 Posted Saturday, June 14, 2008 9:03 PM
|
|
|
|
A thread entitled, "Is Jesus Christ?", on a Christian Science discussion forum site received some attention from the moderators. One of the moderators stepped in saying, in part, "...everyone, please take a deep breath and a step back and bear in mind that there are lots of perspectives out there ... the moderators won’t allow debate about who’s right and who’s wrong."
I echo, share, and respect their request, "Thanks for continuing in a spirit of goodwill and respect." Linda and I have had to make similar requests here from time to time. While the Christian Science moderators appear to prefer to limit the discussion to the Christian Science perspective, contributors here may appreciate the opportunity to continue examining the Christian Science and Biblical perspectives.
The discussion began asking about the Christian Science perspective regarding whether Jesus is Christ. The thread, however, also included questions and responses regarding the Biblical perspective.
Out of respect for the Christian Science moderator's request, I did not respond to a post that included the statement, "Jesus was Christ, and so are we all. Jesus just knew it and exemplified it best." I was about to ask where the Bible or even Science & Health supports such an assertion.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 5:25 PM
|
|
|
|
| While that statement certainly engenders a response from biblical-based Christianity, I likewise held my tongue (well, fingers actually) out of respect for the moderator's call for restraint. Many great questions were posed & the Word of God went out on that thread; as an evangelical Calvinist, I have no problem backing off when the message starts causing pointless animosities, for in reality it is the Spirit of God who must open minds to truth. The true Gospel will very often cause dissention whenever it is preached. Jesus had the crowd in the palm of His hand after He miraculously fed them in John 6, but He "lost" all except the 12 when He started preaching. Even Peter didn't like His message, but he knew there was nowhere else to go for truth. zoarean
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, June 17, 2008 7:50 PM
|
|
|
|
"Jesus was Christ, and so are we all. Jesus just knew it and exemplified it best." I was about to ask where the Bible or even Science & Health supports such an assertion. I just read through about 60 of 200 references to Christ in Science and Health. Mrs. Eddy really uses the word "Christ" broadly. I think most of us know her statement laying out the "duality of Jesus the Christ": “Christ is the ideal Truth, that comes to heal sickness and sin through Christian Science, and attributes all power to God. Jesus is the name of the man who, more than all other men, has presented Christ, the true idea of God, healing the sick and sinning and destroying the power of death. Jesus is the human man, and Christ is the divine idea; hence, the duality of Jesus the Christ.” (Science and Health, 473:10-17, emphasis added) I suspect the poster who said, "Jesus was Christ and so are we all" was building on the Christian Science teaching that we are all ideas of God. The logic flows well even though it's built on a flawed premise. In another passage, Mrs. Eddy says: "Born of a woman, Jesus' advent in the flesh partook partly of Mary's earthly condition, although he was endowed with the Christ, the divine Spirit, without measure." (Science and Health, 30:5, emphasis added). Perhaps those of us who can't heal as well as Jesus are poor healers because we weren't "endowed" with as much of "the divine Spirit" as Jesus was... (then does that make our less-than-perfect record God's fault for not endowing us as well as He endowed Jesus?) Actually, Jesus Christ is vastly more than Mrs. Eddy makes him out to be. Click here for a page on the Christian Way web site that gives some Bible verses addressing Jesus Christ's name, His divinity, and the reason for his crucifixion.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:19 PM
|
|
|
|
I had originally posted that Question because I was getting confusing answers from S&H as well as from my personal CS. On one hand I was being told that CS believe that Jesus was The Christ and at the same time I was getting told he wasn't. I wasn't so much interested in finding out who they believed Christ to be as much as wether they believed Jesus was Christ. I think I was more surprised to find how divided on the subject they are. I have studied with Mormons and JW's and both of them are quite clear that Jesus is Christ, they do however have different interpretations as to who he was beyond that. It seems fundamental that one who calls himself a Christian should at least know who Christ is so they could model themselves after Him.
Swingdancer
|
|
|
Posted Friday, July 04, 2008 4:06 AM
|
|
|
|
| Swingdancer, Welcome, & I'm glad you found this site.  On Christianscience.com, I would have linked people here, but I couldn't see the moderators approving. Still, some of the more open-minded must have been here before- there was a reference to an "anti" Christian Science site on one thread. I think you will find a lot here in reference to the subject of Jesus being Christ as well as God in temporary corporeal form. zoarean
|
|
|
Posted Friday, July 04, 2008 4:12 AM
|
|
|
|
| By the way, excellent point- "It seems fundamental that one who calls himself a Christian should at least know who Christ is so they could model themselves after Him."
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, July 05, 2008 12:44 PM
|
|
|
|
"There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone."
Watching the Twilight Zone marathon on the SciFi channel yesterday, it occurred to me that I've felt like I've been in an episode myself this week. I suppose that even I had not realized the degree to which Christian Science has shifted from Science to superstition, from the pursuit of knowledge to fear.
It will surprise few of you that Christian Science appears to have clearly "jumped the shark", perhaps especially on christianscience.com. What might surprise you is that I've been posting there with what should have been fairly moderate themes in that venue with which many of you may disagree:
Study of the Bible (the other Pastor of the Mother Church) is essential to the study of Christian Science
The Manual of the Mother Church is relevant to the practice of Christian Science
Christian Scientists should avoid New Age, gnostic, and other conflicting resources when studying and practicing Christian Science
These seem to be themes with which the moderators and other contributors to christianscience.com also disagree. I appear to be in a minority position suggesting that Christian Scientists should understand orthodox Christian Science, if they choose to study and practice it.
The moderators politely informed me that a thread would not be posted in which I discussed those ideas with uncharacteristic gentleness:
"... (t)he issue is that the forums are not a platform for personal opinions or a soapbox for even the most well-meaning participant.
I replied to the moderator:
"While I must respect the decision of the moderator team, I find it further evidence of the movement away from orthodox Christian Science as taught and practiced by Mrs. Eddy.
"Browsing through ChristianScience.com, I've found extensive expressions of personal opinion (how can that be avoided in a web forum?) including posts supporting such philosophies as gnosticism and Buddhism. Whatever soapbox on which I may stand encourages study of the Bible, whatever conclusions may be reached. Stealing a bit from the Viet Nam war era, 'Read it all and let God sort it out!'"
I've been amused and bemused to read threads with posters advocating Buddhism, application of gnostic gospels, and other sources apart from the Bible and Mary Baker Eddy's writings. My contributions general focus on radical opinions such as the Bible was one of the Pastors of the Mother Church ordained by Mrs. Eddy and that the Manual of the Mother Church should be applicable to the practice of Christian Science.
As I've expressed many times, Christian Science represents two main errors:
The actual teachings of Mary Baker Eddy (orthodox Christian Science)
The corrupted teachings as represented by the culture of Christian Science
I disavow both, but find the corruption of corruption to be especially troublesome. They may not fully realize it yet, but the last remaining orthodox Christian Scientists need to consider who will turn off the lights in the Mother Church when they leave.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, July 05, 2008 1:56 PM
|
|
|
|
I disavow both, but find the corruption of corruption to be especially troublesome. I agree. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that people would dilute and tweak Mrs. Eddy's teachings in our culture just as they dilute and tweak the Bible, but I do find it sort of sad. On a broader note, people who cut and paste their beliefs together as convenient are nearly impossible to have a meaningful conversation with (I'm not just referrring to CSists here) since they have a relativistic view of truth. Our relativistic culture makes me think of the lukewarm church at Laodicea and God's view of that church.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, July 07, 2008 9:28 PM
|
|
|
|
I was accused today of inciting debate by trying to encourage Christian Scientists on christianscience.com to consider studying the Bible in a manner that Mary Baker Eddy apparently did. Here's the offensive, unapproved post in which I first quoted another contributor then asked some questions that you will only see here:
"Mary Baker Eddy was tutored in Hebrew and Greek by her older brother, Albert Baker, who studied these languages in college. Although she did not become fluent in them, she maintained an interest in Biblical languages until the end of her life, consulting Bible reference works regarding the meaning of Biblical words in Hebrew and Greek."
What value did Mrs. Eddy gain from such study?"
This thread has moved away from Mrs. Eddy's study of Biblical languages in the apparent direction that words have little, if no, meaning. If that is the case, why did she study the Biblical languages? Why did Reading Rooms of her time include reference works such as dictionaries, concordances, and multiple versions of the Bible?
Discussion continues regarding the beautiful revelations of meaning resulting from reading Science & Health, the unreliability of the Bible, and the parallels between Christian Science and Buddhism. I've been asked to discontinue discussion regarding the literal/non-literal reading of the Bible (inciting debate). Seems to me that if Mrs. Eddy sought spiritual meaning and understanding through literal study of the ancient texts that doing so would remain a valid method of study and worthy of discussion and encouragement.
I'm thinking we should consider just sending a nice condolences card from Hallmark along with an appropriate flower arrangement to the few remaining orthodox Christian Scientists who study the Bible and Science & Health apart from gnosticism, New Age, and exotic religions of the day.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
|