the same reverence that we owe to God", the Westminster Confession begins with a grand statement about the Bible because without reliance on it we know very little of what we know in terms of theology, the obvious reliance upon it and belief in it's authority that Jesus consistently demonstrated(the temptation before his ministry by Satan is particularly instructive), etc.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

BTW, the reply to their troll can apply to you too:
“And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"

"Command" of course refers to love one another

I think it's worth pointing out here that while I do agree with your general point, that's not what the command refers to. We find that in the very next verse(Matthew 15:3-4). It's 'honor your father and mother'.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think they are correct on this point. Jesus said that basically in the passage Marc quoted, and Peter said it about the OT and about Paul's writings, and Paul said his message was that which came from Jesus, and ... It's an offensive thing to say in our times, but that doesn't make it less true; rejecting parts of the Bible that you don't like is a decidedly unChristian thing to do. Those who believe the essence of what you've stated are often moral and religious people. It is not logical or accurate to label them Christian however, since they reject large sections of what he did and taught. Examples of this abound, but there is Calvin's "We owe to Scripture the same reverence that we owe to God", the Westminster Confession begins with a grand statement about the Bible because without reliance on it we know very little of what we know in terms of theology, the obvious reliance upon it and belief in it's authority that Jesus consistently demonstrated(the temptation before his ministry by Satan is particularly instructive), etc.

As a pastor friend of mine once pointed out, the New Testament is really just a re-interpretation of the Old Testament. The Bible was written by men, about their experiences with the divine. Men can be flawed in their understanding of God. You quote Calvin, but Calvin also believed that God came to people as they were and only explained things to their level of understanding and gradually revealed more and more (which may have seemed to make the original description irrelevant - it's the same as parents explain things to kids, Calvin even described Genesis as God's babytalk).

I think treating Scripture as equally reverent as God is idolatry. God is God. The Bible is an attempt by inspired people to write down their experiences with God. It is not God. Nor is it God's direct word. I think Karl Barth had it right - what really matters is God's direct revelation, especially in its ultimate form, in Jesus Christ. Scripture is not revelation but a record of revelation. That doesn't make it important; it just makes it not acceptable for worshipping (I guess you can venerate it as Catholics and Orthodox do with Saints).

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I wonder, to put the shoe on the other foot, if you've much considered the impact of telling religious people that their core beliefs are not rational?

Yes I have - I'm of the opinion that a persons beliefs should be open to discussion - that is how we grow as people, change and hopefully improve.

The brightest person I know is a childhood friend back home who became a clergyman and we often have debates on religion.

(I've also done the whole bible school thing myself despite not being a Christian I was once married to one and tried to understand her perspective as her beliefs were important to her)

I understand why unbelievers get frustrated with those who manipulate and abuse the Bible, but very often they are doing the exact same thing, though not always intentionally.

I believe that all Christians have their own unique interpretation of Christianity which tailors itself to their perspective - its a bit like how peoples political perspectives can differ even if they support the same party.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I believe that all Christians have their own unique interpretation of Christianity which tailors itself to their perspective - its a bit like how peoples political perspectives can differ even if they support the same party.

Agree with this - I sum the Bible up to mean 'be a better person', and if we can't quite manage that all the time, it means 'at least, don't be a dick'

The exact detail is mostly flannel.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

The Bible was written by men, about their experiences with the divine. Men can be flawed in their understanding of God.

This pretty much is the heart of the matter, and one of those places where our differing theological bents run into each other. The basic issue with this from my point of view is it just doesn't fit with the fact that Jesus was constantly quoting the Bible as authoritative, not 'flawed'. And this was true even when dealing with situations where he wasn't talking to the religious leaders who relied on it, hence my reference to him being tempted by the Devil. I'm not comfortable, to put it mildly, adopting a view of Scripture that is this far removed from the way Jesus treated it.

.02

As far as idolatry goes, I don't think reverence and worship mean the same thing. I don't worship the Bible, and I don't think that was Calvin meant either.

[digamma]

Could we move Deuteronomy Chat to a different thread if folks want to continue it?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This pretty much is the heart of the matter, and one of those places where our differing theological bents run into each other. The basic issue with this from my point of view is it just doesn't fit with the fact that Jesus was constantly quoting the Bible as authoritative, not 'flawed'. And this was true even when dealing with situations where he wasn't talking to the religious leaders who relied on it, hence my reference to him being tempted by the Devil. I'm not comfortable, to put it mildly, adopting a view of Scripture that is this far removed from the way Jesus treated it.

.02

As far as idolatry goes, I don't think reverence and worship mean the same thing. I don't worship the Bible, and I don't think that was Calvin meant either.

"same reverence that we owe God" seems very, very close to worship. I find that Calvinist churches tend to be the closest to Bibolatry. I also don't find Jesus' treatment of Scripture to be presupposing that it was written directly by God. Plenty of times He refers to Scripture right before He changes it's meaning - divorce, laws on washing before eating, laws on the Sabbath. I think those things showcase that Jesus is pointing to those commandments as being written by men or, if you'd rather, being for the people where they were (ie, Moses talked about divorce in that way, because that was good for you then, but I speak of it this way because it is good for you now).

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by digamma

Could we move Deuteronomy Chat to a different thread if folks want to continue it?

Yeah no kidding! ....Blasphemer!!!!

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

Plenty of times He refers to Scripture right before He changes it's meaning - divorce, laws on washing before eating, laws on the Sabbath.

I don't really think that's true. Not only does he specifically state that it is authoritative, the passage Marc quoted at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount("not the least stroke of a pen"), but he also defends his own actions as being lawful(Mark 3:3-5). At times he corrects those who are elevating tradition above the law, other times he corrects their errant interpretations(e.g. Mark 2:23-28), and there are some which fit into the category of areas where he has fulfilled the law as discussed earlier in the thread. Jesus tells the Pharisees to 'go and learn what this means'. Discussing the way of salvation he says to Nicodemus he states 'are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?'. The Law is where he should have learned them, and he doesn't call Nicodemus a teacher, but the teacher.

I appreciate your perspective, and I can't say that I think I fully understand every reference to the law that Jesus makes, but there aren't any of his interactions with it that I would classify as changing the meaning.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's an offensive thing to say in our times, but that doesn't make it less true; rejecting parts of the Bible that you don't like is a decidedly unChristian thing to do.

I'm sure that many racists and bigots would consider my home Lutheran church "un-Christian", but there's also Muslim terrorists who think that Muslims who haven't waged war on infidels are doing it wrong. That's their position, it's not one I'm required to adopt. And I'm not required to commit genocide on Canaanites or own slaves just because I find value in that "un-Christian" community and the crazy shit they do, like support refugees and marry gay people. There's no real, practical significance for some other more fundamentalist church declaring that mine doesn't count as "Christian."

Edit: Though, I think there is a practical significance to clinging to outdated societal values and preaching hate. If association with the word "christian" requires maintaining turn-of-the-last-millennium attitudes on women, sexuality, war, slavery, etc, than Christianity becomes a very different thing on earth and in the U.S. in 2017.

[Brian Swartz]

If literally anything can qualify as Christian, then 'Christian' is a useless word devoid of meaning.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't really think that's true. Not only does he specifically state that it is authoritative, the passage Marc quoted at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount("not the least stroke of a pen"), but he also defends his own actions as being lawful(Mark 3:3-5). At times he corrects those who are elevating tradition above the law, other times he corrects their errant interpretations(e.g. Mark 2:23-28), and there are some which fit into the category of areas where he has fulfilled the law as discussed earlier in the thread. Jesus tells the Pharisees to 'go and learn what this means'. Discussing the way of salvation he says to Nicodemus he states 'are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?'. The Law is where he should have learned them, and he doesn't call Nicodemus a teacher, but the teacher.

I appreciate your perspective, and I can't say that I think I fully understand every reference to the law that Jesus makes, but there aren't any of his interactions with it that I would classify as changing the meaning.

Divorce:

Deuteronomy 24:1-4

1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Matthew 19:7-8

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

I cannot read this in any other way than Jesus is changing the law. Yes, some say that the original law was Adam & Eve joined together forever, which is what Jesus is referring to, but the law changed and was listed in the Bible as the law. I think you have to tie yourself into knots to think of it in any other way.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

If literally anything can qualify as Christian, then 'Christian' is a useless word devoid of meaning.

That's true. Which is why I find that if a person/group does not stress to love your neighbor as yourself or love God and love neighbor, then they are not acting Christian.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

If literally anything can qualify as Christian, then 'Christian' is a useless word devoid of meaning.

Someone can choose to believe that. It doesn't make any practical difference to church communities that believe differently. History is filled with religious groups splitting up because one group thinks the other is doing it wrong. Many ECLA churches split over gay marriage and gay pastors. The ones on the fundamentalist side of that split surely thought the others weren't "real Christians". So what. It just kind or proves the point of the reason for the split.

Any church or pastor who held themselves out as the "one true" faith or "correct version of Christianity" is one I'd personally stay the fuck away from. I don't think any human has a perfect understanding of god and the universe and meaning of life and the best way to use our time on earth, etc. Maybe others would be happier in a stricter, more rigid type of church. I'm more drawn to a type of church, religion, manner of prayer, etc., that recognizes that we don't have all the answers. Fortunately I live in a country where I'm allowed to do that, and we're not shut down or killed for not being "real Christians" - which is very much the environment many Muslims face in different parts of the world.

If for some reason, we all agreed not to identify ourselves as Christian unless we maintained 0 AD-era views on women, sexuality, war, slavery, etc, Christianity would die very quickly, even faster than it is. It's mostly the fake Christians that are keeping Christianity relevant at all with young people, and in modern American cities, etc.

[Brian Swartz]

I understand what you're saying Molson, but I'm talking about the truth of the way things actually are, not how one group or another feels about it. Logically speaking there are two options:

** 1. It doesn't matter what one believes theologically. If so, theology and religion are useless aside from the placebo effect.

** 2. It does matter. In this case, who is right is of tremendous practical effect. In fact, nothing could matter more. I'd suggest that the constant refrain of every single major NT writer, without exception, hammering the importance of looking out for false teacher indicates this is the biblical view.

Originally Posted by Molson

I don't think any human has a perfect understanding of god and the universe and meaning of life and the best way to use our time on earth, etc.

FWIW I completely agree with this. There's a big difference between 'perfect understanding' and 'no freaking clue, your way is as good as my way no matter what that way is, etc' though.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I understand what you're saying Molson, but I'm talking about the truth of the way things actually are, not how one group or another feels about it. Logically speaking there are two options:

** 1. It doesn't matter what one believes theologically. If so, theology and religion are useless aside from the placebo effect.

** 2. It does matter. In this case, who is right is of tremendous practical effect. In fact, nothing could matter more. I'd suggest that the constant refrain of every single major NT writer, without exception, hammering the importance of looking out for false teacher indicates this is the biblical view.

My belief is that there's lots of ways to get where you want to go. So I believe it "doesn't matter" in the sense that you're not going to hell if you pick the wrong religion and wrong specific manner of practicing it. But I think it "does matter" on an individual level if you find ways to be your best self, and to have your own personal relationship with god, no matter your conception of what god is.

For me religions are a means and a tool in that journey. Which makes me closer to agnostic/atheistic/"theology and religion are useless aside from the placebo effect", except - I think religion has great value. Humans are so limited in their understandings of such things and religion is the best way we've got to try to go down the road of understanding it more. But it's very limited, and it has a bad habit of reflecting human flaws and prejudices.

Ultimately, if I tried to spell out and articulate the mechanics of everything I believe in this moment in time (Which does include a belief in god), I'd be the only person in the world with that exact perspective and exact set of beliefs. And I think that's true of everyone. Sometimes that's a source of hostility, but in my church community, it'd be a recognition of human nature and our fallibility.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Divorce:

Deuteronomy 24:1-4


Matthew 19:7-8


I cannot read this in any other way than Jesus is changing the law. Yes, some say that the original law was Adam & Eve joined together forever, which is what Jesus is referring to, but the law changed and was listed in the Bible as the law. I think you have to tie yourself into knots to think of it in any other way.

I would say that it is the law changing, but the NT is:

1) The OT law being fulfilled so that the actions of the civil law (feasts, punishments, etc) are no longer required.

2) Both consolidating the 10 commandments, or moral law, into two basic groups (love God and love your neighbor) and expanding the scope of each commandment (not just adultery, but also lust; not just murder, but hatred; etc).

So yes, it is a change, but it's because the necessary obedience occurred to remove the punishment and it expands out the scope of the commandments.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

One of mine as well, though I'd suggest you might be doing the same thing here. Specifically as it relates to the very important statements by Jesus in Matthew 5 that you quoted, the first verse you mentioned referred to Jesus 'fulfilling' the law. One big, obvious example of this is in the fact that Christians don't do blood/grain/etc. sacrifices anymore. Why not? Was this not commanded in the Law? The gospels get at this some, but large parts of the book of Hebrews are devoted why that's no longer necessary(Jesus is the perfect lamb, replacing the imperfect system of animal sacrifice as a superior one, dying once for all, etc.). I understand why unbelievers get frustrated with those who manipulate and abuse the Bible, but very often they are doing the exact same thing, though not always intentionally.

This just set me off on an hour of research but at least it distracted me from watching an Ohio State basketball team completely unable to win a close game.

Anyway, I'm a complete Roman history nerd and know a bit about early Church history. The gospels were written after the destruction of the temple which is when animal sacrifice ended from a Jewish perspective. I started wondering if this is another piece of theology that is related to the shock of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. Hebrews is interesting though. I was thinking that it was likely written by Clement in the late first century but that seems to be a disputed theory. I'm seeing dates in the 60s all the way to mid 90's with Clement. If anyone has any additional info on the dating of Hebrews I would appreciate seeing the info. It seems there are a lot of theories and no consensus.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

but I'm talking about the truth of the way things actually are, not how one group or another feels about it.

So truth (knowledge of God) is a priori? If feelings prevent experience from being a reliable way to knowing truth, then the truth must within us from the beginning?

Is so, would coming to a different "truth" be the result of willfully contradicting what we know inside to be the real truth?

[nol]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

So truth (knowledge of God) is a priori? If feelings prevent experience from being a reliable way to knowing truth, then the truth must within us from the beginning?

I think this is what The Young Pope is about.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Molson

I believe it "doesn't matter" in the sense that you're not going to hell if you pick the wrong religion and wrong specific manner of practicing it. But I think it "does matter" on an individual level if you find ways to be your best self, and to have your own personal relationship with god, no matter your conception of what god is.

Gotcha. My conclusion is that when you talk about this subject, you're not even talking about the same thing I am. That is, I wouldn't even consider what you are talking about to be theology. It's not knowledge of God if your conception of God can be anything. The interesting thing to me is that whenever I encounter this approach, I am always befuddled. Nobody approaches the rest of their life this way. Nobody gets on I-75 and thinks it's equally likely to take them to Pittsburgh or Tampa Bay. Nobody hits the gas pedal on their car and thinks it's equally likely to stop them as speed them up. The approach in general is well-described as 'having one's feet firmly planted in mid-air'.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

So truth (knowledge of God) is a priori? If feelings prevent experience from being a reliable way to knowing truth, then the truth must within us from the beginning?

Yes and no. How's that for clarity?

I don't think it's an either/or here. I agree with what has come to be known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. John Wesley taught that the approach to truth can be described as a four-legged stool, consisting of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. The other three legs are ultimately measured against Scripture ultimately as the only authoritative, objective standard we've been given, but they are very much valuable, needed, and in fact indispensable.

There are some things we know in terms of our personal conscience, morality, the physical universe, etc., but as with everything else each person will interact with those differently which gets to your other point. 'Willfully contradicting' might be putting it too strongly, but Romans 1:18 describes mean as 'suppressing the truth by their unrighteousness'. Every person's conscience adapts to a certain degree to their behavior; the amount of guilt and types of situations that produce it change based on what moral standards they believe, how often they violate them, etc. Romans 2:14 is another verse in the same vein.

At the same time I think it's pretty obvious nobody is born with a clear opinion on the papacy, the trinity, modes of baptism, end-times theology, etc. Also in Romans is the clear statement that 'faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ'.

Of course all of this depends on one believing the Bible in the first place, which is why the Westminster Confession starts there. Nothing else matters without it. There is most definitely a logical, rational position to be staked out which simply rejects it. Even in my worst moments as an adult I have never been able, though I often wanted to, to convince myself to disbelieve it, but many believe other religions or none at all. I have a lot easier time understanding that then the kind of thing I've been talking about here. It seems to me to be a sort of self-evident, definitional kind of thing that the term 'Christian' would refer to 'one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ', and there's only one even arguably reliable source of those: the Bible. Whatever else a person who doesn't accept the Bible might be, it is to my mind absurdity that they would call themselves Christian or expect others to call them that. It's on the same level as me calling myself a grapefruit. I can claim it all I want, but anyone looking at me for five seconds will know I'm not one. I'm still slightly less rounded than that :P.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

This just set me off on an hour of research but at least it distracted me from watching an Ohio State basketball team completely unable to win a close game.

Anyway, I'm a complete Roman history nerd and know a bit about early Church history. The gospels were written after the destruction of the temple which is when animal sacrifice ended from a Jewish perspective. I started wondering if this is another piece of theology that is related to the shock of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. Hebrews is interesting though. I was thinking that it was likely written by Clement in the late first century but that seems to be a disputed theory. I'm seeing dates in the 60s all the way to mid 90's with Clement. If anyone has any additional info on the dating of Hebrews I would appreciate seeing the info. It seems there are a lot of theories and no consensus.

Of course, Paul is the the traditionally recognized author, and there are some parts of the letter that suggests he wrote it or was involved. The main reason that even more conservative scholars questions Paul's authorship is because he did not name himself as he did in other letters, and that the OT quotes where not from the Hebrew scriptures, but the Greek translation. A conservative approach would say that it would be someone close to Paul (because of the mention of Timothy), and also the mention in Peter's letter of a letter to the Hebrews written by Paul. Most believe that probably points to Luke, who wrote under Paul's influence.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Of course, Paul is the the traditionally recognized author, and there are some parts of the letter that suggests he wrote it or was involved. The main reason that even more conservative scholars questions Paul's authorship is because he did not name himself as he did in other letters, and that the OT quotes where not from the Hebrew scriptures, but the Greek translation. A conservative approach would say that it would be someone close to Paul (because of the mention of Timothy), and also the mention in Peter's letter of a letter to the Hebrews written by Paul. Most believe that probably points to Luke, who wrote under Paul's influence.

I'll second this. I'm of the opinion that it was written by Luke, but looks different from Luke's other writings because a) the other where written as historical accounts for a specific audience and b) Luke picked up some of Paul's colloquialisms the same way we all do when we're around someone else for a long enough time.