 Posted Monday, March 09, 2009 9:38 AM
|
|
|
|
To Anonymous,
It is also my opinion (and only an opinion) that “MBE and CS filled a void that traditional Christianity would not and could not fill.” But still that does not make MBE and CS correct. Traditional Christianity is man's attempt at sorting our Christ's teachings. Tradition is what culture is all about. We do the best we can within it. Traditions change a bit from time to time, but as the old saying goes "the more things change the more they stay the same." MBE and CS did not change the nature of human beings within the ranks of TMC (our nature to lie, steal, cheat or otherwise injure their brother emotionally, spiritually, sexually, socially or otherwise) any more than any other church leader did. Success among the clergy to bring its members into that "perfection" that MBE insists is us never happened with any of us, we are still big sinners. MBE says sin is unreal. Huh? History is chock full of lies, stealing, holy wars, greed, cheating etc. and all MBE and CS can say or think or do about it is to say it isn't real. So it was okay that the Coptic Christians killed a bunch of people because they didn't accept Christ. That wasn't real? Do you know why the Quran of the Islamic faith is filled with commands to kill infidels? Because the "infidels" were the Christians and the Christians were mobs of totally out of control murderous people. The Christian church is full of monsters and full of wonderful, peace making sinners. That's the tradition that the peace making sinners of the 19th and 20th Century have been trying to elevate. MBE wrote stuff that no peace loving sinner could swallow. Disease was rampant every where, greed, and fighting were rampant everywhere. What responsible peace loving leader would ever want to embrace a religious teaching that those things would stop if we just changed the way we perceived sin, and changed the meaning of Jesus/God/s words, and rewrote the words to the old music called hymns ? Christ/God bent over backwards to teach us the true way to live, think, feel and be, he even went to the cross for that reason, to SAVE us from ourselves. And although I am not a Christian, I still know that He is the One and ONLY way. If that's what you call traditional Christianity, you are right traditional Christianity rejected her. But the rest of traditional Christianity didn't even give care, they were literally hell bent on doing their traditional thing of malice and mayhem. So my thought to you is, don't paint all the "Christian Traditions" with the same brush.
I think it would have been nice if MBE gave her religion the name "Moral Science" and then possibly her focus would be more on all the aspects of morality instead of on the vocabulary-enrichment that confuses people, and all the convoluted reasoning about unreality of sin etc.
My understanding about Jesus being God: The Bible clearly says in several places that Jesus is the Savior. And since only God can save me, then Jesus is God. Why make it more complicated than that Mrs Eddy?
As a former CSist I simply got tired of being the only CSist who couldn't understand what was being said in S&H and Key to the Scriptures. The writings were incomprehensible to me, and I was third generation CS living on a small farm with no exposure to radio or TV preaching, and we certainly didn't hear any religion at school or from our friends, so you can't say that the outside world already messed me up. I personally think that a lot of CSists pretended that they understood the S&H, but they were too ashamed to admit that they didn't, or they thought they understood but never saw what I began to see as double-think, or circular-reasoning. (These are only my thoughts here people, so just keep it in mind that I am just sharing my personal experience and interpretations and opinions here....)
Another thing I want to say is that when someone tells me that Mrs. Eddy was not writing a book that would appeal to the 19th Century Christian, I have to wonder where it was that I read that she had thought that the church world would embrace her ideas with eagerness and be glad and grateful for it, and that she was despondent when they rejected ideas. I am sure I read that somewhere in her writings. Oh, well, I have been known to be wrong so often before regarding my understanding of CS that I just left. I quit. It was just too complicated for me and I didn't think I had a chance in a million to get a permanent CS healing of my asthma, my eating disorder, my full-body eczema, my loneliness, my sadness, my anger, or my losing streak with love, jobs and family.
Leaving CS was a good move for me mentally, emotionally, socially and career wise because now I am no longer covered with a huge, itchy oozing rash, I can breath instead of living one breath away from death every day of my life, I have a rich, full, emotionally lively life; a robust mentally free life; I can enjoy a little of this and a little of that while my CS family sits at home knowing how “erroneous” it all is and how full of "mortal mind" I am.
Of course I paid a huge price for all of my new health and fullness … I lost my family over it. Freedom for me came with an unspeakably huge price thanks to what I think is the denial and delusion of CS teachings.
Another voice, lots of opinions,
No More CS 4 Me
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:23 AM
|
|
|
|
If a person lumps together all things which claim to be Christian and calls it that, they deserve to be confused and discouraged. It's always been my approach to look at TRUE Christianity as it's own thing, and the REAL Church as being the one Jesus would have approved of- the one founded on Peter. The schisms and "reformers" aren't the real church. They may fight hard to become it, but you can't override Jesus. I think it's important to keep a distinction there. Otherwise you risk insulting our Lord and anything REALLY TRUE that's following him.
MBE actually did think at first that the established Churches of her day would welcome her revelations. I don't think it occurred to her that they expected her to realize that Jesus' Church has the authority to say what is and isn't true teaching.
False teachers face some pretty horrible penalties, according to New Testament teaching. So I'd be careful what I wrote. As soon as a person steps in with opinions, and makes them public, someone could look at them as their teacher. It takes real humility to subject your pet hypotheses to the test of the teachings of Jesus, and the Apostles, and see if the notions really have merit. And it has to take as much humility to test your dearest interpretations -and even your Church's teachings- to the same tests, and then accept whatever results God shows you in his Word. The Bible is called the Word of God for a reason. Jesus also had that title, for good reason. Just because I'm Catholic doesn't mean every priest who's ordained is actually following the Pope, or the conventional teachings of the Church. There ARE renegades, and people trying to change the Church to be more liberal. I've gotten some pretty bad advice from the "liberal" ones; whereas the ones who closely follow Jesus haven't failed me yet (no matter what Church I've found them in).
When I want to know more clearly what a verse says, I have a study project on my hands. First there's the comparative research, of what else the Bible says on that subject. B. Cobbey Chrissler has a lot of good talks and guides on Bible Study. I was introduced to him by my CS cousin, and many CSer's can listen to him although he is definitely considered Christian. I don't think he's Catholic, so some of his teachings may be differing. Once I've found out what else the Bible says on the subject, there's the option of looking into the original language, and seeing how it's been translated most faithfully. That means reading the footnotes in the study Bibles, or looking up words in Bible Dictionaries or other research books... A diaglott never hurt. Whenever we have Bible studies, we ask people who've brought different translations to share how theirs translates certain key passages, if they differ greatly, or are inspiring. As always, it depends on the original intent of the writers, IN THEIR ORIGINAL TONGUE, and usage.
I still agree with the fellow who made a point out of noticing the re-defining of terms (spiritual interpretations), and how that has an undermining effect on the actual meaning of the Bible passages. It is quite possible to lose the intended meaning, which our Lord wanted us to get, when you allow it to be muddled up by other meanings for the words.
Briefly, to illustrate, the kids of my daughter's age have shifted their meanings for a lot of words. Kids do that. (So we shouldn't be surprised if Bible scholars have a lot to wade through.) However, we had to correct something one day, and were unaware of the meanings the kids had attached to the otherwise appropriate wording. She was furious, not realizing that we meant no insult... and it took days to get through to her that not everyone held to those meanings, and that the "NEW" meanings didn't eclipse or wipe out the old meanings. In CS, they know that most people don't interpret the words the way they do. Yet somehow, it never occurred to me (or others in CS who I knew) that JESUS and his Apostles might not have meant it those ways. We were told this WAS the intended interpretation and meaning... and like innocent lambs that we are, we believed it. It's natural not to easily believe anyone who says different. That still doesn't change the truth.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:57 AM
|
|
|
|
"Then he spoke to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; look, here are my hand. Give me your hand; put it into my side. Do not be unbelieving any more but believe.' Thomas replied, 'My Lord and my God!' Jesus said to him: You believe because you can see me. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." John 20:27-29 (The New Jerusalem Bible - Saints Devotional Ed.)
If Thomas had been incorrect, calling Jesus "My Lord and my God!" Jesus surely would have corrected him quickly. He blessed him further for the admission. If it had been idolatry, to allow it (without protest) would have been a grave sin - unless it were true, and Jesus WAS and IS Lord and God.
There would have to be other verification in the Bible, though. So Isaiah 9:5-6 takes on fresh meaning. This tells us the name given to the promised one. It is a long name. There's a lot of mystery in it, when you think about it. How could God's mouthpiece, his faithful & mighty prophet, Isaiah, write those things unless God said them, and meant them? It would have been absolute and tragic disobedience, for Isaiah to have substituted his own understanding for God's words. No, Isaiah was a better prophet than that. He told it the way God gave it to him.
Even Jesus said, "I and my Father are one."
He was really straight with people. IF it had meant some obscure thing, he would have disclosed it to his disciples, and we'd definitely see that in the Gospels. They didn't leave out the important stuff. There's more. Lots more. The Bible is full of examples and explanations of who Jesus is, and what or how to believe in him and come to him. It takes EYES to see it, though.
Ask God for those eyes and ears, to be able to see and hear what he's been saying all along. It's not enough to pick up on hidden meanings, only to miss the main ones. There's a feast for your innermost being here.
Please don't be offended by what I say, either. I've been there. It's like a spiritual blindness, not to be aware of the facts about Jesus. My heart grieves for anyone who is under the teaching that denies Jesus' full divinity. Yes he's still fully man, too. That's a bit of a mystery, but we have eternity to ponder it. What fun would it be if we didn't have something new to learn? I think it may take just about that long to "get it" too.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:17 AM
|
|
|
|
| By your comments I surmise that now you believe that the Catholic church is the only true faith? . . . (text deleted by moderator) Moderator's note: The "Protestant - Catholic" discussion is outside the scope of these forums. Let's not go there, folks.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:52 PM
|
|
|
|
| As one who participated in the last round of that debate, I agree- let's not go there. There are more apropos forums for that discussion.
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:15 PM
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure that anything I have to say here will be welcome, but if you really want to know what I believe, you might want to read my other posts.
I don't believe in arguing over unsolvable questions. 
|
|
|
Posted Friday, March 13, 2009 5:35 AM
|
|
|
|
Here's the thing: I'd really like to attempt to close up just one loophole, which Christian Science has had, about what is and isn't "the inspired Word of the Bible."
MBE loved math logic, in proving her theories. If a=b, and if b=c, then a=c.
Now, we all can admit that Jesus is inseparable from his mission. And we pretty much know how MBE admitted Christ to be God, whenever she calls it Christ, Truth.
By the above principle, Jesus IS Christ; Christ IS Truth, God; therefor, Jesus IS God.
Either CS has to set more distance between it's Christ, Truth statements, or else it has a flaw in its logic for not admitting Jesus to be God. You know, part of the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).
Now on to a verse. Hebrews 13:8. TRANSLATIONS differ, but NIV is close to KJV here. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Mrs Eddy quoted all but the object of the sentence, in S&H 2:31-32. In her quote, she simply uses the word "God" as the object.
In S&H 283: 6-7, she did it again, only this time using synonyms for God, instead of Jesus' name.
It wasn't just an innocent oversight, either. She meant it. Yet it wasn't what she taught. So, either Mrs Eddy was admitting Jesus to be God, or her grasp of the language (or correct quoting) wasn't perfect. If God gave her ANY of the inspiration, you almost have to admit that God acknowledged Jesus as ONE WITH HIM, specifically. If the Bible meant to separate the Christ from the man, it would have done it. There's a good reason for what the Bible says, and the way it's said.
Some of the confusion about Jesus' mission -especially for those of us who were born into CS and knew no other teaching- is that MBE didn't teach the Cross & Salvation or the Lamb of God the way the Bible related it, and teaches it. If CS doesn't know what's so important about WHAT Jesus did, and WHY, how does it expect get why it's so important that Jesus IS Christ, Is God!
Another verse, Hebrews 1:9 (with context 1-11), is amazing. Other Bible verses will back it up, of course. "But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,...""
Now take a look at S&H 313:14-19. Notice the snippet of this quote. To use part of the quote (honestly), MBE had to include it's integral meaning, and admit Jesus to be God. Otherwise we've caught her being deceitful, immoral, and antagonistic to the REAL Christ.
I don't believe it's appropriate to have a celebrated writer absconding with someone else's pretty words, and not have intended any of their meaning. There's something wrong with that. Call it what you like. It's hypocrisy for someone who wanted her writings to be taken IN CONTEXT, to take someone else's writings out of context to use any way she pleased.
CSers have no problem regarding every last word of MBE to be absolutely true - almost as a matter of faith. Just for fairness, I wish more CSers would give that faith to the Bible, and treat The Word of God with the same honor and respect. Give the Bible the honor due to God's Word, and regard every last word, phrase and teaching in it as ABSOLUTELY TRUE, with no additional alterations necessary. Honor God. Don't let the mice nibble away at the feast!
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 22, 2009 9:48 PM
|
|
|
|
CSers have no problem regarding every last word of MBE to be absolutely true - almost as a matter of faith. Just for fairness, I wish more CSers would give that faith to the Bible, and treat The Word of God with the same honor and respect. Give the Bible the honor due to God's Word, and regard every last word, phrase and teaching in it as ABSOLUTELY TRUE, with no additional alterations necessary. Honor God. Don't let the mice nibble away at the feast!
Jennifer,
Thank you for pointing this out - it's helped me understand some of the antagonism non-CS people seem to feel about CS people studying Mrs. Eddy's writings. Here's where I look at it differently, though. I read both the Bible and S&H the same way, and it is and isn't what you are describing at the same time. I think every word written in the Bible has a message from God that is absolutely true and I read the Bible paying attention to each word and looking for the truth that the words, collectively, convey. I do the same with S&H. However, I also realize that people can read the very same words and still get very different meanings from them, not because they believe the words aren't true but because language is very often ambiguous. In the passages Jim quoted in an earlier post, for instance, he says because the Apostles referred to God and Jesus Christ together that this means they were saying Jesus is God. But I honestly never read those passages that way, not because I was trying to manipulate the meaning but because the passages themselves seemed clearly to me to be referring to God and also Jesus Christ - two separate beings. Because I know that reading requires interpreting the meaning of the writer, I read the Bible prayerfully, listening for God's guidance to make His message clear to me. In this way, I honor God and respect the absolute Truth that is contained in the Bible even though I know that the Truth I find there is not the same as the Truth you see. When I read Science and Health it is the same. I don't think Mrs. Eddy was infallible any more than you or I are, but I do think God is infallible and that if I read S&H prayerfully, He will make His meaning clear to me in that case as well.
Jim,
I don't think the Bible says that Jesus is God. I've read the Bible, and I know that those who believe Jesus is God pull quotes like the ones you have as evidence to support that claim, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary as well (the Granville rule was developed by a guy who couldn't find proof in a straightforward reading of the English translation, after all, and his conclusions have been certainly been called into question by other Bible scholars, so that hardly seems like proof to me). It doesn't make sense to me that people argue, on the one hand, that every word of the Bible must be accepted as literal fact and then, on the other, insist that the Bible supports a view that Jesus is God. One has to ignore statements of Jesus such as those he gave in Mark 10:14 and Mark 10:18 which certainly suggest Jesus did not think he, himself was God. I appreciate your right to believe what makes sense to you, but CSers are not alone in believing that the evidence for interpreting the Bible as saying Jesus is God is minimal, at best, and that a reading that says Jesus was the Christ, the Savior, and the Son of God but not God Himself is better supported by the actual text.
Everyone else: Just thought I would mention that I have already read the argument posted elsewhere on this website outlining the texts that supposedly support the contention that Jesus is God so there is no need to rehash it here. If you do, it will not convince me, and you don't need to convince me that you have the right to believe what makes sense to you either, because I already am convinced of that.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, March 23, 2009 10:18 AM
|
|
|
|
You're welcome. I truly do appreciate the sincerity of your reading and belief. I would expect no less from a devout student of CS, knowing what it takes to be one.
Getting at the inspired meanings of things written long ago can be quite an adventure. On one hand, there are many who've taken that adventure, and noted their findings, and research, publishing them so we can have the benefit of what they've found out.
In that vein, I hope you won't mind if I paraphrase from some footnotes, given in a Study Bible I've read over the years.
Teachings in the Bible are often verified in several places. Same with prophecies. There is some degree of repetition. Lots of the Bible was written for the Jews, and some was written for gentile audiences, especially Greek. So some of the meanings have to be looked at from how they would have received the words. It's part of the context.
That being said, there are other passages, which are worth taking into account, in the question of "is Jesus all Christians say he is?" Many will give you lists of quotes.
Why is that one point so important? Well, the whole meaning of the Bible takes on an even deeper hue, when you have that point of Who Jesus Is.
Looking back to John 1:1. To the Greeks, "word" implied both the spoken form and the thought. When the Jews referred to the origin of the universe, you could pretty safely infer that they meant God, as intelligent, governing principle. That's pretty solid. John caught both groups' interest when he started this book. And it's safe to say, he knew what he was talking about.
When John describes the Word as being "with God," some see that as a distinction; and when he tells us the "Word was God" most get the full sense of oneness. He Is.
It makes sense. Pretty easy stuff.
If you follow the train of the writer, through verses, you eventually come to verse 14. I know CS has it's own interpretations of that, but Christians read it as is.
Not all scholars put the same footnotes in their study Bibles. But I wish you could see these. It would help if you knew which wording and their meanings the original was using. Words fail, so I apologize. This truly isn't my forte.
When John describes the Word, who "came from the Father" as "full of grace and Truth" there's something of a word study begging to be done, since according to these notes, tell us there's some 25 occurrences of it, and Jesus is inseparable from it.
You'd probably prefer I specified Christ, and left it to that. I don't dare.
[I fully remember how I was taught to separate things. I don't go for the lingo, though, anymore.] You see, as soon as you go and separate the two, the deepest and most far-reaching meanings of the Passion are lost, or covered up. As soon as you separate Jesus from Christ, even slightly, you're open to anyone who wants to slip in and say they've got him, and diverge completely away from the way he said he'd return. (He did specify, and a book form wasn't it.) Lose the hairs of separation, and you'd have Jesus, Messiah.
I'm faced with a problem. As much as I want to show you the reasons I believe the Bible really intends us to honor Jesus this way, ... as much as I want to say it plainly, there's a problem. It flies in the face of the stuff you've been taught is truth; and it would probably come across looking like an attack on Mrs Eddy. I know how much that would upset you. I know how much that hurts. That isn't my goal. And yet it may be the only way.
Being completely free to understand the Bible AS GOD INTENDS, depends on shaking loose (if only for a while) the influences preventing your freedom to see it.
Don't laugh or write me off as copping out. I'm not. Everything I'm trying to say here is completely serious, and totally caring. I'm not interested in deceptions. I've got other things I could be doing, than spending my time writing like this. It's just that I've seen from both sides, and there is a real difference. You won't lose God. You won't be leaving anything that can pass the tests of truth.
That's enough for the moment.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, March 23, 2009 3:28 PM
|
|
|
|
| I'd like to add one more quote on the validity of Jesus being God. I have always loved John I where he explains that He was in the begining, and He was with God, and He was God, and that He became flesh and dwelt among us. And Timothy saying, "My Lord and My God" when he saw the side and hands of Jesus. Another of my favorites is Isaiah 9:6 "...And His name will be called, Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." There is no excuse for Mighty God and Everlasting Father! It is what it is! Now, Mrs. Eddy tells us that matter and spirit can not dwell together in a human body. I never realized until I left CS how much that limited God. She teaches that God can do anything and then says that He can not dwell in a human body. Now who's limiting God? "What cannot God do?" Blessings, Susan
|
|
|
|