In the beginning was the Word ...

[Jim Frake]

In the beginning was the Word which didn't vary from the intended meaning. Today this is not the case. So my question:

Is the loose definitions of words that we use today (most specifically GOOD, LOVE, and TRUTH) keeping the church from a large percentage of people (both potential and existing believers)?

It is my belief that it is.

[Shea Zellweger]

In the beginning was the Word which didn't vary from the intended meaing. Today this is not the case. So my question:

Is the loose definitions of words that we use today (most specifically GOOD, LOVE, and TRUTH) keeping the church from a large percentage of people (both potention and existing believers)?

It is my belief that it is.

I'm having difficulty making sense of your first statement. In the beginning was the Word is from John 1:1, referring to the Logos (Christ), which was John's way of saying that Jesus had always existed. Prior to John's claim, the word "logos" just meant "word," so it would seem to me that defining the Word as the son of God is indeed a variation from the meaning of the word "word."

When it comes to definitions of words, I don't think those can be considered even a major cause of people not coming to church, but let's just go with that for a minute. I find it interesting that the three words you have highlighted have always had multiple meanings. Good can refer to something that is of high moral character, or something which is satisfactory, or even something that adequately serves its intended purpose. Love is an English word that is already at a disadvantage, given that it means four different things in Greek, and certainly has always had multiple meanings throughout its English existence. Likewise, True carries at least three root definitions- that of something which is factually accurate, something which is mechanically sound, or something which displays the philosophical concept of truth. Each of these words has been subjective among humans for as long as they've existed- what I believe to be good, true, or loving may in fact be quite the opposite for you. The idea of objective truth, goodness, or love is a nice idea, but it has very little bearing on our daily lives, since nobody is capable of being truly objective. These words necessitate "loose" definitions in order to have any function in language whatsoever.

I think it is more likely that the church's claims that we are somehow the holders of the ultimate truth, love, and goodness, and that the only way to find these things is through us, are perceived as arrogant by many people, Christian and non-Christian alike. I would guess it has far less to do with definition, and is more about the general Church attitude when it comes to these concepts.

[Jim Frake]

@Shea

I agree with your interpretation of the problem but not your argument. Absolute Truth, Love (Agape), and Good are God's. These are the elements of Christ. The definitions of these Words have nothing to do with what you nor I think. The problem IS the subjective nature of what these Words have become and not the absolute definition as defined by God.

WE are not the holders of these Words, God is. We are charged to protect them of which we have not. Thus the meanings of our existence are unknowingly changed as we buy the fact that these words are subjective. The church also buys these beliefs. This makes it inpossible to prove absolutes with beliefs that are not.

Thanks for you response.

[Todd Erickson]

Hrm.

I don't think that Shea is saying that those things are subjective, rather than the language we use to approach/describe them is subjective.

I.E., absolute truth exists, but we are poorly equipped to adequately or reasonably communicate it with language.

The English language is remarkably imprecise about things like philosophy, theology, emotion, etc. But we want to insist that things can somehow be fully grasped in this language (which is, essentially, a trade language) and that any attempt to assert that this is a poor language for discussing these things is somehow attacking the nature of the things themselves that we are trying to discuss, which is precisely not the assertion.

[Billy Cox]

I'm having difficulty making sense of your first statement. In the beginning was the Word is from John 1:1, referring to the Logos (Christ), which was John's way of saying that Jesus had always existed. Prior to John's claim, the word "logos" just meant "word," so it would seem to me that defining the Word as the son of God is indeed a variation from the meaning of the word "word."


Maybe my memory of John 1 is rusty, but I seem to recall that 'logos' was not merely the word 'word', but was akin to 'reason' or 'order'. Otherwise John's Greek audience would think he was talking nonsense...even before he got to 'the Word became flesh' part. :)

[Shea Zellweger]

Maybe my memory of John 1 is rusty, but I seem to recall that 'logos' was not merely the word 'word', but was akin to 'reason' or 'order'. Otherwise John's Greek audience would think he was talking nonsense...even before he got to 'the Word became flesh' part. :)

Yes, there are some deeper connotations in Logos, just as there are some nuances to "word." When I say "my word is my bond" or "I give my word," I am giving a promise, not just saying "word," but it's encompassed within the several definitions of "word." But none of the Koine connotations could be accurately described as a "definition" of Jesus, which appeared to be Jim's original point.

[Ryan Plott]

In the beginning was the Word which didn't vary from the intended meaning. Today this is not the case. So my question:

Is the loose definitions of words that we use today (most specifically GOOD, LOVE, and TRUTH) keeping the church from a large percentage of people (both potential and existing believers)?

It is my belief that it is.

My questions for you would be; Why do you believe your second statement? and, How are you progressing from a biblical passage that establishes the divinity of Jesus to the church's shortcomings concerning language and rhetoric? I think if you help me out with those we'll be able to dialogue better.

If there's any problem it is a failure to keep the Word's(Jesus) incarnation first and foremost in our mission on earth. A symptom of that may be our "loose definitions of words" but its definitely not the summary. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word became flesh. The Word wasn't that interested in semantics, at least as far as I can see.

[John Kennedy]

Through the ages the church has tried to find correct language to describe/explain the 'absolute truth'. Unfortunately it has sometimes been so preoccupied with precision of explanation that it failed to introduce people to the Absolute Truth, the incarnate Word. Our vital need to see the word clearly is only exceeded by our desperate need to see the Word clearly.

[Jim Frake]

:ihe_cowboy: @ John.

@ Hank. Before I support why I believe my second statement, maybe we could start with some assumptions.

God is Truth.
Christ is Love.
Good only comes from God and not Satan.
Sin is opposite righteousness and only comes from Satan not God.

Are these statements correct?
Are these statements reflexive/equivalent?

In answering, the overall assumption is that we are talking about absolutes. To me there are no "half-truths". Love is considered Agape and righteousness is without blemish (involving self).

Again I thank everyone that has read and replied. I really appreciate ya'll.

Jim.

[Roland Hearn]

Actually the word "logos" had a standard meaning in Greek Philosophy. John did not use it in a way that had not been used before and it primarily conjured up the concept of a system of reason. When John used it he was saying that the Christ was the logos, the only reason, the only philosophy.

To suggest that words have meaning beyond what they are perceived to mean in the ear of the hearer is a nonsensical idea. You can make claims that God is the absolute of truth and love, something I firmly believe, but interpreting those things for the hearer is the responsibility of grace and us as the bearers of grace. Words are means of communication. If you mean the idea behind the word is established and unchangeable you are saying something different from the statement that words have absolute meanings. How using words with incomplete meaning may be keeping us from reaching people doesn't make any sense either. People aren't waiting around for someone to come along with a correct definition they are waiting for love.

Our discovery of faith may, and does, include deeper understandings and growing appreciation of grace but not yet having a complete revelation doesn't limit us from loving from that which we have received. When you find someone that has a total grasp of all that God is just leave a post here on Naznet because we would all like to meet him/her.

[David Graham]

In the Greek, "God was the word"; i.e. the Logos finding His full (divine) revelation in Jesus Christ.

And as he embodied the Word of God, so also he embodied the fullness of truth, light, life, love and glory of God. So that if we want to know what these concepts mean we need primarily to look to Christ. Semantics alone will not enlighten us any more. In fact I would suggest that we can only enter into a fuller understandings of these concepts through a personal relationship with the one who embodies them all; i.e. Christ. In this respect it is through our personal relationship with Christ that our understanding is enhanced..... academic prowess alone will not suffice. As Weslayans then, the principles of the quadrilateral aid our understanding, in this case through experience.

CHeers,
Dave

[Hans Deventer]

When you find someone that has a total grasp of all that God is just leave a post here on Naznet because we would all like to meet him/her.

May I abstain? I'm not trained to deal with mental diseases.

[Randy Wise]

In the Greek, "God was the word"; i.e. the Logos finding His full (divine) revelation in Jesus Christ.


Dave

Or the Son, who has been given Gods fullness, speaks the very words of God and John saw this.


31"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[k] gives the Spirit without limit. 35The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."[l]


9For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

[Shea Zellweger]

Or the Son, who has been given Gods fullness, speaks the very words of God and John saw this.


31"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[k] gives the Spirit without limit. 35The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."[l]


9For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

I don't think this is the place for a debate on the divinity of Christ...

[Randy Wise]

I don't think this is the place for a debate on the divinity of Christ...

I wasn't debating against the divinity of Christ as I do believe Gods fullness dwells in Him and as long as Jesus is that has been so. However I was speaking about "The Word"

Randy

[Terry Clees]

God is Truth.
Christ is Love.
Good only comes from God and not Satan.
Sin is opposite righteousness and only comes from Satan not God.

Are these statements correct?

Jim, if we believe that God has absolute sovereignty don't we also have to believe that everything comes from God, including sin?

[Shea Zellweger]

God is Truth.
Christ is Love.
Good only comes from God and not Satan.
Sin is opposite righteousness and only comes from Satan not God.

Are these statements correct?

Jim, if we believe that God has absolute sovereignty don't we also have to believe that everything comes from God, including sin?

Yes, which is part of why we (or at least I) do not believe that God has absolute sovereignty.

[Hans Deventer]

Yes, which is part of why we (or at least I) do not believe that God has absolute sovereignty.

Sometimes people want God to be like a DS: able to do anything, but not legally responsible. :smilies1722:

[Roland Hearn]

Hans, your on fire
"Absolute soverignty," "sin coming from God," now you see why Nazarenes are Wesleyans, we don't have to deal with such absurdities.

[Todd Erickson]

Sin is opposite righteousness and only comes from Satan not God.


I'm not sure that there's anything in the bible that indicates that sin "comes from" Satan. This attempts to set Satan up as the polar opposite of God who must be defeated, which is not actually found in the bible.

[Shea Zellweger]

:ihe_cowboy: @ John.

@ Hank. Before I support why I believe my second statement, maybe we could start with some assumptions.

God is Truth.
Christ is Love.

God is also Love, and Christ is also Truth. I don't like the idea of ascribing these characteristics to one of the Godhead and not the others. I would also point out that although (the triune) God is Truth and Love, that does not mean that Truth and Love are God.


Good only comes from God and not Satan.

The Bible does say "Every Good and perfect gift is from above," but I don't think that means all good comes directly from God. God has given each of us the capacity to do good, so in a manner it comes from God, but then we could trace anything back to God if we took that approach. I also don't think there is anything in Scripture which states that "Satan" never did anything good.


Sin is opposite righteousness and only comes from Satan not God.

Well, if we are insisting that good only comes from God, then we have to also say that sin originates with God, which I don't think is the case. I categorically disagree with the assertion that sin comes from "Satan," I'm quite certain that humans could and would commit sin without the existence of demonic presences.



Are these statements correct?
Are these statements reflexive/equivalent?

I don't think they're correct in the simplest sense of the word. I think they are things that you believe to be true, and I have no problem with you believing them, but I disagree with points of all of them and don't think it makes me any less Christian.


In answering, the overall assumption is that we are talking about absolutes. To me there are no "half-truths". Love is considered Agape and righteousness is without blemish (involving self).


I don't see any usefulness for this kind of black and white thinking. It is clear to me that people can hold differing views on many things and still be equally committed to Christ. Right and wrong are not so simple as your statement suggests. I don't oppose the existence of absolutes, but I am quite sure that absolutes cannot be fully grasped by any individual or group, since as soon as a concept enters our heads, it becomes subjective to our own opinions and preconceptions, so I find the discussion of absolutes mostly unhelpful when it comes to practical living.

[David Graham]

I wasn't debating against the divinity of Christ as I do believe Gods fullness dwells in Him and as long as Jesus is that has been so. However I was speaking about "The Word"

Randy

I think we're in agreement Randy: Christ was/is the revealed Word of God (even though the capitalisation of the letter "W" of word is our emphasis to differentiate Christ as divine from the spoken word for in the Greek no such capitalisation exists of logos). But as you rightly point out Jesus also spoke the words of God, and these words brought life to their hearers as they received them by faith..... (which itself is a faith statement).

Blessings,
Dave

[Jim Frake]

God is also Love, and Christ is also Truth. I don't like the idea of ascribing these characteristics to one of the Godhead and not the others. I would also point out that although (the triune) God is Truth and Love, that does not mean that Truth and Love are God.

The Bible does say "Every Good and perfect gift is from above," but I don't think that means all good comes directly from God. God has given each of us the capacity to do good, so in a manner it comes from God, but then we could trace anything back to God if we took that approach. I also don't think there is anything in Scripture which states that "Satan" never did anything good.

Well, if we are insisting that good only comes from God, then we have to also say that sin originates with God, which I don't think is the case. I categorically disagree with the assertion that sin comes from "Satan," I'm quite certain that humans could and would commit sin without the existence of demonic presences.

I don't think they're correct in the simplest sense of the word. I think they are things that you believe to be true, and I have no problem with you believing them, but I disagree with points of all of them and don't think it makes me any less Christian.


I don't see any usefulness for this kind of black and white thinking. It is clear to me that people can hold differing views on many things and still be equally committed to Christ. Right and wrong are not so simple as your statement suggests. I don't oppose the existence of absolutes, but I am quite sure that absolutes cannot be fully grasped by any individual or group, since as soon as a concept enters our heads, it becomes subjective to our own opinions and preconceptions, so I find the discussion of absolutes mostly unhelpful when it comes to practical living.

You're right. I did not make all inclusive statements. Also the "God is Truth" also implies "Christ is Truth" as I believe also that "God is Christ".

Semantics is the building block of higher thinking. It's sort of like "first base" in baseball. Getting to the "bag" may be harder than I thought.

So if all Good doesn't come from God, where else lies the source? And if Satan can do Good how does he coexist with evil?

@Roland
You are right. People are not waiting on a correct definition. Yes they crave Love. Yes the words connect us to the ideas. All true.

It is also true that when I hear Truth, Grace allows me to hear it. Speaking in tongues is a great example of words that may not form logical sentences but with the presence of the Holy Spirit would have deep meanings.

What appears more nonsensical to me is believing in a God of absolutes but not insisting in pure definitions of words to describe God. Look at how this thread has developed. We can't even agree in simple principles that separate Good and evil.

Consider Light and darkness. One implies the absence of the other. There are shades of gray but total darkness does not include light and absolute light includes zero darkness. This is fundamental in our faith.

Matthew v7:18

[Roland Hearn]

What appears more nonsensical to me is believing in a God of absolutes but not insisting in pure definitions of words to describe God. Look at how this thread has developed. We can't even agree in simple principles that separate Good and evil.

Matthew v7:18

Jim that's the problem with your premis. No such thing as "pure definitions" exists. Not now, or in the past, or will at any point in the future. Do you have any idea of the number of people around the world whose full time jobs involve the collection, collation and verification of definitions? The process is constantly in flux. A significant number of words are being added to and taken from the dictionary every year. If defining words becomes the foundation of faith you are in a lot of trouble. I believe we are saved by faith not by works, or words, lest any man should boast (of his wonderful definitions).

[Ryan Plott]

@ Hank. Before I support why I believe my second statement, maybe we could start with some assumptions.

God is Truth.
Christ is Love.
Good only comes from God and not Satan.
Sin is opposite righteousness and only comes from Satan not God.

Are these statements correct?
Are these statements reflexive/equivalent?

In answering, the overall assumption is that we are talking about absolutes. To me there are no "half-truths". Love is considered Agape and righteousness is without blemish (involving self).

See what happens when you leave Naznet to itself for a day? All these people post and now I'm way behind. Alot of what has been said I would reiterate. God is truth but that is not all He is, Christ is love but that is not all he is, I don't believe in the existence of Satan so I would disagree with your third statement, and by extension I would have to disagree with your fourth. And you also need to read the book of Job concerning good only coming from God as well. Love is not equated with only "agape" type love in the Bible and are you talking about the Jewish or Greek conception of righteousness?

So 2 out of 4. I'd be a sport phenom at baseball with that average. Will you answer some of my questions now? The ones from this post and the ones previous?

I don't really think you can support the idea of truth being absolute given the now and not-yet nature of the KoG. I really think all you can claim is that our truth is reliable because of the God who gives it.

[Shea Zellweger]

You're right. I did not make all inclusive statements. Also the "God is Truth" also implies "Christ is Truth" as I believe also that "God is Christ".

Semantics is the building block of higher thinking. It's sort of like "first base" in baseball. Getting to the "bag" may be harder than I thought.

So if all Good doesn't come from God, where else lies the source? And if Satan can do Good how does he coexist with evil?



There is a way to argue that all good comes from God, but it begins with claiming that God is an absolute creative force, apart from whom nothing can exist, and so it stands to reason that apart from God, evil also cannot exist. In fact, most people who believe in the physical existence of Satan would agree that God created Satan, so in the end, evil still ends up coming from God. Now, the other option is to believe that humans have free agency, in which case they are capable of choosing good or evil. As for good coexisting with evil, I think that's the case for a whole lot of humans, so why should it not be the case for heavenly beings? are we to believe that God is light, Satan is dark, and we are the shades of twilight in between? I think that elevates Satan far above his station, if indeed he exists at all, which is not so readily supported by the Bible as some would suggest (see this thread (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?429-Who-What-is-(the)-Devil) for further detail on that point). If Satan does indeed exist, his power does not come close to matching God's, and we do God a disservice by talking in such a way as to give the Devil credit for things he has not done. Giving "Satan" the credit for all the evil in the world, and God the credit for all the good, actually makes Satan look more powerful than God, since most would agree that the evil outweighs the good, at least among humans.

[Jim Frake]

Jim that's the problem with your premis. No such thing as "pure definitions" exists. Not now, or in the past, or will at any point in the future. Do you have any idea of the number of people around the world whose full time jobs involve the collection, collation and verification of definitions? The process is constantly in flux. A significant number of words are being added to and taken from the dictionary every year. If defining words becomes the foundation of faith you are in a lot of trouble. I believe we are saved by faith not by works, or words, lest any man should boast (of his wonderful definitions).

Really? No "pure definitions" exist? Let's take a simple objective view. If I have an apple in my hand but tell you that it's a pear, my statement is false. If you know not the pear nor the apple, you are mislead (4u Hank). If I have an apple and claim it to you, you are lead to the Truth. This is a pure definition. With the subjective it get's more complicated but still the principle (or premise) is the same. The goal is to most accurately describe that which is at hand. Your point concerning the number of those that work towards this supports the importance of this principle.

My faith? I think you assumed incorrectly that "higher thinking is faith". Whether or not we conclude this thread in some sort of agreement, my thinking, yours, or anyone else's doesn't really matter. God is still God. Christ still saves. Belief in the Father, the Son, and the Spirit takes us home. I do not put my faith at the feet of my brain. It will lead to destruction every time. Psalms 139.

I will continue to protect those precious Words that are gifts from the Father. They are attached to the "Logos". If we didn't need the Words, then fine. We could just communicate in Spirit all the time. On these forums (and in the Bible), it is ONLY the written w(W)ords that lead us to the intended meanings. There are no "non-verbals" that would constitute the majority of our communications. (words) are not important, the Meanings are. However, how are we to get to the meaning if not through Words (or non-verbals or Spirit communication)? In the second to last verse in revelation it tells us that whosoever shall take away or add unto .... Well what did it mean? Take away what? Add what? MEANING!

If we agree on the first two principles concerning Truth and Love then we should be very careful in assuming that Semanticists can define these powerful Words. I did not come to this forum to define these Words. God already has. These are His Words.

Protect them Brethren.

Oh and as far as Job, I didn't understand your reference. Good is not framed at the hand of Job. He was the most righteous according to God. Therefore God put him to the test. How is this line of reasoning different than that concerning our Lord. Christ was sinless but served a Most Righteous death. Was this not Good? Righteousness is not something we define. It's Gods.

[Hans Deventer]

Really? No "pure definitions" exist

Well, mathematically they might, but I'm not an expert on the subject. And semantics define everything because it is about communication. What is absolute for God isn't important for me, because I cannot grasp that. These are really only empty statements from a human point of view (and we have no other). One cannot explain infinity to a dog either.

[Jim Frake]

Well, mathematically they might, but I'm not an expert on the subject. And semantics define everything because it is about communication. What is absolute for God isn't important for me, because I cannot grasp that. These are really only empty statements from a human point of view (and we have no other). One cannot explain infinity to a dog either.

Saying that one believes in an absolute God and not caring about what we define that as is disconnected. That would lead to saying you have faith and not knowing what that is. Saying that it is not important is different than saying I cannot grasp it all ever. These concepts are dynamic. Not traveling in the direction of knowledge is dangerous for me. "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honour of kings to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2-3.

How is it that it becomes so convenient to remove God from equations in which He exists?

[Todd Erickson]

So if all Good doesn't come from God, where else lies the source? And if Satan can do Good how does he coexist with evil?



The problem with these two questions is how both good and evil are being defined. They seem, from the limited context of these questions, to exist as absolute elements, but good and evil don't exist that way in the bible. All sin is relational, and has to do with being on mark for relationship, or being off-mark. Sin/Evil isn't something you can collect in a bucket, or something that can be accurately captured on a list. Sin is as much what we don't do as what we do, after all. The question is flawed because it is limited and assumes context.



It is also true that when I hear Truth, Grace allows me to hear it. Speaking in tongues is a great example of words that may not form logical sentences but with the presence of the Holy Spirit would have deep meanings.



However, many of us only hear the part we are ready to hear, or willing to hear. Otherwise, the KKK would have issues opening up their pogroms against blacks with earnest appeals to God for wisdom and strength. The Spirit cannot make us listen accurately.



What appears more nonsensical to me is believing in a God of absolutes but not insisting in pure definitions of words to describe God. Look at how this thread has developed. We can't even agree in simple principles that separate Good and evil.


God is not only absolute, God is also infinite. We, however, are finite. The finite cannot contain the infinite, anymore than a sunken ship can contain the ocean that it has sunken in. The reason we aren't agreeing is that these are not "simple principles", they're things that the church has been wrestling with for 2000 years, and that Jewish scholars struggled with for at least 4000 years before that. You are assuming simplicity where none exists.



Consider Light and darkness. One implies the absence of the other. There are shades of gray but total darkness does not include light and absolute light includes zero darkness. This is fundamental in our faith.

Matthew v7:18

Light is not the absence of darkness, it's the presence of light. And any metaphor can only be taken so far. If I don't put lights under my daughter's bed (despite her claims of monsters) because it's a waste of electricty, I'm not committing a sin by allowing the presence of darkness under her bed.

The presence or absence of light has no bearing on our faith, it's just a metaphor that John uses.

[Todd Erickson]

Saying that one believes in an absolute God and not caring about what we define that as is disconnected. That would lead to saying you have faith and not knowing what that is. Saying that it is not important is different than saying I cannot grasp it all ever. These concepts are dynamic. Not traveling in the direction of knowledge is dangerous for me. "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honour of kings to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2-3.

How is it that it becomes so convenient to remove God from equations in which He exists?

The verse you quote clearly makes clear that this is not something easily grasped. How can we remove God from something which we only poorly understand? Or do you profess to clearly understand all things of God?

[Jim Frake]

The verse you quote clearly makes clear that this is not something easily grasped. How can we remove God from something which we only poorly understand? Or do you profess to clearly understand all things of God?

What should be easily grasped is the desire to try. Profession of faith cannot exist without "some" understanding of what that is. God provides that understanding. God gave of the Word (Logos). So we should protect it. If you don't protect it you will loose it.

Saying these are only empty human concepts again frames God's Word around us. This is simply not the Truth. "God's Word" implies not ours. It is simple.

Look at it this Way. God gave the Word. Christ came. We heard. We believe. The Spirit lives. The Spirit continues to preach these Words. Some may not hear as the Words (Meaning) are inaudible. Love can be expressed without uttering a sound. Truth is revealed without typing a key. This is not human. This is Deity.

[Jim Frake]

Light is not the absence of darkness, it's the presence of light. And any metaphor can only be taken so far. If I don't put lights under my daughter's bed (despite her claims of monsters) because it's a waste of electricty, I'm not committing a sin by allowing the presence of darkness under her bed.

The presence or absence of light has no bearing on our faith, it's just a metaphor that John uses.

Committing a sin is letting your daughter stay in "darkness" by not revealing Truth. Did you say, "There are no monsters under your bed" to her? By assuring her, you have shed "light" on the situation and the darkness has faded. This is the metaphor you speak of yet why did you not include it in your example?

This is similar to the Samaritan woman learning about the living water. When we begin to think in God's terms and not ours we further our understanding.

Still enjoying this topic as many good points have come forth (even if it is mob-rule) here on Naznet. I won't hold this against ya'll! :o

[Randy Wise]

In the beginning was the Word which didn't vary from the intended meaning. Today this is not the case. So my question:

Is the loose definitions of words that we use today (most specifically GOOD, LOVE, and TRUTH) keeping the church from a large percentage of people (both potential and existing believers)?

It is my belief that it is.

I don't believe there is fault in the gospel message, (which has been publicly available and proclaimed long before our nation was a nation), that would keep people from believing the message. Such fault would be found outside that message. Do I believe the Nazarene Church has changed something in that gospel message that would cause one not to believe? No, I haven't seen anything that concerns me. Jesus is still Lord of all.

Randy

[Todd Erickson]

What should be easily grasped is the desire to try. Profession of faith cannot exist without "some" understanding of what that is. God provides that understanding. God gave of the Word (Logos). So we should protect it. If you don't protect it you will loose it.

Saying these are only empty human concepts again frames God's Word around us. This is simply not the Truth. "God's Word" implies not ours. It is simple.

Look at it this Way. God gave the Word. Christ came. We heard. We believe. The Spirit lives. The Spirit continues to preach these Words. Some may not hear as the Words (Meaning) are inaudible. Love can be expressed without uttering a sound. Truth is revealed without typing a key. This is not human. This is Deity.

1. Who has said that something is an "empty human concept"? I believe that we've only said that your statements are not as simple as you wish to perceive them.
2. Many of the statements that you see as "simple" are also incredibly subjective. Within your life experience, from your perspective, these things are simple. You seem to be stating that people need to accept your perception and experience as "the truth" and anybody who refuses is refusing to acknowledge God. is this the case?

[Todd Erickson]

Committing a sin is letting your daughter stay in "darkness" by not revealing Truth. Did you say, "There are no monsters under your bed" to her? By assuring her, you have shed "light" on the situation and the darkness has faded. This is the metaphor you speak of yet why did you not include it in your example?


Let me get this straight. If my daughter says that there are monsters under the bed, and I do not specificallly say "there are no monsters under the bed" as opposed to "there are no monsters in our house, and besides, the dog and the cat will keep you safe" I am sinning? Fascinating.



This is similar to the Samaritan woman learning about the living water. When we begin to think in God's terms and not ours we further our understanding.


If I tell my daughter about the lack fo monsters, I'm not making an eternal statement about living water, I'm saying that the monsters in her imagination aren't real. You're exceeding the grasp of the example here. I'm pretty sure that God knows the monsters are just in my daughter's imagination as well.




Still enjoying this topic as many good points have come forth (even if it is mob-rule) here on Naznet. I won't hold this against ya'll! :o

Precisely what, here, is "mob-rule"? Is it mob rule if other people don't agree with what you say?

[Hans Deventer]

Saying that one believes in an absolute God and not caring about what we define that as is disconnected. That would lead to saying you have faith and not knowing what that is.

Thankfully, it's me who decides where my faith leads to. And I disagree. The issue is not knowledge, the issue is absolute knowledge.


How is it that it becomes so convenient to remove God from equations in which He exists?

??? God does not exist in equations. Equations are language, and language is never the real thing but only a limited description of it.

When I say I feel cold, you probably have some idea what that is but cannot know how that exactly feels to me. Same with God. And that is why a Person, Jesus, is "the image of the invisible God". And it is why the Truth is a Person. Not a statement.

My faith means that I believe in the Truth and He's called Jesus. It's that simple.

[Rich Schmidt]

This is all taking me back to my college and seminary days, learning about various theories of language, etc. I don't remember most of the terms and categories now, but it seems to me you (Jim Frake) began this thread with a firm commitment to a particular theory of how language correlates to reality... and some folks here hold to very different theories of how language and reality fit together.

Makes me want to dig some of my Wittgenstein books out of the basement...

[Shea Zellweger]

This is all taking me back to my college and seminary days, learning about various theories of language, etc. I don't remember most of the terms and categories now, but it seems to me you (Jim Frake) began this thread with a firm commitment to a particular theory of how language correlates to reality... and some folks here hold to very different theories of how language and reality fit together.

Makes me want to dig some of my Wittgenstein books out of the basement...

Why? Descartes' more fun.

[David Graham]

Jim while I agree with you that the written word of God reveals to us the truth of God, it is the Holy Spirit in the world (and in our lives) that applies the "word" to our hearts and minds over time so that we can cooperate with him either in making changes to our lives or in receiving such guidance. You're right, this is terribly subjective and so we measure our actions by how other Christian both today and in the past behave..... and thus over time we gain an insight into whether what we believe, what we do, where we are going is right.

We cannot simply check "under the bed" for monsters, and seeing none have confidence that we are secure. God is invisible to us. Sure he came in the person of Jesus Christ..... and yet even this is a faith statement that relies upon the eye witness reports of others a long time ago and a long way away. The Holy Spirit given to us as our counsellor is also invisible, and when he speaks to us it is not in an audible voice that we can comprehend with our physical ears; it is more of an impression that we receive that we respond to in faith. (At least that is my experience)

Thus, it takes time for us to discern what is truth, because we do not see things clearly nor understand perfectly. As Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 13: 9, 10; "For we know in part and we prophecy in part, but when perfection comes the imperfect disappears" (and in verse 12) ....." Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known".

Our Christian life is but a journey of discovery through faith.

Blessings,
Dave

[Roland Hearn]

Really? No "pure definitions" exist? Let's take a simple objective view. If I have an apple in my hand but tell you that it's a pear, my statement is false. If you know not the pear nor the apple, you are mislead (4u Hank). If I have an apple and claim it to you, you are lead to the Truth. This is a pure definition. With the subjective it get's more complicated but still the principle (or premise) is the same. The goal is to most accurately describe that which is at hand. Your point concerning the number of those that work towards this supports the importance of this principle.

Realy, your kidding right? When you say apple I see something green and large. You might having something small and red. I might come from a land that only has pine apples, when you say apple, I think of something that gows in a small bush straight out of the ground, you probably mean something that comes from a tree. When you are talking the love of God those are very small differences in comparrison.

[Jim Frake]

Jim while I agree with you that the written word of God reveals to us the truth of God, it is the Holy Spirit in the world (and in our lives) that applies the "word" to our hearts and minds over time so that we can cooperate with him either in making changes to our lives or in receiving such guidance.


Precisely! Amen! Thanks for saying this so well. Finally an interpretation that is God centered. The key is the Holy Spirit that is available to communicate with at any time. Thus, whether in prayer or in conversation with another, we can call upon the Lord to speak for us.

As far as mob-rule, I was a little presumptuous. I re-read each post carefully and think I'm guilty of the same that I was insinuating. I was making assumptions about this group without looking objectively at each one of you individually.

As for you Hans, what language does the Holy Spirit communicate in? If language is never the real thing, did Jesus miss too? Does the Holy Spirit anoint sermons? Is music language?

Trust me. I'm having a blast. I couldn't be happier doing anything else in my life. My prayer for everyone here who reads these posts would be lifted up by the synergy found in these collaborations.

Challenge is the means to advance.

[Jim Frake]

Realy, your kidding right? When you say apple I see something green and large. You might having something small and red. I might come from a land that only has pine apples, when you say apple, I think of something that gows in a small bush straight out of the ground, you probably mean something that comes from a tree. When you are talking the love of God those are very small differences in comparrison.

Ok. Fine. Round 2. So are you saying I'm limited to only 1 word to define the apple? I could make every attempt to detail it for you. I'd get an attorney to cover every base and guess what? You'd still insist I missed something. The contrast to a pear was the real message. It is a false statement to call an apple a pear. It's a true statement to call an apple an apple even if it's a different kind of apple. My point is getting watered down at every attempt to communication with you. What is the purpose of this logic?

Our goal should be pure communication and a more simplistic standard to facilitate learning about Christ. We should not allow gross negligence with these most precious words and then hide behind the "I don't care" theory. The Holy Spirit is there to guide us.

[Hans Deventer]

Ok. Fine. Round 2. So are you saying I'm limited to only 1 word to define the apple? I could make every attempt to detail it for you. I'd get an attorney to cover every base and guess what? You'd still insist I missed something. The contrast to a pear was the real message. It is a false statement to call an apple a pear. It's a true statement to call an apple an apple even if it's a different kind of apple. My point is getting watered down at every attempt to communication with you. What is the purpose of this logic?

Our goal should be pure communication and a more simplistic standard to facilitate learning about Christ. We should not allow gross negligence with these most precious words and then hide behind the "I don't care" theory. The Holy Spirit is there to guide us.

The purpose is to make you see that any statement about God we can make never ever has anything absolute in it, because of our own limits and the limits of language. Again, it's really that simple.

[Hans Deventer]

As for you Hans, what language does the Holy Spirit communicate in? Does the Holy Spirit anoint sermons? Is music language?

The Holy Spirit speaks in many ways. In events, in nature, in the Scriptures, in the words of friends, in dreams, in music. But He never wrote a systematic theology.
People way too often seek security in statements in order to get a hold of reality in a world full of fear. But there is no security in statements. All we really have is Jesus' promise that He won't leave us.


If language is never the real thing, did Jesus miss too?

Sure! Few, if any, understood Him. He faced a huge communication gap.

John 3:12 - I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

[Roland Hearn]

Ok. Fine. Round 2. So are you saying I'm limited to only 1 word to define the apple?

No Jim that is my point. You can use lots of words to describe it. In fact the more you cared about the person you were talking to and the more you cared about them understanding what you were saying the more you would identify a miscommunication and try harder to get it said in a way that communicated what you want to say. It wouldn't be in the limited definition of the word "apple" that was the problem it would be that when you said "apple" something else registired in your hearer's mind, perhaps even pear because they had always heard pears referred to as apples. So becuase you love the person and care about apples you would keep trying.

Your orignal question was asking if it was poor definitions that was keeping us from communicating the gospel. My answer is "no," it is we don't care enough to make sure we are communicating correctly. If you love people and love God and care about the gospel you won't lament the inaccuricy or poor definitions you will keep on loving and giving and praying and caring until the person you are communicating gets it. But that's just me, you may want to keep working on defintions.

[Jim Frake]

The Holy Spirit speaks in many ways. In events, in nature, in the Scriptures, in the words of friends, in dreams, in music. But He never wrote a systematic theology.
People way too often seek security in statements in order to get a hold of reality in a world full of fear. But there is no security in statements. All we really have is Jesus' promise that He won't leave us.

Sure! Few, if any, understood Him. He faced a huge communication gap.

John 3:12 - I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

But there was security in His statements. Correct? And His language was pure regardless of whether I hear Him or not. Correct?

If all we have is His promise, yet we trash the word "promise", His original meaning is no less. However, we will have a harder task communicating that to another. That's all I'm saying.

The value is in none other than the message but we need words to get there. Therefore the value of protecting the word goes a long way towards preserving the message.

Thanks for your continued interest.

[Jim Frake]

..... In fact the more you cared about the person you were talking to and the more you cared about them understanding what you were saying the more you would identify a miscommunication and try harder to get it said in a way that communicated what you want to say ..... . So becuase you love the person and care about apples you would keep trying.

.... If you love people and love God and care about the gospel you won't lament the inaccuracy or poor definitions you will keep on loving and giving and praying and caring until the person you are communicating gets it. But that's just me, you may want to keep working on defintions.
.

Isn't this the same thing? You act as if "working on definitions" is sitting at a desk with books all day long.

If you were going to California and Google Maps depicted the best route, would you take it? If you didn't have a map, you could still get there by asking and heading west, but the road would be a lot longer. I just see some specific examples in which the church propagates over and over and sends people away confused. You may never get another chance to minister to some. That's not always our fault. I'm just suggesting we be careful what we say and what we assume about those that "may" be lost.

I'm not lamenting about definitions. I'm lamenting about lost souls.

Thank you Roland.

[Roland Hearn]

But there was security in His statements. Correct?

Incorrect, our security is in Him.


And His language was pure regardless of whether I hear Him or not. Correct?
Incorrect, there is no such thing as pure language.


If all we have is His promise, yet we trash the word "promise", His original meaning is no less. However, we will have a harder task communicating that to another. That's all I'm saying.

His promises are based in Him and revealed through the Holy Spirit. His original meaing is not lessened by my failure to graps what He meant and the fault is not in Him but I thank Him greatly that He tried many different ways to communicate what He was saying not just used the same words over and over again.


The value is in none other than the message but we need words to get there. Therefore the value of protecting the word goes a long way towards preserving the message.

I have no idea what "protecting words" means. Do we get a dictionary and lock it in a safe? Christ's revelation is Himself not His words. We discover Him, not His words. We can use many different words to say the same thing and that is ok. He transforms us not our language. We speak His gospel first through transformed lives and then through inadequate words. The right words has never saved anyone. It is Christ that saves.


Thanks for your continued interest.
You're welcome.

[Randy Wise]

Sure! Few, if any, understood Him. He faced a huge communication gap.

John 3:12 - I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

I don't believe the gap was communication but unbelief. People in the region where Jesus preached had to hear the news about the miracles Jesus performed and I don't know who "we" means in Nicodemus's statement but it does suggest at least some of the leaders did know Jesus was from God.

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."


"Jesus said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

R.

[Hans Deventer]

I don't believe the gap was communication but unbelief. People in the region where Jesus preached had to hear the news about the miracles Jesus performed and I don't know who "we" means in Nicodemus's statement but it does suggest at least some of the leaders did know Jesus was from God.

We also know that even the 12 didn't really get it till after Pentecost. So I'll stand by what I wrote.

Also, you'll surely agree with me that Jesus was a lot more than merely "a teacher who has come from God". Nicodemus didn't get who He was either. Nor did most of his contemporaries. In fact, when Peter made his confession, Jesus answered: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven". That's what it took! And even this man, only shortly after this beautiful confession, heard Jesus say: "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Peter still didn't get it.

[Hans Deventer]

But there was security in His statements. Correct?

Not even. We can't even be certain of the statements He made when understood as mere information! Jeremiah explains it:



18:7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

Even what He promised Himself won't happen if we won't live up to it.


And His language was pure regardless of whether I hear Him or not. Correct?

I'm sure He never spoke anything bad or evil. In that sense it was pure. But He certainly did speak the language of his people (Hebrew, Aramaic, whatever it was), and no human language is pure.


If all we have is His promise, yet we trash the word "promise", His original meaning is no less. However, we will have a harder task communicating that to another. That's all I'm saying.

Jim, I believe in His promises, but I also understand they don't go beyond me. John Wesley often quoted Augustin with agreement: "God who made us without ourselves will not save us without ourselves."


The value is in none other than the message but we need words to get there. Therefore the value of protecting the word goes a long way towards preserving the message.

I think the value is in Jesus, and He needs to become flesh in us through the Holy Spirit. That's what holiness is about, that's the best gospel we can present: Him alive through and in us.

Blessings,

[Randy Wise]

We also know that even the 12 didn't really get it till after Pentecost. So I'll stand by what I wrote.

Also, you'll surely agree with me that Jesus was a lot more than merely "a teacher who has come from God". Nicodemus didn't get who He was either. Nor did most of his contemporaries. In fact, when Peter made his confession, Jesus answered: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven". That's what it took! And even this man, only shortly after this beautiful confession, heard Jesus say: "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Peter still didn't get it.

The gap was unbelief, but none of this is hidden today and the gap is still unbelief. I do believe and have experienced the Holy Spirits involvement in the salvation message.

At Jesus's trial the question He was asked to condemn Him was if He was the Son of God. They knew what was communicated.

Randy

[Shea Zellweger]

But there was security in His statements. Correct? And His language was pure regardless of whether I hear Him or not. Correct?

If all we have is His promise, yet we trash the word "promise", His original meaning is no less. However, we will have a harder task communicating that to another. That's all I'm saying.

The value is in none other than the message but we need words to get there. Therefore the value of protecting the word goes a long way towards preserving the message.

Thanks for your continued interest.

Sorry, Jim, but this still doesn't work. It's not as though Greek was a pure language in which every word had only one accepted meaning, and yet Jesus did not spend his time defining words, only preaching the message, and ever since he did that, people have debated over what he meant. Jesus' language was not pure, it was the common language of the day, and he seemed willing to accept that it would be disputed, as am I. Even Paul, Peter, and John had disagreements over what was involved in being a follower of Christ. In order to "protect" a given word, we would first all have to agree what Jesus (or God) meant by that word, and we will never reach that point. I believe there is an acceptable range of definitions for any word, and most people are capable of recognizing the difference between a slightly different but still accurate definition, and one that is completely off the wall. Attempting to define or redefine a word is not a terrible thing to do, but I have very little interest in demanding that others understand a word precisely as I do (they never will), and I am not so bold as to claim that my definitions are the best in the first place. Purity of language is a myth that I feel needs to be dispelled along with claims to "objectivity" and "unbiased reasoning." These things simply do not exist.

[Todd Erickson]

The gap was unbelief, but none of this is hidden today and the gap is still unbelief. I do believe and have experienced the Holy Spirits involvement in the salvation message.

At Jesus's trial the question He was asked to condemn Him was if He was the Son of God. They knew what was communicated.

Randy

Actually, no.

The disciples were scattered in the days following the death of Christ, but when he returned and appeared before them, they met together to discuss what had happened. At Pentecost, the Spirit came among them, and they understood what they had been told.

The gap was not unbelief, it was the lack of the presence of the Spirit to make the way clear before them. Which is also why we believe in the inspiration of the scriptures.

[Hans Deventer]

The gap was unbelief, but none of this is hidden today and the gap is still unbelief. I do believe and have experienced the Holy Spirits involvement in the salvation message.

At Jesus's trial the question He was asked to condemn Him was if He was the Son of God. They knew what was communicated.

Randy, they definitely didn't understand who He was. They just saw Him as a threat and tried to capture Him on whatever they could find. But very, very few in His days understood who He really was. If they had, their reaction would have been different. (I wonder if we would have recognised Him.)

As Paul explains in Romans Romans 11:8 - as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."

That's also why Jesus spoke in parables:

Matt 13:10 The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" 11 He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

[Randy Wise]

Randy, they definitely didn't understand who He was. They just saw Him as a threat and tried to capture Him on whatever they could find. But very, very few in His days understood who He really was. If they had, their reaction would have been different. (I wonder if we would have recognised Him.)

As Paul explains in Romans Romans 11:8 - as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."

That's also why Jesus spoke in parables:

Matt 13:10 The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" 11 He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

They understood who He claimed to be. They didn't believe.

Now in the context of the scriptures above I see God resists the "proud" and gives grace to the humble. Such as the birth of Jesus was announced to shepards, (hebrews), in the field, which they seemed to embrace with faith.


The condition of one whose heart was far from God was not caused by Jesus's coming as it already existed.

Now if one can't accept Jesus is the Son of God why would they except the additional revelation that He came from above and baptises with the Holy Spirit. (How God writes the new covenant on our hearts)

Certainly John the immerser testified Jesus came from above and baptized with the Holy Spirit even before the 12. In fact he directed John and Andrew to Jesus. Many came to John and listened to his testimony. (Johns purpose was shown in his answer on who he was)

All that was then and today and for almost 2000 years that testimony has been explained and presented. I still see the gap as unbelief and I don't see Gods Holy Spirit as the cause of that unbelief. People understand the message presented.

Randy

[Ryan Plott]

Jim,

Where did you go? Feel like answering any of my questions?

[Randy Wise]

Actually, no.

The disciples were scattered in the days following the death of Christ, but when he returned and appeared before them, they met together to discuss what had happened. At Pentecost, the Spirit came among them, and they understood what they had been told.

The gap was not unbelief, it was the lack of the presence of the Spirit to make the way clear before them. Which is also why we believe in the inspiration of the scriptures.

From what I see in scripture it was a condition of the heart that caused the unbelief as the gospel message took place in Israel and they were all Hebrews.

It seems to me the High Priest and those closest to him kept hearing the reports over and over about Jesus but when they wanted to see miracles themselves such as asking Jesus to give them a sign from heaven, it was then Jesus said no and in that manner one can see a context of "hidden from their eyes". However in regard to the Spirit of Truth don't you believe Jesus spoke to those people so how can you state the Holy Spirit wasn't present.



Jesus answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

[Todd Erickson]

It's quite clear that even when Jesus spoke clearly to his disciples, they still kept asking him to explain what he had said. They didn't understand it clearly enough to write the Gospels and teach others until after the coming of the Holy Spirit, whose purpose was/is different than Christ's.

[Randy Wise]

It's quite clear that even when Jesus spoke clearly to his disciples, they still kept asking him to explain what he had said. They didn't understand it clearly enough to write the Gospels and teach others until after the coming of the Holy Spirit, whose purpose was/is different than Christ's.

Do you believe Gods Holy wasn't present even with the 12 and thats why Jesus needed to explain certain parables?

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

They understood who He claimed to be. They didn't believe.

Randy, I do not agree, but this ends up in yes - no - yes - no - yes - no. That is useless. I wish you peace and I'll stop this.

[Todd Erickson]

Do you believe Gods Holy wasn't present even with the 12 and thats why Jesus needed to explain certain parables?

Randy

Yes. The Holy Spirit was not present among men until Jesus left. Jesus specifically says this, that he must return to his father, but he is sending another, a Spirit, a teacher, who will dwell among us and show us the truth.

[Randy Wise]

Yes. The Holy Spirit was not present among men until Jesus left. Jesus specifically says this, that he must return to his father, but he is sending another, a Spirit, a teacher, who will dwell among us and show us the truth.

I don't agree with you as I believe the Holy Spirit was with them and on the day in question was then in them. Thats how I read John 14. It may be debatable from your answer. I don't know what the so called experts reading of that passage is. Certainly Gods fullness was in Jesus teaching Him what to state and many did believe in Him and all that in this day has long been explained.

Randy

[Randy Wise]

I think its clear the risen Lord didn't show Himself to the the High Priest, but did show Himself to the 11 and others. However just as before the reports of testimony came back to the High Priest who now had the added testimony of the resurrection. If they didn't understand so much then why did they have the tomb guarded? Why did they ask Jesus if He was the Son of God?

Jesus could have showed Himself to the High Priest and those around him and said "hi guys" but God had other plans as we read about the mystery that was revealed to the "whole world"

[Todd Erickson]

I think its clear the risen Lord didn't show Himself to the the High Priest, but did show Himself to the 11 and others. However just as before the reports of testimony came back to the High Priest who now had the added testimony of the resurrection. If they didn't understand so much then why did they have the tomb guarded? Why did they ask Jesus if He was the Son of God?

Jesus could have showed Himself to the High Priest and those around him and said "hi guys" but God had other plans as we read about the mystery that was revealed to the "whole world"

They had the tomb guarded so that the disciples wouldn't steal the body. There weren't any expectations about Jesus being resurrected, as there was no specific belief at that time in a bodily resurrection before the end of the world among the Jews.

[Shea Zellweger]

I think its clear the risen Lord didn't show Himself to the the High Priest, but did show Himself to the 11 and others. However just as before the reports of testimony came back to the High Priest who now had the added testimony of the resurrection. If they didn't understand so much then why did they have the tomb guarded? Why did they ask Jesus if He was the Son of God?


They had the tomb guarded to prevent the body from being stolen. Even when the tomb was found empty, the disciples didn't think Jesus had risen from the dead. Luke tells us that they were confused and did not understand.
They asked Jesus if he was the Son of God because they had heard it claimed about him, and if they got him to say so they could charge him with blasphemy, which is precisely what they did once he admitted to it.

[Jim Frake]

Incorrect, there is no such thing as pure language.


Really? I think you mean communication (with the human element) not language. This is the problem with your premise. Did you mean to say, "There is no pure communication"?



His promises are based in Him and revealed through the Holy Spirit. His original meaing is not lessened by my failure to graps what He meant and the fault is not in Him but I thank Him greatly that He tried many different ways to communicate what He was saying not just used the same words over and over again.


Again you insist that our failure to grasp the meanings of the words taints His language. This claim would invalidate the words of the Bible. I believe in the sanctity and purity of and in the Word of God. Nothing we do or fail to do can change that. I asked about the language of the Holy Spirit. Is that pure language? Careful, I didn't say communication. Your reference to scripture in a previous post doesn't apply here in regards to what Paul said because the initiation of language does not imply the reception of it.



I have no idea what "protecting words" means. Do we get a dictionary and lock it in a safe? Christ's revelation is Himself not His words. We discover Him, not His words. We can use many different words to say the same thing and that is ok. He transforms us not our language. We speak His gospel first through transformed lives and then through inadequate words. The right words has never saved anyone. It is Christ that saves.


Language is more than words as I have indicated many times. Yes lock the language in a safe (virtual such as your heart). The revelation of Himself is done through language. If not, how else? Any proposed theory fails if one example can disprove it.

So if you can disprove this:
God is Love.
God is Truth.

Please use an example and not just another theory.

Thanks.

Oh and Hank, if we can't get past semantics I won't be able to answer your questions. I'm still trying to hit the ball with this team. Hehehehe!

[Randy Wise]

They had the tomb guarded to prevent the body from being stolen. Even when the tomb was found empty, the disciples didn't think Jesus had risen from the dead. Luke tells us that they were confused and did not understand.
They asked Jesus if he was the Son of God because they had heard it claimed about him, and if they got him to say so they could charge him with blasphemy, which is precisely what they did once he admitted to it.

Peter confessed Jesus was the Christ, the Son Of God.

What case are you presenting?

Randy

[Rich Schmidt]

Language is more than words as I have indicated many times. Yes lock the language in a safe (virtual such as your heart). The revelation of Himself is done through language. If not, how else? Any proposed theory fails if one example can disprove it.

So if you can disprove this:
God is Love.
God is Truth.

Please use an example and not just another theory.

Thanks.

Oh and Hank, if we can't get past semantics I won't be able to answer your questions. I'm still trying to hit the ball with this team. Hehehehe!

And I'm still trying to understand what the point is to this whole exercise. Do you really think there are people here who would want to try to disprove the statements that God is Love and God is Truth? (Maybe there are, I don't know...)

Are you just trying to say that, in order to communicate the gospel to someone in a way they can understand and embrace, we have to have a common language? OK. I don't know anyone who would dispute that.

Are you just saying that words matter and definitions matter and that we need to be precise in the words that we use when speaking of God, his mission, sin, salvation, etc? OK. I don't know anyone who would dispute that.

But it sounds like you're saying more than these things. It sounds like you want us all to accept one specific theory of the relationship of language to truth and reality -- perhaps the Correspondence Theory of Truth (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth) -- and that if we don't hold to that approach, the church and its mission is derailed. If that's your agenda, then you'll likely have trouble finding universal agreement here.

[Shea Zellweger]

Peter confessed Jesus was the Christ, the Son Of God.

What case are you presenting?

Randy

You asked "If they didn't understand so much then why did they have the tomb guarded? Why did they ask Jesus if He was the Son of God?" I was giving you answers to those questions. The Pharisees did not believe Jesus was the son of God, they were only trying to convict him of blasphemy for claiming to be the son of God. The Pharisees (and Romans) also did not believe Jesus would rise from the dead, but they thought the disciples might try to steal Jesus' body and say he was still alive, so they guarded the tomb. What Peter confessed is irrelevant to what the Pharisees thought, as the two were not connected.

[Randy Wise]

You asked "If they didn't understand so much then why did they have the tomb guarded? Why did they ask Jesus if He was the Son of God?" I was giving you answers to those questions. The Pharisees did not believe Jesus was the son of God, they were only trying to convict him of blasphemy for claiming to be the son of God. The Pharisees (and Romans) also did not believe Jesus would rise from the dead, but they thought the disciples might try to steal Jesus' body and say he was still alive, so they guarded the tomb. What Peter confessed is irrelevant to what the Pharisees thought, as the two were not connected.

Yes they didn't believe, but as I stated they understood who Jesus claimed to be and now also I have presented they understood the claim of resurrection.



2The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63"Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.' 64So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first."

Randy

[Todd Erickson]

Really? I think you mean communication (with the human element) not language. This is the problem with your premise. Did you mean to say, "There is no pure communication"?



Again you insist that our failure to grasp the meanings of the words taints His language. This claim would invalidate the words of the Bible. I believe in the sanctity and purity of and in the Word of God. Nothing we do or fail to do can change that. I asked about the language of the Holy Spirit. Is that pure language? Careful, I didn't say communication. Your reference to scripture in a previous post doesn't apply here in regards to what Paul said because the initiation of language does not imply the reception of it.


You appear to be denying the existence of the Babel effect. Just because Jesus was not sinful, does not mean that his communication was not affected by the Babel effect.

[Steven Martinez]

Language (and the difficulty of understanding it) is part of the Scandal of Particularity. If we deny that Scandal then we deny the Scandal of the Incarnation which then leads to the denial of the Scandal of the Cross. I think Paul speaks well enough of why we should never deny that scandal.

[Ryan Plott]

Oh and Hank, if we can't get past semantics I won't be able to answer your questions. I'm still trying to hit the ball with this team. Hehehehe!

Wasn't the whole point of the thread you started to work through semantics and help the church spread the gospel? Isn't this statement here a denial of that wish? Maybe I'm just funny but I don't see the point in bringing forth a problem if you don't want to discuss it. There's nothing I've posted that hasn't been opened to dialogue. Why don't you try working through a problem you've noticed? Your dismissal leads me to believe you are either being dishonest with your intentions in creating this thread or really don't have any interest in dialogue and are merely seeking entertainment. Of course, you could always prove me wrong.

[Jim Frake]

Wasn't the whole point of the thread you started to work through semantics and help the church spread the gospel? Isn't this statement here a denial of that wish? Maybe I'm just funny but I don't see the point in bringing forth a problem if you don't want to discuss it. There's nothing I've posted that hasn't been opened to dialogue. Why don't you try working through a problem you've noticed? Your dismissal leads me to believe you are either being dishonest with your intentions in creating this thread or really don't have any interest in dialogue and are merely seeking entertainment. Of course, you could always prove me wrong.

Dismissal? Being dishonest? Literally amazing! Pun intended. But I'm trying to laugh to stop from crying. Hank you really know how to hit me where it hurts. The worst thing ANYONE can do to me is attack my integrity. Not that I don't have any flaws. I just want to remove them. Your suggestions surprised me.

Have you read any of my posts? If we can't agree on pure language from God's perspective, then it's hard to make certain conclusions.

Hank, I liked what you said concerning the church not keeping the incarnation first. I guess I don't make distinction between Gods Word and Christ. To me the incarnation is the same as God's Word. As far as semantics, it was very present in the time Christ walked. The debates with the Pharisees. Pilate saying, "What is Truth?" etc. etc.

Hank, how about the supporting argument concerning the chapter of Job which you suggested I read. I had asked you in an earlier post what you meant by comparing the tragedy of Job to evil coming from God and you didn't respond. I didn't attack you. Then I gave you reference concerning the example of the pear and the apple. This was in comparison to the church unintentionally leading folk away. Still no response from you.

Entertaining? Yes I'm very entertained. As I've said before, this is what I love to do. So is that wrong somehow? As I said debate is how we grow. Sometimes it's painful but for Good cause (hint Job).

I still have little support concerning the frame of my original post. In the beginning was the Word is not framed around our perspective it is from GOD's. Unless you believe that John was not inspired by the Holy Spirit or that he was inspired but the Words he wrote didn't intend exactly what God wanted them to mean, then I haven't heard a good argument disproving God's pure language. I have heard many disproving pure communication. I think this distinction between language and communication is critical.

Protecting the "Word" doesn't mean constant definitions. It doesn't mean a military style or "law" to prescribe a tabulated formula towards understanding. It actually means a more flexible style and less rigid style. It actually means keeping open minds so as to get on the narrow path. That path is Christ but you can't begin to describe Him. You (the group) say it's having a relationship with Him of which I firmly believe but then any attempt to describe that relationship breaks down. Spreading the Gospel for the majority is already so formal and ritualistic -- even in proclaimed "Spirit lead" denominations (ugh. did I just say that word?) or our Baptist friends who roam the grocery store parking lots putting the sinners prayer in our hands asking us to read and then that's it! Hey if those that go to the witness stand swearing to tell the truth but don't, then why would we think that reading the sinners prayer is anymore authentic and effective? Confessing from thy mouth involves a belief in your heart. If there is any disconnect at all, well ...

I asked if God is Truth and Christ is Love. Instead of agree with the statements like Rich has, some poster gets upset with the fact that I didn't say God is Love and Christ is Truth. Whoa talk about semantics! I'm trying to start with some basics but that seems to be the infinity Hans speaks of. Most are so convinced in this or that. I'm just trying to get to the elements. Of course I'm told that I'm wrong in doing that. I'm trying to start with something I know. That also is unpopular. Most have pointed out what Christ is not.

I have no agenda. I asked the question because that is what I believe. I didn't read it in a journal. I just thought about it. It comes from powerful representatives of churches all over that will make outrageous claims and I just think, "Could this be a joke? This is why people don't go to church." I began to see why this was. The judgment is so strong. I don't think the intent was to scare people away. But fear took over. There was need to go after the numbers. There was greed involved. Big egos that started churches needed people. Then it just happened. Let's go pick on people and then claim we are for the Lord. Let's setup the scenarios. Let's make Good bad and Bad good. We can do whatever we want. We are Christ's church. As long as we say we believe in Christ, we don't really have to know what that means because we can never understand. We just trust in Him. In who? I don't want Him to say to me, "You never knew me."

There's a Casting Crown song that I sing called the "Voice of Truth":

"But the Voice of Truth tells me a different story and the Voice of Truth says 'Do not be afraid' and the Voice of Truth says, 'This is for My glory' out of all the voices calling out to me I will choose to listen and believe the Voice of Truth."

This voice is the language of the Holy Spirit. This language is pure. This language is God. I don't make the separation. From Wikipedia, Topic: "Language", I just read this after I typed this whole post:

Concepts themselves are signantia for the objective reality being conceived. When discussed as a general phenomenon then, "language" may imply a particular type of human thought that can be present even when communication is not the result, and this way of thinking is also sometimes treated as indistinguishable from language itself

Stephen I didn't deny difficulty in understanding language. I will say it 100 times more if needed. Hans I didn't deny the difficulty in communication. Shea and Todd, yall are in this same group. Roland find the quote in which I have said that communication is simple? Anytime I view the human factor I agree it gets messed up. I agree with anyone that has made these statements. This has not been nor will be my argument. It's a distraction to the point of the original post.

So I'm sorry I can't debate with those that want to keep this game on the ground. I am with the Father. I hear his Words. They are pure. My ears are not. My interpretation gets mixed up often. When it does it takes time to know it. If my hearing is messed up, my life then becomes off balanced. I begin to compare to different times in my life when I was more at peace and blessed with gifts of the Holy Spirit. Then I'm able to get back on track. As was pointed out what Paul said, "When perfect comes the imperfect disappears." I liked what David Graham said in his previous post; it was precisely this point.

Yes I enjoy this. Oh yes.

[Ryan Plott]

Dismissal? Being dishonest? Literally amazing! Pun intended. But I'm trying to laugh to stop from crying. Hank you really know how to hit me where it hurts. The worst thing ANYONE can do to me is attack my integrity. Not that I don't have any flaws. I just want to remove them. Your suggestions surprised me.

Have you read any of my posts? If we can't agree on pure language from God's perspective, then it's hard to make certain conclusions.

Hank, I liked what you said concerning the church not keeping the incarnation first. I guess I don't make distinction between Gods Word and Christ. To me the incarnation is the same as God's Word. As far as semantics, it was very present in the time Christ walked. The debates with the Pharisees. Pilate saying, "What is Truth?" etc. etc.

Hank, how about the supporting argument concerning the chapter of Job which you suggested I read. I had asked you in an earlier post what you meant by comparing the tragedy of Job to evil coming from God and you didn't respond. I didn't attack you. Then I gave you reference concerning the example of the pear and the apple. This was in comparison to the church unintentionally leading folk away. Still no response from you.

Entertaining? Yes I'm very entertained. As I've said before, this is what I love to do. So is that wrong somehow? As I said debate is how we grow. Sometimes it's painful but for Good cause (hint Job).

I still have little support concerning the frame of my original post. In the beginning was the Word is not framed around our perspective it is from GOD's. Unless you believe that John was not inspired by the Holy Spirit or that he was inspired but the Words he wrote didn't intend exactly what God wanted them to mean, then I haven't heard a good argument disproving God's pure language. I have heard many disproving pure communication. I think this distinction between language and communication is critical.

Protecting the "Word" doesn't mean constant definitions. It doesn't mean a military style or "law" to prescribe a tabulated formula towards understanding. It actually means a more flexible style and less rigid style. It actually means keeping open minds so as to get on the narrow path. That path is Christ but you can't begin to describe Him. You (the group) say it's having a relationship with Him of which I firmly believe but then any attempt to describe that relationship breaks down. Spreading the Gospel for the majority is already so formal and ritualistic -- even in proclaimed "Spirit lead" denominations (ugh. did I just say that word?) or our Baptist friends who roam the grocery store parking lots putting the sinners prayer in our hands asking us to read and then that's it! Hey if those that go to the witness stand swearing to tell the truth but don't, then why would we think that reading the sinners prayer is anymore authentic and effective? Confessing from thy mouth involves a belief in your heart. If there is any disconnect at all, well ...

I asked if God is Truth and Christ is Love. Instead of agree with the statements like Rich has, some poster gets upset with the fact that I didn't say God is Love and Christ is Truth. Whoa talk about semantics! I'm trying to start with some basics but that seems to be the infinity Hans speaks of. Most are so convinced in this or that. I'm just trying to get to the elements. Of course I'm told that I'm wrong in doing that. I'm trying to start with something I know. That also is unpopular. Most have pointed out what Christ is not.

I have no agenda. I asked the question because that is what I believe. I didn't read it in a journal. I just thought about it. It comes from powerful representatives of churches all over that will make outrageous claims and I just think, "Could this be a joke? This is why people don't go to church." I began to see why this was. The judgment is so strong. I don't think the intent was to scare people away. But fear took over. There was need to go after the numbers. There was greed involved. Big egos that started churches needed people. Then it just happened. Let's go pick on people and then claim we are for the Lord. Let's setup the scenarios. Let's make Good bad and Bad good. We can do whatever we want. We are Christ's church. As long as we say we believe in Christ, we don't really have to know what that means because we can never understand. We just trust in Him. In who? I don't want Him to say to me, "You never knew me."

There's a Casting Crown song that I sing called the "Voice of Truth":

"But the Voice of Truth tells me a different story and the Voice of Truth says 'Do not be afraid' and the Voice of Truth says, 'This is for My glory' out of all the voices calling out to me I will choose to listen and believe the Voice of Truth."

This voice is the language of the Holy Spirit. This language is pure. This language is God. I don't make the separation. From Wikipedia, Topic: "Language", I just read this after I typed this whole post:

Concepts themselves are signantia for the objective reality being conceived. When discussed as a general phenomenon then, "language" may imply a particular type of human thought that can be present even when communication is not the result, and this way of thinking is also sometimes treated as indistinguishable from language itself

Not intending to attack your integrity, trying to communicate to you the impression you're giving me. I haven't seen any post of yours that talks to me about Job or pears and apples. Nowhere have I talked to you about purity of language. A failure to answer simple questions I ask you after I answer ones you give, that really are just for the sake of background info, leads me to believe you aren't looking for dialogue. As you admit, you're looking for entertainment. You still haven't given any logical support for your proof-texting of John 1:1 to include semantics when what is being established in that verse is the connection of Jesus to the Logos. You can discuss this topic if you want, but at least be true to Scripture's intent when you use it.

Also equating me with the group here would be a mistake. I'm in no way working with anyone on Naznet to "debate" with you. I really just want my simple questions answered so discussion can go forward.

If we agreed on "pure language from God's perspective" what would your following point be?

[Todd Erickson]

There really isn't any such thing as purity in language. Note how difficult it is to say things that are important to Hebrew or Greek accurately in English...the culture and frame of mind is literally different, and informs/expresses different things. We have to enter into science fiction in order to express some things that were perfectly natural in those other languages, and we still miss because of our modernist perspective.

Peter Rollins talks about the true Christian having an aspect of the Atheist to them, because they must get up daily and admit to themselves that this definition they had for God is actually false, that God isn't like that, and if they continue to use that phrasing, that concept, then they're trying to trap God in a box.

And you seem very bent on trapping God in that box. You want "simple language" to definitely state things about God so that you know precisely where you are on that narrow road, which is the heart of the modernist response.

Jesus never says anything about knowing where you are on the road. He just says "follow me". "Abide in me". "Be like me."

Our job is not to worry about how God is Truth, or what Truth then looks like (though we will). Our job is to incarnate Christ, in our own Way, day by day.

Much of the language you use, where you state that you are having a debate, and a fun one, but that we're not doing what you want us to, or not engaging in a way that you see as appropriate, is the classic language of trolls on the internet. I am not saying that you are a troll, specifically, as you do have a point, merely warning you that you are following into a particular set of behaviour, and that it is an ungracious behaviour.

[Ryan Plott]

If I could give you double thanks I would Todd. You said it better than I could have.

[Shea Zellweger]

Yes they didn't believe, but as I stated they understood who Jesus claimed to be and now also I have presented they understood the claim of resurrection.



2The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63"Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.' 64So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first."

Randy

Yes, but your question was not "did they know who Jesus claimed to be?" Your question was "Why did they ask him if he was the Son of God." The Pharisees treated Jesus like a crazy person- their actions were the same as if you or I knew someone claiming to be Abraham Lincoln and, in order to get him institutionalized, asked him in front of a psychiatrist what his name was. We would know how he would respond, but that doesn't mean we would believe it. Likewise with the Tomb, they knew he claimed he would rise, but they didn't believe it. What they expected was that the disciples would steal his body. The Pharisees knew what was being claimed, but they did not believe, and they certainly did not truly understand.

[Randy Wise]

Yes, but your question was not "did they know who Jesus claimed to be?" Your question was "Why did they ask him if he was the Son of God." The Pharisees treated Jesus like a crazy person- their actions were the same as if you or I knew someone claiming to be Abraham Lincoln and, in order to get him institutionalized, asked him in front of a psychiatrist what his name was. We would know how he would respond, but that doesn't mean we would believe it. Likewise with the Tomb, they knew he claimed he would rise, but they didn't believe it. What they expected was that the disciples would steal his body. The Pharisees knew what was being claimed, but they did not believe, and they certainly did not truly understand.

Lets back up. My point is if they had difficulty understanding the message then why did they ask... Yes they didn't believe the message but was that a fault of what was presented? I thought this thread was the use of language or words in presenting the gospel. So they did understand what was presented in regard "Son of God", "Christ" and "resurrection". That was my point.

Peace,

Randy

[Roland Hearn]

Jim,
So far I have honestly tried to respond to what I thought was a legitimate question about the church's failure to be effective through failing to preserve words. As the church is about people I had thought you were talking about human communication and human words. Let me see if I come even close to what you are suggesting: You are saying there is perfect language. It is God's language that humanity has failed to preserve effectively. Our failure has led to the church being ineffective in communicating the gospel. If we will open our hearts to the purity of His language then we will be able to communicate effectively - is that even close to what you are saying? I'm just trying to get my head around it becuase I don't seem to be close yet.

[Jim Frake]

Much of the language you use, where you state that you are having a debate, and a fun one, but that we're not doing what you want us to, or not engaging in a way that you see as appropriate, is the classic language of trolls on the internet. I am not saying that you are a troll, specifically, as you do have a point, merely warning you that you are following into a particular set of behaviour, and that it is an ungracious behaviour.

Ungracious mean "socially unwelcome". If I'm not welcome then I will graciously not post anymore. I'm not trying to offend anyone. Trolls have that intention. Therefore I wouldn't agree that I'm exhibiting the "classic language" of a troll.

Wikipedia's definition of a Troll is thus:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

Which part of this am I guilty of?

If you are bored with this dialogue then there are other topics. Create one yourself. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean you have to call me names. Let's be honest. Saying I exhibit the behavior of a troll but reserving the right to say that you never did is the exact concept of this post so I believe I am still on-topic.

Why not just let this post die? Or maybe Hans will just kill it and then that will be it. What ever happens, I would like to say that I will still try to develop ideas and I again appreciate those that can add to this understanding.

Hank, what's the purpose of inviting me to dialogue and then seconding Todd's accusation of me being a "Troll" and being "ungracious"? You know how the saying goes. "If you wrestle with a pig you get dirty and the pig likes it." If you believe I'm a troll then why invite the engagement?

Not one of you can second one post I have made up to this point. I have no problem at all with working from the minority. Yet Rich's last post was particularly interesting. He reasoned that many here would not dispute the things that have been said. He speculated I'm looking for universal agreement or the church mission is derailed. That's what Stephen referenced in the "Scandal of Particularity". If I believed this then I wouldn't believe in the scandal. I believe in the scandal. I realize that there is difficulty in understanding. I just don't believe in propagating "untruths" in our ministry.

What that means is anyone's guess as I'm sure they will.

[Jim Frake]

Jim,
So far I have honestly tried to respond to what I thought was a legitimate question about the church's failure to be effective through failing to preserve words. As the church is about people I had thought you were talking about human communication and human words. Let me see if I come even close to what you are suggesting: You are saying there is perfect language. It is God's language that humanity has failed to preserve effectively. Our failure has led to the church being ineffective in communicating the gospel. If we will open our hearts to the purity of His language then we will be able to communicate effectively - is that even close to what you are saying? I'm just trying to get my head around it becuase I don't seem to be close yet.

My prayer to God right now is this:
Lord as tears of joy stream down my face as I read Roland's post I am smitten with Your Spirit. Thank you Lord for this man hearing. I know I didn't use the right words. I know I didn't say it like you would have me to. I am just grateful that the message is finally delivered. I am grateful for any ability at all to use language to communicate your messages or ultimately your Word which is the Christ.

[Ryan Plott]

Hank, what's the purpose of inviting me to dialogue and then seconding Todd's accusation of me being a "Troll" and being "ungracious"? You know how the saying goes. "If you wrestle with a pig you get dirty and the pig likes it." If you believe I'm a troll then why invite the engagement?
Jim,

First off, let me say my thanks to Todd was to his entire post as I thought all of his points were well-said, well-written, and were interacting with both your thought and its presentation. Also he was not equaling you with a troll, if you'll read his post carefully he states your behavior is troll-ish. That is a distinction you seem to have missed. Every reply someone has given to you with questions that do not immediately agree with your premise are critiqued by you with rhetoric and semantics while failing to engage with the substance of any one person's questions, you merely dismiss or ignore them. Look at the second part of that definition you posted of troll and you'll see how your behavior is perceived to be troll-ish by those of us who thanked Todd for his post. I would also like to point out that I tried to dialogue with your before Todd's post and you ignored me then also. This seems to be you grabbing at any excuse you can to not interact with me or others in a manner that might speak a corrective word to this obsession you have over the presentation of the Gospel's language rather than the Gospel itself and its life-transforming power in this world.

As for your question to me, I was actually reading through the Sermon on the Mount today during some down-time at work and in Matthew 7:6 Jesus gives instructions on how to deal with pigs. If you wish to treat the Gospel of Christ as if it is something to play word games with and to feign offense at people's remarks while openly admitting to enjoying the "debate" you have started then I must confess that I have broken a biblical command. You're absolutely right, I should not be engaging with you. You have missed the mark when it comes to the power and substance of the Gospel so I cannot say anything else to you. It would be an exercise in futility.

[Todd Erickson]

Ungracious mean "socially unwelcome". If I'm not welcome then I will graciously not post anymore. I'm not trying to offend anyone. Trolls have that intention. Therefore I wouldn't agree that I'm exhibiting the "classic language" of a troll.



Hrm. I'm not sure how you get "socially unwelcome" from "ungracious". This is what we refer to as "doing violence to the text". Being graceful, or ungraceful, has absolutely nothing to do with how welcome somebody is...being welcome or not welcome is a reactive state, whereas being gracious or ungracious is a proactive, internal state.

As Hank has pointed out, you have felt free to critique us or tell us how we're doing things wrong, while openly ignoring questions that attempt clarification, and then accusing us of intentions obfuscating the topic, or being lazy about our approach to God. In this, you epitomize the troll:




"with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2][/I]



You state that you're having fun, you make purposefully inflammatory remarks, and you refuse to answer questions or interact evenly with the other posters. You have determined that you are above us in judgement and have the answers, and can publically declare for us by what degree we have hit or missed the mark. Thus, this is not a discussion, because you're not interested in discussion, but, so far, only guiding us to your "point".



If you are bored with this dialogue then there are other topics. Create one yourself. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean you have to call me names. Let's be honest. Saying I exhibit the behavior of a troll but reserving the right to say that you never did is the exact concept of this post so I believe I am still on-topic.


Children play a game called "cops and robbers" (or variations thereof). Most annoying is the child who insists, no matter how many people are "shooting" at him, that everybody has missed, and in fact he is the only one with an accurate aim. Children generally cease attempting to play games with such individuals.




Hank, what's the purpose of inviting me to dialogue and then seconding Todd's accusation of me being a "Troll" and being "ungracious"? You know how the saying goes. "If you wrestle with a pig you get dirty and the pig likes it." If you believe I'm a troll then why invite the engagement?



Dialogue involves people actually talking to one another, listening to one another, asking questions of one another.

You, on the other hand, are operating much more like Socrates, who only answered questions with other questions, and judged himself wiser than others around him precisely because he understood what a fool he was. Until they made him drink hemlock. Which we don't do here.

You don't answer questions that people have asked. You don't appear to actually listen to people's questions, or rather, you are only listening for the peg that fills the hole that you have carved. This is not dialogue.




Not one of you can second one post I have made up to this point. I have no problem at all with working from the minority. Yet Rich's last post was particularly interesting. He reasoned that many here would not dispute the things that have been said. He speculated I'm looking for universal agreement or the church mission is derailed. That's what Stephen referenced in the "Scandal of Particularity". If I believed this then I wouldn't believe in the scandal. I believe in the scandal. I realize that there is difficulty in understanding. I just don't believe in propagating "untruths" in our ministry.



We only second things when they are clear, and we can clearly agree with them. Every statement you have made so far makes vast assumptions, and then upbraids people for not instantly agreeing with those assumptions. Which is how the inquisition got away with killing so many people, who also wouldn't agree with their simple assumptions.

What you view as simple and straight forward, we view as problematic. We are attempting to discuss with you how one might more carefully and particularly phrase these things, but you accuse us of being lazy, of avoiding the subject, or of not loving God.

If I say to you, "your mother is either a whore or a murderer", and I demand that you answer one way or another, and I deride you for not being able to agree with my conclusion, you're going to be in a fix (or just really irritated) because the assumption of the question itself is actually wrong. Much like the question, "Can God create a rock larger than He can lift", the question specifically misunderstands the nature of the body which it purports to question about, and thus cannot be answered in it's present form.

And this is precisely what you have been doing in this thread. Un-ask the question, quit trying to get a specific answer to a question that doesn't make sense, and we can work much more openly on finding meaningful language.

[Jim Frake]

Also he was not equaling you with a troll, if you'll read his post carefully he states your behavior is troll-ish. That is a distinction you seem to have missed.


then later ..



Look at the second part of that definition you posted of troll and you'll see how your behavior is perceived to be troll-ish by those of us who thanked Todd for his post.


This is counter "operational definition". Describe something such as "Walk like a duck, quack like a duck" but then claim it's not a duck. This is precisely the problem.



As for your question to me, I was actually reading through the Sermon on the Mount today during some down-time at work and in Matthew 7:6 Jesus gives instructions on how to deal with pigs. If you wish to treat the Gospel of Christ as if it is something to play word games with and to feign offense at people's remarks while openly admitting to enjoying the "debate" you have started then I must confess that I have broken a biblical command.

Where do you get this stuff? Where did I give the impression I wish to play games with the Gospel? Quote me. Support this claim. You think I started a debate? I'm participating in one. I took the original position. Was I just supposed to roll over at the opposition? For all I knew, many would support these ideas. So I didn't get upset when they didn't. I just stayed persistent and now you claim I'm "obsessed".

Again from Wikipedia, Topic: Debate:
in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.

I tried to set the context and I was having a hard time shifting the focus from humanity towards God. In fact one response said my statements had limited context. Quite the opposite was true. Finally, Roland posted exactly what I was trying to state and he did so with a lot more clarity that I did. I'm sorry for that.

I did leave my phone number with you in a private message and would appreciate a call (dial *69 before number for a private call) or you could leave your number for me to call as I don't quite understand why this got so personal to you. What I enjoy is a collective advancement of understanding. I still think this is possible.

Unless of course you really believe I'm that dog or swine. I don't think you do. I just think you're blowing off steam which is understandable if debate is not natural to you.

[Jim Frake]

Hrm. I'm not sure how you get "socially unwelcome" from "ungracious". This is what we refer to as "doing violence to the text". Being graceful, or ungraceful, has absolutely nothing to do with how welcome somebody is...being welcome or not welcome is a reactive state, whereas being gracious or ungracious is a proactive, internal state.


Answer: From the dictionary:
un·gra·cious (ŭn-grā'shəs) adj.
1. Lacking social grace or graciousness; rude.
2. Not welcome or acceptable; unattractive.
3. Archaic. Evil; wicked.

Do you see the problem Todd? Did you just make up a definition to this word and then assume me to know what you meant?

Whose making inflammatory statements? I asked you to quote me. The only response is more opinionated unsupported accusatory statements.

Moderator? Help!

[David Gerber]

There are 38,000 Christian denominations. According to some quick research through Google.
That is a lot of people who think that the other people don't have it right.

Perhaps our problem is with definitions of truth and facts. The great Twentieth Century philosopher Indiana Jones said, "Archeology is the search for facts, not truth. If it’s truth you’re looking for, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall."

We have 88 posts (89 with mine) that have struggled to come to consensus on Jim's original meaning. This seems ironic that none of us have been able to communicate clearly enough to make our point. At least I think it is ironic. It could be humorous, laughable, sad, dismal, appropriate, self-evident...you get the idea.

There are 38,000 denominations, many different translations of the Bible, and countless interpretations of those words in the Bible. Leonard Sweet said: There is all too much panic over that word relative. I believe in absolute truth (which I believe, by the way, is Jesus the Christ, the way, the truth, the life — notice here that absolute truth is not abstract truth, but incarnate truth). The notion that there are no absolutes is self-defeating and self-contradictory.
Not all truth is absolute. Some truth is relative — to a person, to a culture, to a historical period. What brings together absolute truth and relative truth is relational truth.

504A picture is worth a thousand words. It would take many more of those words to describe the joy in my daughter face when her husband came back from Iraq on leave. It would take many more to describe her pain when he went back. All the words you could use, in all the languages you knew would not scratch the surface of what she felt.

I could describe a beautiful, awesome, mind-bending, heavenly, amazing, glorious, humbling, stupefying sunset, but it will be dull and boring to the actual experience of seeing it with me. Even still, we will walk away with different experiences of the exact same sunset. We're just made differently.

Pictures are powerful, examples even more so. Perhaps, that is why the Word became flesh and dwelt, tabernacled, lived, moved into the neighborhood, with us. I don't know.

And here is the strangest part for me: I actually think I made sense in this posting and yet, because of the words I used to describe the ideas I have about this topic, some will not get it or understand it. Some will agree with it. But few if any will know exactly what I meant by it. I sent the words out, they were interpreted by people out of my control.

Words have meanings. Meanings change over time.

For example: The definition of the word prevent from Wicktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prevent)
Verb
to prevent (third-person singular simple present prevents, present participle preventing, simple past and past participle prevented)
To stop; to keep (from happening). [from 16th c.]
(obsolete) To come before; to precede. [16th-18th c.]
(obsolete) To outdo, surpass. [16th-17th c.]
1596, Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene, IV.i:
With that he put his spurres vnto his steed, / With speare in rest, and toward him did fare, / Like shaft out of a bow preuenting speed.

Argh! I've forgotten what I was writing about. Oh well...

[Todd Erickson]

Answer: From the dictionary:
un·gra·cious (ŭn-grā'shəs) adj.
1. Lacking social grace or graciousness; rude.
2. Not welcome or acceptable; unattractive.
3. Archaic. Evil; wicked.

Do you see the problem Todd? Did you just make up a definition to this word and then assume me to know what you meant?

Whose making inflammatory statements? I asked you to quote me. The only response is more opinionated unsupported accusatory statements.

Moderator? Help!

Ah. By unwelcome, you don't mean "not welcome here at Naznet" but rather "behaving in a way which is not favored". Sure, that's quite accurate.

"whose" is a word denoting ownership. You intend to use a contraction here, "who's (for who is)".

And once again, rather than dealing with the fact that you aren't answering questions, you declare amusement from upsetting people, that you continue to define debate as something where somebody wins (which has only been the purpose of debate within the last half of the 20th century)...what is it that you want the moderator to do? Give their blessing on your lack of dialogue with others?

[Rich Schmidt]

Yet Rich's last post was particularly interesting. He reasoned that many here would not dispute the things that have been said. He speculated I'm looking for universal agreement or the church mission is derailed. That's what Stephen referenced in the "Scandal of Particularity". If I believed this then I wouldn't believe in the scandal. I believe in the scandal. I realize that there is difficulty in understanding. I just don't believe in propagating "untruths" in our ministry.

What that means is anyone's guess as I'm sure they will.

If you'll notice, Jim, the main point of that post of mine was that I still don't understand what you're getting at. I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make or what your thesis is that you think you're debating with us over. And, as far as I can tell, you never responded to my post. (Which is OK. You don't have to respond to everyone. :))

I see now that you've replied favorably to Roland's attempt to guess at what you're saying. If he's got it right.... well then, I guess your thesis just doesn't make sense to me, from a Christian/biblical perspective. The idea that God has his own language, a perfect language, that we have somehow failed to adequately preserve... What language would that be? Hebrew? Aramaic? Koine Greek? Are you proposing something similar to the Muslims' belief that God spoke his words directly (in the Arabic language), and that they were transcribed directly and perfectly? This is why the Qu'ran is only the Qu'ran if it's in its original Arabic, and they are quite clear that any translation is just that: an imperfect translation of the perfect original.

I don't imagine that's what you're proposing. But then, I still haven't been able to figure out what you're proposing...

[Jim Frake]

Ah. By unwelcome, you don't mean "not welcome here at Naznet" but rather "behaving in a way which is not favored". Sure, that's quite accurate.

"whose" is a word denoting ownership. You intend to use a contraction here, "who's (for who is)".

And once again, rather than dealing with the fact that you aren't answering questions, you declare amusement from upsetting people, that you continue to define debate as something where somebody wins (which has only been the purpose of debate within the last half of the 20th century)...what is it that you want the moderator to do? Give their blessing on your lack of dialogue with others?

Whose inquisition is this anyway? :smilies1722:

Todd what are you saying? Are you really serious with these accusations or are you mocking me? I really don't want you upset but as I said before until the context is set and some definitions are understood, then it is hard to dialogue. I have tried and that is honest. I do not want to ignore questions as you should go back and see. I don't have to have it all my way. I liked what others have said. I just think the major premise is pure language and that is not a popular one. So I have taken the minority position and I'm sticking to it. Am I upset that you don't agree. No! Don't be so upset about this. Life is too short to get so upset.

Like the other Casting Crowns song I like to sing:
I am a flower quickly fading ... here today and gone tomorrow ... a wave tossed in the ocean ... a vapor in the wind

Cheers dude and please make peace with me. My number is 903-331-0133. Hank didn't call me :smilies0231: Maybe you will. Matthew 18:15-20

Oh and as far as your question concerning the moderator:

Rules of NazNet
The rules are simple:
1. No profanity.
2. No personal attacks.
3. No commercial posts. (If in doubt ask webmaster@naznet.com).
4. Be courteous.
5. Grace and sensitivity are strongly encouraged.
6. Don't get offended if the moderator decides to remove your post. He has the right to do so for any reason or no reason at all.

Number 2 applies here. If you try to suggest that I didn't follow rule number 5, remember I'm a guest or newbie. Teach me through your example. I'm trying to be graceful.

[Todd Erickson]

Is the loose definitions of words that we use today (most specifically GOOD, LOVE, and TRUTH) keeping the church from a large percentage of people (both potential and existing believers)?

What is the definition of Good that you are using that is a loose definition? As well, what definition of truth are you refering to, or love? Who uses these terms? On what basis are you drawing the conclusion that that definition or meaning of love, truth, or good are the ones being used as opposed to another? In what way would refering to those meanings or another "keep the church from a large percentage of people"? What is the church, that it is being kept from people? What would it look like for people to not have this kept from them? In what way does it matter?




@ Hank. Before I support why I believe my second statement, maybe we could start with some assumptions.



Why is it important to start with assumptions (An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.), rather than agree on definitions (A definition is a passage describing the meaning of a term (a word, phrase or other set of symbols), or a type of thing.)? Why do you feel that your assumptions supersede the definitions we can find together? Why is it important to have assumptions in the first place?




God is Truth.



What do you mean by God? Whose God? Whose understanding of God? How would we know this God as opposed to another? Whose variation? Manny's God? Hans' God? The Pope's God? Prince's God? What does it mean for God to be Truth? What is Truth? how would anybody know if they had Truth? How would you tell the difference between somebody who had the Truth and Somebody who didn't? Have you ever known anybody who had the truth, or who knew God? How did you know, other than them telling you, or them having assumptions, or you having assumptions? What is God like? How do you know? what is truth like? how do you know? If I say "God", how do you know that I'm talking about the same God that you're talking about? Is it safe to make assumptions about this?



Christ is Love.


Who is Christ? Do you know this Christ? How do you know this Christ? Where does Christ come from? Do you realize that Christ is a title, not a name (like Baron, or Lord, or President) and that as a result, it can be generic within context? What is Love? How do you define Love? Is it one of the four types of love expressed in the greek, or a completely different kind of love? What does love look like? How do you tell if your love is like my love, or like Christ's love? You have made a statement here that Christ is equal to love, so is love really love, or just a state of Christ? or is Christ just a state of Love? Many things have been attributed to Christ which are not, in fact Loving (depending on which definition you use for Love)...how is it possible for something to be Love, and yet not be Loving?



Good only comes from God and not Satan.


What is Good? What does Good look like? have you ever seen Good? Somebody told me that only people who are Christians can do Good things, but another guy named Joshua said that only God is good, so in fact, there can't have been anything on earth that was actually good that anybody has seen, so how do we know what Good actually looks like? If we don't know what Good actually is, how do we know the difference between good and evil? You say that Good, which we're not clear on what it is, only comes from God, but the bible says that God does good things for both the righteous and the evil, that it rains on everybody equally that their crops might grow, so God seems to help those who harm others, and allowed harm to come to Job. So apparently good is not all that comes from God. How do we tell the difference between what comes from God, and what comes from Satan? Who is Satan? Which Satan is he? Did you know that the term "satan" means accuser, and is a title applied to different people in the bible, including angels at various points? If an angel can be satan, and angels come from God, then maybe all things come from God? How do we tell? what assumption is safe to make in this case?



Sin is opposite righteousness and only comes from Satan not God.


What is sin? what does sin look like? What does it look like to be without sin? Have you seen anybody who is without sin? have you seen anybody who is righteous? how do you know? God said to Cain that his sin was waiting to tempt him, not Satan, so if sin comes from Satan, how can it be Sin that tempted Cain, instead of Satan? Is God wrong? If God is wrong, how can good come from God? When God looked upon the works of man and saw that they were only evil all day long, and decided to drown them all, he didn't drown satan, or blame their evil on Satan...wouldn't blaming man for something that satan did be evil? or are evil things good as long as God is doing them? What is it safe to assume here?




Are these statements correct?



You said that these were assumptions, not statements. (In logic a statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false. An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.)



Are these statements reflexive/equivalent?


Assumptions are always reflexive, all humans make them. we have to work very hard to operate not on the basis of our assumptions, but what we have actually agreed upon together. Statements can only be equivalent if they are equal to each other...since these statements all involve broad theological/philosophical statements, rather than mathematics, it would be very difficult to state meaningfully that they are equivalent.




In answering, the overall assumption is that we are talking about absolutes. To me there are no "half-truths". Love is considered Agape and righteousness is without blemish (involving self).



Love is never defined as "righteousness without blemish". You have established that you believe you are talking about absolutes, but all of your statements regarding absolutes are made without "preponderance of the facts." As a result, the "absolutes" you are attempting to resolve exist only within your own mind, as you are assuming facts that may not exist in the minds of others, or may not be expressed the same way in the minds of others.

[Todd Erickson]

Whose inquisition is this anyway? :smilies1722:

You have made an argument that, so far, consists entirely of assumptions presented as statements, which means that a fair portion of the argument exists only within your head. If we must have an inquisition in order to find out what is in your head that you refuse to explain, then that is what will occur. So long as your arguments depend on the assumption that your assumptions are absolutely true, without explication or explanation, we will continue to proceed in confoundment and obfuscation.

And I'll bet you're not even crossing your arms on your chest. Bad play.

[Jim Frake]

I see now that you've replied favorably to Roland's attempt to guess at what you're saying. If he's got it right.... well then, I guess your thesis just doesn't make sense to me, from a Christian/biblical perspective. The idea that God has his own language, a perfect language, that we have somehow failed to adequately preserve... What language would that be?

Ok it's getting late here and tomorrow is going to be a busy day, but what is more important than this?

I'm gonna try to further some thought. Rich you helped me see that I should change the thesis to include the word language instead of just the word "word". The idea that language is predominately manifest in spoken language does not overshadow that which language is. If the focus is only on the spoken word then this would be an exercise in futility. They say that 91% of communication are the non-verbals. If this is true, that would put the spoken words at a major disadvantage. We hear phrases such as "the language of love" or "body language" or "the tone of my voice" or even "the language of music".

In looking at music particularity, the A note is exactly 440 vibrations a second. When this happens, there is purity in that note. At 441 hertz it's not pure; however, it is hard to hear differences. Most musicians will always be 1-3 hertz out of tune. The B-note vibrates at 494. So if I'm supposed to play an a-note but play a b-note instead, most ears can hear that difference. If I'm just a little bit off, you probably won't hear it. And further, if we are all relative (tuned up or down) to each other (others playing music together) then again there is no foul. Now as we begin to play, other elements affect the connection. Timing is critical. It is my belief that the Holy Spirit is the metronome and tuner and as we become closer and closer to that purity, we begin to see the rise of the Holy Spirit in excitement toward the effort (assuming you are playing for the Lord). And then something miraculous happens that most musicians can attest. As it becomes as pure as anything before, it's as if you're not even playing. It's surreal.

The opposite is true. If we are out of tune or out of sync then we know it. The flow halts and we look forward to the session ending - or we need to regroup and simplify. We need to reduce. We need to get to the basics. Otherwise, we are just going through the motions.

Notice here that just because we are out of synch or out of touch does not imply laziness or complacency. We could all be doing something furiously; however, the more we do individually, the more it breaks down. The only way to get back going is to slow down, figure out what we do know as a team, and open our hearts towards the others.

If we look at the church in this context, we need harmony. We need simplicity. I realize it is not. I realize that it will be difficult. But somehow we have resolved this in our heads to mean that we didn't need purity. Just because it's difficult doesn't forgive our responsibility to try. just because we will never fully understand the mind of God doesn't give us a pass to the promised gates. I also believe we are saved by faith but a claim of faith is not the same as a conviction of faith. James said "you will see my faith through my works". Do you see the correlation between words / faith and non-verbals / works?

I'm curious. Is James' epistle built on straw as it has been suggested years ago? If not, why do you think that this was suggested? Why is there belief (I'm not one of them) that Paul and James conflicted in these regards?

So I'm not sure if I answered your question or that I could even get it all in one whack but I think we are on first base. I thank you for at least trying to understand and not reducing my persistence to that of the troll. That was a first for me. I give the credit to the patience of most members here in this forum. I have a technical bias as you may have picked up and I'm not as eloquent as others here. I am thorough and I do look forward toward ya'll helping me understand just what I am trying to say as the development continues.

Blessings.

[Jim Frake]

What is the definition of Good that you are using that is a loose definition? ...

If we believe that only Good comes from God then:

In last weeks bulletin, the Cathedral Press published an excerpt from a book which involved the sentence (I'm paraphrasing as I don't have the bulletin in front of me). "A man lived his life good but if he didn't accept Jesus he's going to hell". It is my belief that this sentence is impossible with God's perfect language. The man may have thought he was living good but if he was living good, Jesus was present. It is important to make this distinction between what is (the man not living right) and the language we use. Our frame of reference needs to be God-centered and not human-centered. Otherwise we allow impurities in our speech. As this happens, we begin to shift the focus from God to ourselves as a church body. Thus we are out of balance. As far as the man saying, "I'm living good", well there is nothing we can do about that as far as controlling his speech. All we can do is control our response of language to reflect what God might say. When we allow misleading statements like these we confuse those that don't believe that Good = Hell. How are we to gain the trust of our people for Christ if we tolerate mistakes like these? I talked with Paul Twist the editor and he agreed (or maybe he just said he agreed).



Why is it important to start with assumptions (An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.), rather than agree on definitions ...


If you had gone a little further in that Wikipedia reference you didn't reference, you would see that:
Assumption may also refer to:
* In logic, more specifically in the context of natural deduction systems, an assumption is a proposition that may be used to prove further propositions, in the expectation that the assumption will be discharged in due course by proving it via a separate argument.

First off, if I make a statement regarding God, I don't see how it can be anything but an assumption of fact as you have said that there is no absolution in the carnal mind. Therefore, I rely on faith of that assumption. The substance of things hoped for. However, as Rich pointed out, "[Who will try to disprove these statements?]" I understand that the lack of those willing to disprove does not imply a "preponderance of the evidence", but it's a start. I don't pose as one who has all the answers as you have suggested. Don't expect me to try "proving it via a separate argument." This is something we can never do. I am merely suggesting an alternative towards a better understanding as the one that exists now. Otherwise we can continue on this fragmented course and suffer Gods wrath.

He says, "How Good it is for brothers to dwell together in unity."

[Jim Frake]

If we must have an inquisition in order to find out what is in your head that you refuse to explain, then that is what will occur.

Heresy huh? Ever heard of freedom of religion? Remind me never to come to Conway.

[Rich Schmidt]

If we believe that only Good comes from God then:

In last weeks bulletin, the Cathedral Press published an excerpt from a book which involved the sentence (I'm paraphrasing as I don't have the bulletin in front of me). "A man lived his life good but if he didn't accept Jesus he's going to hell". It is my belief that this sentence is impossible with God's perfect language. The man may have thought he was living good but if he was living good, Jesus was present. It is important to make this distinction between what is (the man not living right) and the language we use. Our frame of reference needs to be God-centered and not human-centered. Otherwise we allow impurities in our speech. As this happens, we begin to shift the focus from God to ourselves as a church body. Thus we are out of balance. As far as the man saying, "I'm living good", well there is nothing we can do about that as far as controlling his speech. All we can do is control our response of language to reflect what God might say. When we allow misleading statements like these we confuse those that don't believe that Good = Hell. How are we to gain the trust of our people for Christ if we tolerate mistakes like these? I talked with Paul Twist the editor and he agreed (or maybe he just said he agreed).

This example was extremely helpful for giving some context to your abstract statements, Jim. I honestly had no idea what you've been trying to get at all this time... until now.

Next time you start a thread hoping for discussion of an idea, it would be very helpful to give a couple of examples (like this one) to help everyone understand what you're saying, right from the start. It looks to me like the vast majority of the posts in this thread so far have been based on the fact that none of us understood what you were talking about.

[Todd Erickson]

Heresy huh? Ever heard of freedom of religion? Remind me never to come to Conway.

No, no, I'm the heretic here. But you can be my co-pilot.

...

Let's try a basic counter to why simple statements are not necessarily helpful in approaching debate, no matter how clear the language of God is.

God is love.
All good things come from God.
Sin only comes from Satan.

The job of the Man in the marriage (and in general, according to the bible) is to pattern Jesus/God in all relationships.

However.

God, in the midst of being loving, does things like nuke Sodom and turn Lot's wife to salt, as well as allowing Job to lose everything... family, possessions, etc. So God can do or allow to happen really terrible things, and he's still loving, he's allowed to provide correction in his love, and even adding to His glory... even if it means allowing Haiti to be wrecked by hurricaines. It all glorifies Him.

We see these things said, on the news, in various Christian channels, in here, okay? Still using simple language.

So.

It's okay for the husband to abuse or beat his wife, because he is showing disapproval and correction to the wife, for his glory, which is the glory of God.

In order for this to not be so, we have to address the semantic range of things like "God" and "love" and "evil" and "glory", which are used very freely (and often in this way in various circles).

[Jim Frake]

The job of the Man in the marriage (and in general, according to the bible) is to pattern Jesus/God in all relationships.

However.

God, in the midst of being loving, does things like nuke Sodom and turn Lot's wife to salt, as well as allowing Job to lose everything... family, possessions, etc. So God can do or allow to happen really terrible things, and he's still loving, he's allowed to provide correction in his love, and even adding to His glory... even if it means allowing Haiti to be wrecked by hurricaines. It all glorifies Him.

We see these things said, on the news, in various Christian channels, in here, okay? Still using simple language.

So.

It's okay for the husband to abuse or beat his wife, because he is showing disapproval and correction to the wife, for his glory, which is the glory of God.

In order for this to not be so, we have to address the semantic range of things like "God" and "love" and "evil" and "glory", which are used very freely (and often in this way in various circles).

I agree with your description of the problem, just not the solution. From these examples it appears that on the surface the horrible tragedies that exist would be bad. This appearance is a result of looking only within our grasp. It would seem to follow that God is letting bad things happen. However, if we frame it from God's perspective then we see a whole realm of possibilities. God has a plan and because of it Good will come.

If I ask my child to take medicine and the taste is unpleasant then that child may think that I'm trying to poison him or cause him unwarranted discomfort. However, it is the master design that understands the "necessary evils*" that exist to get towards God.

*(Necessary evil is an oxymoron. It is really not evil at all. This is another example of language that needs rework similiar to "the less of two evils")

I was given a Catalpa Tree by an old man and it's appearance would prove that it was dead. There was not one green leaf and sign that it was alive. He assured me that it was. He asked me to put it in the ground and I would see. After listening and waiting, indeed the appearance of life emerged.

This is how we see most situations that present themselves. We expect instant results and if they don't come, we most often dismiss them as "lifeless". God expects us to dig deeper and examine the root. Oftentimes this root is in the abstract and cannot be seen. This is where the Holy Spirit teaches us what is and what is not.

Thank you for your continued interest in this matter.

[Todd Erickson]

I agree with your description of the problem, just not the solution.


I didn't propose a solution here, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm just trying to point out that in terms of being "simple", your arguments don't work.

As somebody who has been trained in debate (which never gets properly worked out in the internet) the first thing a debator does is establish their thesis.

Then they spend the next page or two defining their terms. They know that their language could have multiple meanings, even contradictory meanings, so they're going to say "when I say God, this is precisely what I mean", as much as they can.

You seem to want a debate without establishing your terms. We cannot get to a discussion of a solution because you appear to be refusing to engage with the normal method of carrying on a conversation.

[Rich Schmidt]

I agree with your description of the problem, just not the solution. From these examples it appears that on the surface the horrible tragedies that exist would be bad. This appearance is a result of looking only within our grasp. It would seem to follow that God is letting bad things happen. However, if we frame it from God's perspective then we see a whole realm of possibilities. God has a plan and because of it Good will come.

If I ask my child to take medicine and the taste is unpleasant then that child may think that I'm trying to poison him or cause him unwarranted discomfort. However, it is the master design that understands the "necessary evils*" that exist to get towards God.

*(Necessary evil is an oxymoron. It is really not evil at all. This is another example of language that needs rework similiar to "the less of two evils")

That's certainly one approach to resolving the problem of evil (theodicy). However, unless you're willing to say that all evils and tragedies are "necessary evils" (which are not really evil at all), then you haven't really resolved the problem, and there are still real evils and real tragedies that occur in the world, and the rest of Todd's reasoning still applies.

Anyway, this seems to be beside the point of this thread.... isn't it?

[Roland Hearn]

My prayer to God right now is this:
Lord as tears of joy stream down my face as I read Roland's post I am smitten with Your Spirit. Thank you Lord for this man hearing. I know I didn't use the right words. I know I didn't say it like you would have me to. I am just grateful that the message is finally delivered. I am grateful for any ability at all to use language to communicate your messages or ultimately your Word which is the Christ.

Jim,
I'm glad for you that you see reason to praise God for my understanding what you are saying. Just because I understand doesn't mean we have advanced very far. I cannot for one second imagine how this understanding makes any difference at all to the real issue of your original question which was the failure of the church to communicate the gospel. I can't imagine how it is helpful to us at all to think that God has perfect language. He exists in perfection of love so it is not a huge leap to understand that His communication is perfect. Given that we have never heard anything from Him but through human understandings and human limitations I can't begin to understand how your idea works in reality. We don't have perfect language (again, I'm not sure what that would be) and even in your post you indicated that you saw yourself as having limited ability to communicate. So here is the is the problem that you have created. If God has perfect language and we have limitations then either God communicates to us and judges us for our failure to understand perfectly and in response either condems us or fogives us. Alternatively He communicates to us in love always understanding that we are limited and feels no need to either condemn or forgive he just understands. Either way we have not progressed one step farther in this discussion from the original position. My answer to your original question is: no it is not loose defintions that is keeping the church from reaching a large percentage of people it is a loose grasp on grace. So Jim my encouragement to you would be abandon a pursuit of defintions and pursue grace.

[David Graham]

Thank you Roland, and here I would encourage us all to step back..... take a few deep breaths and then to show an abundance of grace and courtesy to one another.

Jim, I have reviewed all of the posts and I don't believe that anyone is attacking you personally.

As is normal on Naznet, there has been some "robust" arguements where people have put their points accross "aggressively" (perhaps too strong a word?) but I don't believe that anyone has attacked you as a person. I have discovered here on the Naznet Theology forum, that if your arguement is deficient, or your facts (and sometimes spelling) is wrong someone will certainly pick you up on it; and that is only right in any serious theological discussion. At the time it may be difficult to accept that we have been "mistaken" but if we learn from legitimate criticism than we will have grown stronger as a consequence. I can't speak for everyone, but I believe I have come to know those who have posted in this thread well enough by now to say that they have the highest regard for your character even if they don't agree with your arguements.

Perhaps, for all of us, we need to learn to be a little more diplomatic and "tactful" in our replies to others with whom we disagree.

I won't close this thread, unless the attacks do become personal, and I would encourage all participants to "move back" to the original issue of the discussion and keep our focus there rather than discussing who was attacking whom etc.

Grace and peace,
David Graham
Naznet Host.

(ps. Ben and I have been in contact with one another over these concerns)

[Todd Erickson]

There's a story about a woman.

She was called by God to go into a region of the world, and raise money to translate the bible into a version that all of the people there could read.

She worked for 20 years, and right as she was about to have it translated, a plague hit the area, and she spent all of the money on medicine for the people so that they could live.

Then she began raising the money again. After about 20 years, she was nearly there, when there was a great storm, which wrecked many of the homes. She spent all of the money helping the people put their lives back together. Then she began saving again.

At the end of her life, she finally saved up the money to translate the bible for the people, but the people of that area said that they didn't need the translation...they had seen Jesus clearly written in her life.

That, I think, is the solution to the language issues we have. If your life does not clearly communicate Jesus, then it doesn't matter how pure your language is.

[Jim Frake]

That's certainly one approach to resolving the problem of evil (theodicy). However, unless you're willing to say that all evils and tragedies are "necessary evils" (which are not really evil at all), then you haven't really resolved the problem, and there are still real evils and real tragedies that occur in the world, and the rest of Todd's reasoning still applies.

Anyway, this seems to be beside the point of this thread.... isn't it?

Yes I think so. But it is really unpractical for me to consider why these things are rather than they are. I also think the absolute sovereign question is besides the point. Here is my assumption. If God is all sovereign then he designed our world and the workings in it this way. If he setup the "chess board" so to speak, then the pieces all have their abilities and characteristics. So I don't necessarily have to question the rules of the game. I just need to know what they are. Then I have to play better than my opponent (or accuser). I agree with earlier posts that God is not positioned against the accuser, we are.

Rich, the relativity of Good and Evil is what becomes important to me. It appears from my limited understanding of Theodicy that the difference from Theology is the context. One is framed in the natural and the other in the supernatural. Is this correct?

I do believe that what Todd said in looking at the "semantic range" of the terms is critical. But I don't think we need to accept them or allow them as a means of communicating as a church - just as James said to "remain unspotted". We are to frame the concepts of Love around what God considers love and not associate it to what the limited view of humanity thinks. It is a big leap to define the term "for my glory" to "beating my wife" as there is no glory in that according to God's definition of glory.

This is similar to "necessary evil". I don't need evil. If I need it according to God then that is Good and not evil. God's Holiness does not involve evil. If it does than the Gospel is meaningless. If God feels that he needs to use me as his "pawn" then so be it. This is a war of principalities and I am a soldier for Christ. I will go where he has me to go and no evil will come upon me even if I loose everything.

Somewhere we made "bad happening in our world" equivalent with evil. Not even in the extreme case with Job did what God allow to happen involve evil coming from God. This is because Jesus is King not of this world. Evil is in this world but not in God's. So therefore since Job was with God, evil couldn't touch him. Evil didn't come to Job. It tried but lost.

God is Holy and Good. But this doesn't involve worldly good (which is not Good at all) Possessions were the question with Job. Would Job curse God after he lost all his worldly loves? What did he say? "God gives and takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord!" Satan was foiled for God's Glory by Job's blamelessness. This was/is Good.

If we look also to the cross, we further see God's glory wrapped up in a horrible tragedy. The Savior knew His fate. Fate is not evil. Fate is the fulfillment of the scriptures. We have a hard time understanding why Job had to suffer or the people in New Orleans, but we seem to easier accept the suffering of Our Lord. He died for us! Yet he was still blameless. Evil didn't exist in Him. It existed around Him. It limited the ability of those around Him to hear the message. Look at Judas. He was obviously spiritually deaf as those that were closest to Him saw the miracles.

How could evil come from God if it doesn't exist in Him (assuming the "chess board" context)?

Switching gears a bit

Another annoying function of language is the capitalization of words to again take the same word and then change the definition. If I say god vs. God, I am not saying much as I believe in one God. So it has become practice to capitalize when we are talking about the true God. But why must we say true God when God is God? Why must we insist in impurity of the very word God by allowing the lower case word god?

Truth is also affected by impurities. When we go to court we must attest or affirm or swear to do what? To tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Why do we need to further describe what truth is as if it could be partial from God's definition? Then it is not really truth at all. If I get to the witness stand I'm going to tell the judge that I want to affirm this but won't be able to. I would say to the judge, "If I do affirm you will probably have to remove me from the stand via the bailiff because after your officer of the court (the attorney) states, 'No further questions' I will have to keep speaking because he would be attempting to 'deceive' by this procedural 'limit'. Having affirmed in front of God as my witness, I have no choice as to yield to His (God's) authority." We all know the devils can quote scripture.

Thanks Todd for trying to call me. I was at the Lake with 8 children when you called. Eight was surely enough. We had 4 extra sleepover last night so we could get them to church.

Have a Blessed week.

ps. I will try to abstain from posting until I'm able to post a thesis.

I know I still have not made what seems clear to me clear. I will try one more metaphor tonight. If I come to the "STOP" sign but the sign is obscure, I could wreck. If the sign is clear I could ignore it, but at least that would be my choice. Now if I came to what should be a stop sign but saw the green light, I would also be in danger. I see the church this way.

God wants us to stop for Him. The church and the Holy Spirit is all one has to rely on to communicate the Good news. Aside from an already given fate of not being able to fully understand, we don't need anymore distortion with the message. If the attack is now at the very elements of God, and we accept this, we are thereby rejecting God as we know. It started with the Word.

[Jim Frake]

That, I think, is the solution to the language issues we have. If your life does not clearly communicate Jesus, then it doesn't matter how pure your language is.

I agree with you 100% up until the last association. To me "pure language" is Jesus. Otherwise, there is no way to communicate Him. In other words, If you communicate Jesus, your language is pure.

[Benjamin Burch]

I agree with you 100% up until the last association. To me "pure language" is Jesus. Otherwise, there is no way to communicate Him. In other words, If you communicate Jesus, your language is pure.

But doesn't this assume a pure communication of Jesus... of which we are incapable? For we prophecy in part and know in part.

[Benjamin Burch]

THIS IS A HOST POST

Gentlemen, we need to refrain from name-calling and personal attacks. There have been people called "trolls" and even alluded to as the "pigs" of Matthew's statement by Jesus. This is unacceptable. The language has been very personal in nature and I think we can do better than that. Please keep it related to the topics and do not resort to calling names.

EDITED TO ADD:

I do not think anyone intended to personally attack anyone, and I completely concur with David's post (I didn't see it at first).

I am not accusing anyone of actually attacking anyone personally. However, certain things (saying someone is acting troll-ish, etc) are certainly counter-productive and make it seem/feel personal. We've been pretty strict about this, and we want to maintain that we are all capable of saying what we want and mean to say in more gracious and tactful ways than using such words and name-calling. Again, I know none of it is meant as personal or to be personally derogatory. However, there are clear lines that we should not be crossing so as to keep things from being perceived that way.

[Todd Erickson]

I agree with you 100% up until the last association. To me "pure language" is Jesus. Otherwise, there is no way to communicate Him. In other words, If you communicate Jesus, your language is pure.

This doesn't make sense. This simply doesn't make sense. As somebody who has a degree in communication arts, I can tell you, this is a non-functional statement. The absolute first rule of communications is that you cannot assume that you know how your audience is going to perceive what you are telling them. If you tell them what you see as a pure message without taking their context, their perception, their background into account, then they cannot be held accountable for not understanding your message.

You seem to feel that if you communicate Jesus clearly enough in your own words that it's pure, that people will automatically get it. But the last 2k years show very clearly that this isn't the case, and that often very different things are communicated instead, precisely because the church was far more concerned with the purity and correctness of their message than their accuracy at communicating it.

[Todd Erickson]

and even alluded to as the "pigs" of Matthew's statement by Jesus.

In context, Christ's statement about "pearls before swine" wasn't an insult. It had to do with trying to manipulate people by overwhelming them with high-minded looking things that they were not equipped to access correctly. Many religious leaders might do this to the uneducated, to make it appear that they knew what they were saying, and people would accept it verbatim, even though they weren't equipped to actually use that information in a helpful way.

I don't think that the statement was used as an insult, but rather to indicate that the communication was so poor, that the attempt was poorly engaged, and probably a completely different tact was needed. Or at least, that's how I read it.

[Randy Wise]

I agree with you 100% up until the last association. To me "pure language" is Jesus. Otherwise, there is no way to communicate Him. In other words, If you communicate Jesus, your language is pure.

The gospel message was first preached in a world many false Gods and many different customs. We live in a world were that message is preached in a church on many corners. I think understanding of that message is being given. I would suggest that we give the answers that were given by those before us. In regard to any judgments that will be made I believe it will be the Lords words that will prevail. If someone claims to be good without need of any forgiveness, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", comes to my mind in reply.

Randy

[Jim Frake]

But doesn't this assume a pure communication of Jesus... of which we are incapable? For we prophecy in part and know in part.

Then the phrase, "they had seen Jesus clearly written in her life" taken from Todd's story is also in part. The word "clearly" here implies purity.

Oh and Ben, thanks for not closing this thread. :smilies0295:


This doesn't make sense. This simply doesn't make sense. As somebody who has a degree in communication arts, I can tell you, this is a non-functional statement. The absolute first rule of communications is that you cannot assume that you know how your audience is going to perceive what you are telling them. If you tell them what you see as a pure message without taking their context, their perception, their background into account, then they cannot be held accountable for not understanding your message.

You seem to feel that if you communicate Jesus clearly enough in your own words that it's pure, that people will automatically get it. But the last 2k years show very clearly that this isn't the case, and that often very different things are communicated instead, precisely because the church was far more concerned with the purity and correctness of their message than their accuracy at communicating it.

Isn't this my point? You used an example of a woman that communicated "Love" in the pure sense as Christ is Love, yet then challenged with your last post as to whether it was indeed communicated. Indirectly or not the woman communicated some idea of what Christ is all about. How she communicate is not relevant although it is a great example of how we should live. Her original idea of how she was going to communicate Christ failed yet she was able to show them through her example who Christ is. So "if" we communicate, the value is relative to the purity of the language that we adopt.

I'm not suggesting we will ever achieve "pure" communication although it should not be dismissed as the goal.

[Randy Wise]

There are 38,000 Christian denominations. According to some quick research through Google.
That is a lot of people who think that the other people don't have it right.



And yet how many like me were steered to Jesus from early youth before we thought about denominations and theology and what was written. We believed, (and still do) with all out heart that Jesus existed and heard our prayers. Faith must be a key. What else could it be?

Randy

[Shea Zellweger]

And yet how many like me were steered to Jesus from early youth before we thought about denominations and theology and what was written. We believed, (and still do) with all out heart that Jesus existed and heard our prayers. Faith must be a key. What else could it be?

Randy

I agree, but I don't see what this has to do with whether or not Jesus' words can be perfectly defined.

Jim F- I've been contemplating this for a couple of days, and have a thought that I think might help. You've said several times that Jesus' language was pure, with exact definitions. As I think about the claim, I believe I can agree with it. BUT- and this is a pretty big but- I don't think Jesus' language was somehow "distinctly" pure. As I write this post, every word I write has a specific meaning that I wish to convey, so in that sense you could describe my language as "pure." However, I know full well that by the time my words reach your eyes, there will be different meanings which you will infer from them. Jesus was a pretty smart guy, and I'm pretty sure he was just as aware of this as I am, and he didn't seem particularly concerned about it. The simple fact is that when Jesus said "love" (even "agape"), he knew others would understand it differently. He gave examples to give us an idea of what he meant, but in the end he concerned himself less with defining words and more with demonstrating the way to live. I don't think language has degraded any further in the last 2000 years, and I sincerely doubt we will ever capture Christ's original meaning- besides, even if we did, how would we know we were right? :)

[Benjamin Burch]

Then the phrase, "they had seen Jesus clearly written in her life" taken from Todd's story is also in part. The word "clearly" here implies purity.

Oh and Ben, thanks for not closing this thread. :smilies0295:


It takes a lot for David and I to close a thread. Even then we try to make it manageable and re-open it. It's always better when the members of the community can resolve it without David or I having to do anything, and we usually try to give it enough time to make it happen. We will usually just try to referee a little :smilies1722:

You all are big boys (and girls). Sometimes we just need to remind you of that fact:ihe_cowboy:

[David Gerber]

And yet how many like me were steered to Jesus from early youth before we thought about denominations and theology and what was written. We believed, (and still do) with all out heart that Jesus existed and heard our prayers. Faith must be a key. What else could it be?

Randy, I don't know that I disagree. I was in the same boat (sort of) when my friend invited me to church. All I knew was the Catholic church. It was kind of startling when I learned of all the differences amongst the Protestants.


I

[Kenneth Searcy]

Well Jim I think you are right. Although I don’t think we usually use a word loosely on purpose except those that intend to deceive. As an example Bill Clinton comes to mind.
If it’s not done on purpose then it is done out of ignorance. Let us not make the same mistake with “language” by using it loosely, focusing on what it does rather than what it is. Language itself is information. It is knowledge. I KNOW what the symbols are and what they mean (sort of).
As we learn more about our bodies the further we are defining the word “human”. As we learn and discover things about the universe we are adding to the definition of the word “universe“.
The atheists that think that “in the beginning was nothing” and some how everything came from that are disregarding the fact that “nothing” is a word. So they are saying “in the beginning was a word”. However they think the word is “nothing” rather than God. They can not escape the framework of language.

Hebrews 11:3 “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.“
But they are doing it out of ignorance and a deceived heart. As do we.

As you may know this is part of a theory I’ve been working on. Maybe we can discuss it over coffee sometime?

But this pure language you speak of I would call faith. Our faith is what we use to translate and interpret the world around us including the reality of God and him communicating to us.

[Jim Frake]

Well Jim I think you are right.

God's Right. I'm just guessing compared :smilies0417:. Thanks for your interest in these matters.

Ok thesis take 2:

The effectiveness of communication in regards to the Gospel is relative to the purity in the language that is used. Any existing ineffectiveness is not the sole result of impurities in language but is directly associated to them. Further it is seen that although the church is not solely responsible for this condition it is their duty towards discourse to protect the integrity of language to help facilitate the communication process of the Gospel message.

I was going to ask what ya'll think, but as I get to know you, I know I don't need to ask :smilies0262:.

[Randy Wise]

God's Right. I'm just guessing compared :smilies0417:. Thanks for your interest in these matters.

Ok thesis take 2:

The effectiveness of communication in regards to the Gospel is relative to the purity in the language that is used. Any existing ineffectiveness is not the sole result of impurities in language but is directly associated to them. Further it is seen that although the church is not solely responsible for this condition it is their duty towards discourse to protect the integrity of language to help facilitate the communication process of the Gospel message.

I was going to ask what ya'll think, but as I get to know you, I know I don't need to ask :smilies0262:.

To me, I hope any message given is in english otherwise I won't understand:tongue:

R.

[Benjamin Burch]

Well Jim I think you are right. Although I don’t think we usually use a word loosely on purpose except those that intend to deceive. As an example Bill Clinton comes to mind.
If it’s not done on purpose then it is done out of ignorance. Let us not make the same mistake with “language” by using it loosely, focusing on what it does rather than what it is. Language itself is information. It is knowledge. I KNOW what the symbols are and what they mean (sort of).
As we learn more about our bodies the further we are defining the word “human”. As we learn and discover things about the universe we are adding to the definition of the word “universe“.
The atheists that think that “in the beginning was nothing” and some how everything came from that are disregarding the fact that “nothing” is a word. So they are saying “in the beginning was a word”. However they think the word is “nothing” rather than God. They can not escape the framework of language.

Hebrews 11:3 “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.“
But they are doing it out of ignorance and a deceived heart. As do we.

As you may know this is part of a theory I’ve been working on. Maybe we can discuss it over coffee sometime?

But this pure language you speak of I would call faith. Our faith is what we use to translate and interpret the world around us including the reality of God and him communicating to us.

Kenneth,

Welcome to the NazNet Theology forum! It's nice to have you here.

[Ryan Plott]

In context, Christ's statement about "pearls before swine" wasn't an insult. It had to do with trying to manipulate people by overwhelming them with high-minded looking things that they were not equipped to access correctly. Many religious leaders might do this to the uneducated, to make it appear that they knew what they were saying, and people would accept it verbatim, even though they weren't equipped to actually use that information in a helpful way.

I don't think that the statement was used as an insult, but rather to indicate that the communication was so poor, that the attempt was poorly engaged, and probably a completely different tact was needed. Or at least, that's how I read it.


That's how I meant it Todd. Thanks