Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!jah From: jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Re: Fundamentalism Revisited -- A Radical [Heretical] perspective Message-ID: <198@philabs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Dec-84 16:53:46 EST Article-I.D.: philabs.198 Posted: Tue Dec 18 16:53:46 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 20-Dec-84 02:27:30 EST References:, <2401@mcnc.UUCP> <4354@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY Lines: 183 I'm not responding as much to Paul Dubuc's article as I am to Byron's but I neglected to get the original, so I use Paul's hacked version. I think Paul is right about one thing (at least), though, we can't allow discus- sions to get to hostile from pettiness and personal attack. Paul's critique is written very much with the spirit of his intentions and I believe he raises some very important questions about the things that that Byron has said he believes. I'd just like to raise a few key questions that I feel he left out in his critique. Paul: > The main fault I see with Byron's view is that it seems to reject > rational and evidential bases for belief totally in favor of empirical > (sensory) and existential ones. When this is done beliefs slip their > anchor in reality. At least it makes any attempt at defining > what it means to be a Christian (disciple of Christ) futile. > I agree. Byron: > > > >To restate Bob's points: > > > >>1) The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, trustworthy on all > >> subjects that it deals with. > >> > >>2) The Deity of Jesus of Nazareth, that He was/is God incarnate > >> and the awaited Messiah of Israel. > >> > >>3) The Virgin Birth, that Jesus was fathered by the Holy Spirit. > >> His mother was Mary, Joseph's wife. > >> > >>4) The Crucifixion and shedding of Jesus's Blood as remission > >> for everyone's sin problem. > >> > >>5) The Resurrection of Jesus, bodily, and His imminent return. > >> > > > >First it must be noted that Bob has thrown a couple of extras into the > >pack. Item 3 assumes a belief in the Holy Spirit (and the trinity.) > >Item 4 assumes a belief in original sin. Neither of these are common > >to all christian sects. Paul's right! These are not extras if you accept 1. The problem is if you don't accept 1. Then there is little basis to believe anything concerning Jesus. Who was with Jesus? The Disciples or the Gnostics? Where can other information concerning Jesus be found? I think that the N.T. writings deal very much with the issues you mention concerning the Deity of Jesus, His life as a Man, His bodily Resurrection... You'll have to count much of the N.T. writings as false to believe many of the things you say. Where does the truth come in? (A little out of context maybe but this is the gist of the rest of my comment.) > >Radicals would certainly disagree with 1. The Bible is seen as > >selective history, parable, poetry, apocalyptic vision, behavioral > >prescriptions and proscriptions redacted by men imbued with and > >committed to a particular christian perspective. There are other > >writings about Jesus which do not reflect this perspective. (Not that > >these are any more correct, but they provide a balance and an > >indication of the political ferment that produced the Bible.) This > >does not say that the deception was deliberate. It may well have been > >the product of translation and recopying by individuals with certain > >assumptions about the nature of the universe. There is indication of > >significant additions, however, particularly as surround the > >resurrection. The authority of Jesus came from the O.T. prophesies and His life fulfill- ment of them. There is a systematic way to justify the authority of the Bible as G-d's Divine Revelation to man. It stems from the Jewish tradi- tion of Tanach (Pentateuch) being dictated to Moses by G-d directly and therein lies G-d's promise to send messengers to prophesy His intentions. The Jews have very strict guidelines about judging the validity of their prophets. Once Jesus is accepted as an authority through these O.T. writings, He imbues authority to His disciples through the Holy Spirit inspiration. I recommend the book _God Has Spoken_ by J. Packer for more information on the Special Revelation of the Bible as G-d's "word." One major problem I have with Christians who do not accept the inerrancy and Divine Inspiration of the Bible is the question of how G-d chooses to communicate to us if not by this. The reasoning I come up with is that, if G-d created man, then to what purpose if not to communicate with him? As Paul Dubuc states, how is it that we know the truth if there is no definite authority? How do we judge the validity of our own thoughts in expressing the intentions and desires of G-d if we have no external evidence of them? What is attributable to G-d and what is attributable to man? Are they the same? There's know way to know this if there is no external communication by G-d. Also, why accept any hypothesis about Jesus if the Bible is not considered G-d's "word." He doesn't represent the passing of the Old covenant to the New if this is so. What can we learn from a man we have know true informa- tion on? How do we judge the falsehoods from truth? It becomes very per- sonal and rather arbitrary. It reduces G-d to an impersonal being because it takes away His desires and ambitions for man. They are not uniquely His but become ours. Enough! We could write books on this issue. Byron: > >The above does not mean the Bible is worthless. The "sense" of > >christianity still leaps from the pages of the NT as a distinct > >impression. The particulars must be very carefully handled. > >Point 2 gets tricky. The physical Jesus was a man, like any other. > >The spiritual Christ is an aspect of the Deity, but as we all are > >aspects of the Deity. Literally, Jesus was not G-d incarnate, for that > >is impossible. The spiritual Christ is an aspect of G-d, to show the > >way to knowing G-d. Any relation to the expected Messiah is at best > >a cloudy one. As the Kingdom of G-d is in already within and around > >us, the relationship is probably spurious. > >Again, point 5 is disagreed on. The resurrection was a spiritual, not > >physical event. There is evidence, both Biblical and extra-Biblical > >that Jesus was something other than physically human after the > >resurrection. Again, what's true and what's false? You seem to discredit more than you credit. Many of the letters Paul wrote to the early churches deal with exactly those beliefs that you have. For instance, the church at Colosse had a great Gnostic influence and believed in the Demiurge as creator with a hierarchy of more perfect levels of G-d. They believed that the Resurrection was not bodily, and/or that Jesus did not come in the flesh but in the spirit. In John's first epistle, he deals with some of these Gnostic beliefs. There is evidence in every account of the Gospel that Jesus actually was Resurrected in the flesh, that He claimed to be the Son of God, as well as, the Son of Man. He admitted He was/is the awaited Messiah... All of these things come to life when you accept Scriptural authority. > > > >Point 4 is manifestly disagreed upon. The "fall of man" is seen as the > >result of the misperceptions of the Demiurge. There is no belief in > >"original sin," hence no need for salvation. The crucifixion and the > >resurrection are seen as the absolute demonstration of eternal > >spiritual life, possible when one is self-aware of one's divine > >nature. > > > > >Another comment by Bob: > >>However, I have heard arguments that since the Bible is the only > >>record of the beliefs and practices of Jesus and the early church > >>if you don't accept #1 how can you be sure of nos. 2 - 5. > > > >Since the assumption behind #1 is factually incorrect, there is > >certainly no agreement about 2 through 5. > > You make a statement of fact without any basis. What makes the > beliefs you have set forth factually correct if the ones in the > N.T. aren't? I guess this is all I'm saying too. > > All paths cannot lead to truth unless you change them. All religions > cannot be equally valid unless you dismiss their exclusive teaching. > You can't maintain that God made all religions without making a doctrinal > statement of your own that denies the validity of the teaching in > Islam, Christianity, Judiasm, and others that theirs is the true > way and the others are false. You have demonstrated no independant > basis for that kind of statement. You have to start with the assumption > that all religions are really compatable and based on that chop off > the parts of each that don't fit. (e.g. Jesus saying "I am THE way > THE truth ... no one comes to the Father but by me".) > > It seems to me that what you are left with is nothing that can be > called uniquely Christian. It reduces the idea of truth and falsehood > in religious belief to a matter of individual preference. God then > becomes whatever a person's existential predicament requires that he > be. How is this different from no God at all? Great point! Sums it all up in a nutshell (how's that for cliches? :-). I thank you Paul for the logically systematic way that you present your questions. They can teach us all how to evaluate what we believe and how to question things outside of our beliefs. Julie Harazduk {inhp4|decvax|allegra}!philabs!jah II Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: