 Posted Wednesday, December 10, 2008 4:17 PM
|
|
|
|
| John, I've encountered that quote ("...if there had never been a Gallelian prophet...") quite a few times before. But reading it again, I was impressed with something I had not previously paid attention to: "I do not find my authority for Christian Science in history, but in revelation This, er, demonstrates that Eddy bought into the "Higher Criticism"* of the Bible that was emerging from Germany. This school of thought presumed that the Bible was not accurate historically, and was nothing more than a collection of written and re-written oral legends far removed from the original source material. Thus, Eddy admits she finds no "authority for Christian Science in (Biblical) history." But then she slips into an enticing ambiguity: "...but in revelation." This is a subtle but excellent illustration of how Eddy/CS simultaneously manages both a public and a private meaning in her writing. (This is sometimes called "secret language," a common trait in cults.) The non-CS would be disarmed in that Eddy claims her religion is based in "revelation," and would thus assume that she means God's Word, i.e. Scripture. But the CSist would know that she meant not just the Bible, but also her own personal experiences and writings. When you have a low view of the Bible, then you allow for any and all types of doctrinal nonsense. Thus, I remain so appalled that: *This form of analysis--disregard, actually--of the Bible is called "Higher Criticism." UGH! I usually call it the "so-called 'Higher' Criticism."
|
|
|
Posted Monday, February 02, 2009 8:06 AM
|
|
|
|
"And the men that held Jesus, mocked him and smote him.... And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.... And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified."
The Gospel According to Luke, Chapter 22, verses 63, 66-71, 23:1 & 23
|
|
|
Posted Monday, February 02, 2009 11:36 AM
|
|
|
|
1John3,
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." -2 Timothy 3:16-17 (English Standard Version)
I very much appreciate Scripture and consider God's word to always to be more relevant than my own. I wonder, however, about your intended relevancy and context of the passages you share with us.
Are you a Christian Scientist? A former Christian Scientist? Associated with a Christian Scientist? I have not been able to readily determine that from the context of the passages you share.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Monday, February 02, 2009 7:45 PM
|
|
|
|
IJohn3,
Your verses are non-sequitors--they don't follow the points we are discussing. I would appreciate your actually engaging the discussion, and drawing upon verses that are genuinely relevant to the matter at hand.
Thanks you!
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, February 22, 2009 2:17 PM
|
|
|
|
| In the discussion regarding MBE being the (not) feminine aspect of God. I am not all clear as to what to believe since the old testiment states that another name for God is the many breasted one. I have studied and thought about this idea for a long time, and although I do not claim to be a Bible or spiritual scholar I have come to believe that Mary, the Mother of Jesus was the feminine aspect of God. I suppose some of you could set me straight regarding the position of Mary the Mother of Jesus based on Biblical writings. I would appreciate that.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, February 23, 2009 8:04 PM
|
|
|
|
| I'd appreciate your being specific on how/where God is called "the breasted one," Anony mouse. One thing I found out, upon exiting CS, was that there were quite a few little bits of purported wisdom or exegetical wisdom that were bandied about by CSists, but upon looking into them more critically, I learned that they were not accurate--or were completely false. What you were taught may be a very tertiary meaning given to "El Shaddai." The King James typically translates this as "God Almighty." But modern, apostate-feminist "scholars" have tried to interpret this as "God All-Bountiful," based upon a few scattered & infrequent alternate renderings. It could be that this is the basis for calling God "the breasted one." Fact is, the Bible consistently refers to God in the masculine. One may not be comfortable with that, but that is just the way it is. It is a common failure of men and women to try to strain Scripture through their own predilections, and not to let Scripture be the determiner of their doctrines.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, February 23, 2009 8:49 PM
|
|
|
|
followingHim,
...let Scripture be the determiner of their doctrines...
You just don't understand!!! How could you possibly suggest that a set of error-riddled documents such as the Bible could possibly determine doctrine??? Mary Baker Eddy, herselfness, said there are thousands of errors in the Bible for every word. What greater authority could you possibly seek??? You have to be absolutely nuts to consider that possibility.
Why don't you just grow up and return to TMC where you can gain perfect understanding? You know, be one of those perfect children.
Huh? What's that? Oh yeah, I have been out of that for a long time. Flashbacks happen. I remember the 60s from time to time.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:17 PM
|
|
|
|
| Do-Go, My computer shorted out, thanks to your sarcasm oozing all over the place! Now, we have been savy for decades that CS (as other pseudo-Christian groups) employs a pick-and-choose-your-Scripture-verses method to justify false doctrine. What we've been aware of, but perhaps never articulated, is that in Christian Science, one also picks and chooses word meanings, along with desired word translations!
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009 7:17 AM
|
|
|
|
Second coming, gender of God, and whatever that last one was... I guess this thread has wandered a bit.
Bliss Knapp's book was the last straw, for me, and the final reason for my leaving CS in 1992. When I heard that belonged in the Reading Rooms, I knew I didn't. Mrs Eddy twice in Prose Works challenged readers to follow her only as far as she followed Christ. And that's how I took it, from the time I was 13. That means I've been evaluating CS by the standard of the Bible, at every turn. In life we hear what we want to hear, and we surely notice what we want to notice when we're reading. Someone actually had to point out to me the words I'd already read... About the way Jesus was going to come back. The little book theory didn't fit.
Since I'd been taught the same Father-Mother thing as the rest of you, I didn't know it was any kind of heresy. Some kind soul explained it to me since, that God is the Creator of genders; but that gender doesn't adequately describe God. How does a bird understand what a tree is? How can it get it's bird-brain around it? It can't. But it can appreciate that tree from what it does see, know, or feel. Shelter... possibly food... support... always there... fun! I was told that the image and likeness thing had a lot more to do with our souls... you know how different each of us looks!
That's one thought anyway.
Actually the CS teaching did me some good as a child. When family (who happened to have some rather strong Asperger traits in 3 boys, and our parents never seemed to notice there was a problem) became too much for me to deal with, I ran to my room, and in tears called out to God to be my parents, since these ones didn't know what they were doing. I felt that larger than life "yes." and I got up on my knees (from prone), and looked around. The whole room was bathed in bright light. And the love I was surrounded with was like nothing else I'd ever felt. I knew God was there. That's how we were taught, but this time there was no question. That much love? Must be God. And I started asking my questions. Just like a child. Can't keep quiet and just enjoy anything. The pain and anguish was all gone. I was strengthened. When I asked him how to please him, I got the reply, "READ my BOOK; it's all in there." "The Bible?" "Yes." And because I was also thinking of the parent part, I asked what he wanted me to do with my parents. You can guess my slight disappointment when the Commandment came to mind. And then the explanation followed, that by honoring them (on earth) I'd be honoring God in heaven. So I resolved to do it. I was 10. From then on, God's Book was sacred to me. I ate it up, and did what I was told more than ever.
I don't know why I didn't rebel at the CS insinuations that there were errors in the Bible. I had firsthand assurance that it was true. I was a child, and I was trying to obey the authorities in my life. I know God didn't hold it against me. From that day, though, I knew I belonged to God.
Sorry I didn't think to ask him about the gender thing!
I don't know when the Second Coming is going to be, but if anyone says they can figure it out mathematically or by other means, I'd sincerely question it. You remember Jesus' answer when the disciples asked him "When?" regarding the end times? Only the Father knew. No man knows. Even the Jewish calculations as good as they are, have some degree of uncertainty to them. When our Savior comes back, I expect to see Jesus, not someone else! He never lied, and he promised. So even the childlike part of me knows it's true.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 7:26 PM
|
|
|
|
THE SECOND COMING
When Jesus returns to govern and bring the kingdom to earth, it will be a glorious time that will last forever. Everybody will notice the change!  
If CS is the Second Coming of Christ, please explain the slight slump in church attendance the last 60 years.
A bunch of CS churches across the land, with seating for 300, and only 12 older ladies sitting there, is not the Glorious Return of Christ to reign over creation. Christ's glorious return will not fizzle-out after half a century.
As I was taught, CS does claim to be the Second Coming of Christ, and the Comforter. And the S&H brings the Second Coming. I have known people, and seen literature, that says MBE is the Second Coming of Christ herself. But of course this is not official church doctrine.
MBE did give Christendom some wonderful ideas for which I am grateful. But the Second Coming of Christ.... I don't think so. 
The CS version doesn't look too much like the descriptions in the Bible.
Keep your eyes open! God is still speaking!
|
|
|
|