 Posted Sunday, June 22, 2003 6:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Hi A Scientist,
From Stephen - And this is what Paul and Peter do when they call Jesus Christ both "God and Savior." and your response -
Dear Stephen:
Yes, you are correct. This is another good example of believing on Christ Jesus and not just believing that Jesus is the Christ.
OK, you've done it again, and clouded over your position as to who Jesus is or isn't.  Are Peter and Paul wrong when they directly call Jesus God?
Yes, but there are many verses that they don't talk about belief in Jesus Christ is necessary for Salvation. Ezekial 18: 21 says, "But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statues, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die." My take on this is that by doing this one has to know and believe in Christ. This is what I mean when I say Christ is more than just Jesus, even though Jesus is the Christ.
Remember what Jesus said to the two disciples walking to Emmaus? "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44). According to Jesus the Old Testament was about Him. Ezekiel was one of the Prophets that Jesus is referring to. The Old Testament authors did not provide a salvation independent of Jesus, they were waiting for, and writing about Him. The passage you refer to is about Jesus' commands not independent from them. Look at Romans 2:16 and surrounding, "This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." It doesn't matter whether someone is a heathen without the Law, or Jews with the Law, everyone is going to be dealing with Jesus, whether they believe in Him or not.
Do you read only the Bible and earlier scripts or do you read other Christian authors and go to Church to hear a pastor? If a Christian writer or your Pastor wrote or said this, would you think it was profound?
I try to follow in the footsteps of the Bereans in Acts 17:11, "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." I read other Christian authors and listen to pastors, but if they say something that I can't back up with Scripture using common dictionary definitions, I don't give it heed.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, June 22, 2003 9:16 PM
|
|
|
|
The passage I am thinking of is where Peter said to Jesus, I believe that you are the Christ the Son of God. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with calling any part of the trinity God. My hope is in the things that are not seen, this is the Christ, God and the Holy Ghost. The physical man Jesus was temporal, I cannot call something temporal a god. This goes back to there is only one God.
I agree with what you say about the Old Testament being in anticipation of the Messaih or the Greek word Christ, but remember Christ, the unseen, was throughout the Old Testament too. Most people had a hard time accepting Christ until they saw Jesus in the flesh. The Jews grumbled about Moses taking them to the Promise Land. Are we any different today with Jesus showing us the way to the Promise Land?
My Bible teachers in different denominational Churches would laugh and call me the ultimate Berean, because not only would I take what they said, but I would even take the Bible translations and compare it to King James. It would also have to make sense to my circular way at interpreting scripture. For example, I was told that the Holy Ghost was not in unbelievers. They had Biblical passages to back up their reason, but if the Holy Ghost was part of the Trinity and all three are equal then how can the Holy Ghost be limited, but God is everywhere? They had an answer for that and while I will not say they were wrong, I did not agree with it. I then asked that if it is the Holy Ghost who works inside an unbeliever to get them to accept, then how can the Holy Ghost do this if the Holy Ghost is not inside?
If CS has a better answer for this, but you do not want to accept it because you don't accept the CS definition of the Holy Ghost, then that is your right, but i do wish you would pray about it.
A Scientist
|
|
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2003 6:03 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear Scientist,
Thanks very much for taking the time to answer me on 21 June..
To start, yes, I have been influenced by MBE thinking and belief system – I’ve been an earnest, class-taught CSist for years. But in trying to find answers to questions regarding:
- why does God not know sin and evil
- why do we have our physical senses and physical body if they are unreal
- how do I best pray to God (after having read the prayer-chapter in S&H for over a dozen times each time left with less of an answer)
- and in order to equip myself with arguments from “those who thought that Jesus was God, and that the Christ is not universal etc”
- and, of course, as I wanted to learn more about God and know the bible better; as this was, so I thought, the basis for CS
I couldn’t find anything which said that God doesn’t know sin and evil, nor did I find anything which supported that physical senses and our physical body are unreal. And I also didn’t find the desired arguments for those friends who “thought that Jesus was God and that the Christ is not universal etc.”.
However, I did find help in how to pray and a better understanding and much closer relation to God. I was shown that CS was not absolutely bible based and that I could no longer believe in its teachings where it differed from the bible which eventually – after four years of studying and praying! (and not “lightly”, aged 20 or so, but aged 43 – if age ever matters to a Scientist) in resigning from my church, motherchurch and association memberships.
Looking back, I must say that CS appears to me as kind of a circular system which makes sense as long as you move and argue within the system which, of course, makes it quite difficult to get out of it. But looking from outside now I wonder how on earth I managed to “bend my brain” so much as to think in those circles.
This noticed I cannot go back and study CS literature, S&H or else, with the confidence it is bible based.
Regarding your correspondence with Jim concerning “nation”, especially your mail of 21st June. I like the way you explain how you get to your understanding of nation, and it is a typical CS way of looking at things (at least I heard this type of arguing mostly in CS churches). I agree that the different Christian denominations have their origin in people’s different beliefs into what they are reading in the bible. Which is, why the bible is usually THE BOOK and all literature, commentaries, explanations etc. considered secondary literature.
Whereas, in the CS churches I found that S&H is not treated like secondary literature but placed on one level with the bible, in fact, the bible lessons frequently consist of 1/3 from the bible and 2/3 from S&H, it is often used in the SS, it is THE teaching book in class and the bible and Mrs. Eddy’s other writing considered kind of secondary. It is a book which is not up to discussion but to be taken as the “Truth which was revealed to Mrs. Eddy”.
This is also shown from testimonies in the churches and in the magazines where people are “grateful to Mrs. Eddy and S&H, are healed because they studied S&H” and rarely only say that they are “grateful to God, and that they were healed because they studied the bible”.
Regards
Spring
|
|
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2003 6:12 PM
|
|
|
|
Hi A Scientist,
remember Christ, the unseen, was throughout the Old Testament too.
But Christ was seen in the Old Testament. The Lord visited Abraham shortly before moving on to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and He spoke to Moses from the burning bush. These weren't dreams, they were physical apperances of Christ Jesus (before He was known as Christ Jesus).
Are we any different today with Jesus showing us the way to the Promise Land?
Apparently not, because you're having a hard time with this Jesus is God thing!  
but if the Holy Ghost was part of the Trinity and all three are equal then how can the Holy Ghost be limited
Who said the Holy Ghost is limited? He is the third Person of the Triune God and is not limited.
but you do not want to accept it because you don't accept the CS definition of the Holy Ghost,
Show me in Scripture where the CS definition of the Holy Ghost--"Divine Science; the development of eternal Life, Truth, and Love" (S&H p. 588:7-8). is found. I don't accept the CS definition because it is not in the Bible.
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2003 6:57 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear Jim:
If you agree that the Holy Ghost is not in ubelievers then you are saying the Holy Ghost is limited.
Don'r forget the fourth personin the fiery furnace. These were all physical representations of Christ. Why did they not name Melchisedec, Jesus? There is a Greek word for Christ like pre-Jesus people, that you probably remember better than me. Did all these physical representations look like Jesus or did they look like Joe Blow? This is my point of why I distinguish between Christ Jesus and Jesus the Christ. I am not far from what you are saying, I am making the distinction to bring others to Christ in what I hope is an easier fashion. You may never bring a Jew to believe Melchisedec is Jesus, but he may agree that Melchisedec is a form of the Messiah.
Maybe this is a better way of saying it. You and I may look at a banana and say that that is a delicious piece of fruit. You may hold up the banana skin and say this is a delicious piece of fruit and I would agree. However, I would not hold up just the skin and say that. I distinguish between the skin and the meat. I could care less if Jesus was the blue-eyed Jeffrey Hunter or a dark skinned plain looking nothing of a man. It is the meat that I am interested in.
A Scientist
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2003 7:18 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear Spring:
I was hoping not to comment this week, but I appreciate that you answered me.
You and I think a like. I hate it when people do not praise God and the Bible. I think it is a tradition to thank MBE and S&H and people hate to go against it. I think if MBE was alive today, she would go in and kick some shins.
When I left the Church, my biggest question was where does evil come from if God is all? Why doesn't God just whisk us away to be with Him, without going through this walk? When I started going to a Bible Church, I had trouble relating to most in my Bible study. They gave what I thought were immature answers. One person I related to, knew their Bible inside out and talked liked a Scientist. He spoke about God being so awesome that he could not even look upon sin. As I went from Bible study to Bible study, I found the mature Christians concentrate on the walk in the Spirit. I would have loved to have a Bible Study on CS, but no. God knows evil and our sin. This is a conditioned reflex, even after reading Habakkuk 1:13. Thou art of purer eyes to behold evil, and canst not look at iniquity:
A Scientist
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2003 4:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Hi A Scientist,
If you agree that the Holy Ghost is not in ubelievers then you are saying the Holy Ghost is limited.
You're treating the indwelling of the Holy Ghost as a spatial phenomena. That's not how Christian's view it. The Holy Ghost in us means He is guiding our thinking, and purifying and cleaning up our sinful nature. The unbeliever does not have the Holy Spirit doing this in them. However, the Holy Spirit does not leave the unbeliever alone. The Holy Ghost is involved with the unbeliever by convicting him of his sin.
I'd like to make a book recommendation: "Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God", by Gordon Fee. I think it will help you understand the Holy Ghost better.
Did all these physical representations look like Jesus or did they look like Joe Blow?
Don't know, the Bible doesn't give us specifics. Remember that even in the New Testament, Jesus had the ability to not look like Himself. He showed up on several occasions unrecognized for a time (like to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, or on the sea shore.) But the physical Jesus was there in all cases.
I am making the distinction to bring others to Christ in what I hope is an easier fashion.
But in your attempt to simplify, you are turning them away from what the Bible teaches.
It is the meat that I am interested in.
If you keep the creme filling of an OREO cookie, but throw away the cookie halfs, you no longer have an OREO do you? The problem is God has made it so the meat you are so interested in includes the skin as well.
but no. God knows evil and our sin. This is a conditioned reflex, even after reading Habakkuk 1:13. Thou art of purer eyes to behold evil, and canst not look at iniquity:
Perhaps it's not a conditioned reflex. Perhaps they've read Isaiah 45:7, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
|
|
|
|