The Cup of Christ
"The cup" of Christ, was not a physical cup. As I have since learned, it was used in typical to mean "experience". So when Christ was asking God to "take this cup from me", he was in fact saying, "take this experience from me".
That's a nice insight.
In terms of what the Bible does say on any given topic, I think it is safe to say that we read the Bible through each of our own glasses. I'm a bit amused at how some folks insist on a literalist interpretation, say, of Genesis, but by the time they reach Ezekial, Daniel, and Revelations, they are quite sure that they find the USA, the Arab-Israel conflict, China, and Russia in the metaphors they read. A literal interpetation would mean that Gog and Magog would be literally Gog and Magog, and nothing else. And, of course, a literal reading of the Bible must endorse pologamy and concubines, the faith handling of poisonous snakes, and a flat earth.
Flat earth? Where do you get "flat earth" in the Bible?
It just so happens that I wrote an essay on this point.
The Bible doesn’t interpret itself. We interpret the Bible, and we all read the same words in different ways. A person who claims that the Bible must be read literally hasn’t read enough of the Bible to justify that statement. Some books such as the Song of Solomon make no sense at all unless read allegorically. We can read Biblical justifications for slavery (such as The Epistle to Philemon), polygamy (the biographies of the kings and patriarchs of the Old Testament), the holocaust (from the Gospel of John and the writings of Martin Luther and others), and the flatness of the earth. The Bible’s doctrine of the flat earth, believed by all the writers of the Bible and Jesus as well as Calvin and Luther, is an example of why we must be cautious in applying broad brush principles of interpretations to such a complex book with so many different styles of writing, authors, and messages.
In the New York Times obituaries in 2001, I read of the death of Charles Johnson. He promoted the view that the earth was a flat disk floating on primordial waters instead of a ball spinning and orbiting in space. The basis for his belief was the many references in the Old Testament referring to a flat earth and the New Testament’s claim that Jesus ascended into heaven. On eclipses, he said that “The Bible tells us that the heavens are a mystery.” That the earth is flat doesn’t derive from the classics. Many ancient writers speculated that the earth was a ball or a point in space well before Copernicus and Galileo. Nor does can it derive from common sense. If the earth is flat, a person on the top of the on a clear day should be able to see the . It is a doctrine that comes exclusively from the Bible, or, more precisely, an interpretation of the Bible.
There are many scriptures that support that the earth is unmovable:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
Genesis describes creation as three tiers, with the firmament being the visible vault of the sky—a physical dome:
Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”
Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”
Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”
Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”
Some apologists try to re-interpret a flat-earth verse to give ancient writers modern voices. An example is Isaiah 40:22, where “he sitteth upon the circle of the earth”, where circle should really mean sphere. “In my view, all arguments to prove the Bible teaches a spherical earth are weak if not wrong-headed,” Robert Schadewald writes. “On the other hand, the flat-earth cosmology previously described is historically consistent and requires none of the special pleading apparently necessary to harmonize the Bible with sphericity. From their geographical and historical context, one would expect the ancient Hebrews to have a flat-earth cosmology. Indeed, from the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible.” There are few creationists who believe that the earth is flat, but I don’t understand why they don’t. If a day in Genesis 5:1 is 24 hours, why shouldn’t we assume that there are four literal corners of the earth as stated in Genesis 7:1? Fundamentalists use the phrase “cafeteria Christians” in picking and choosing which doctrines to believe or reject. But I would suggest that such people use a cafeteria approach in choosing how they will interpret the Bible in ways that support a pre-defined dogma. And where does that dogma come from? The answer can only be: their reason and their traditions.
I think it's easy to differentiate between literal, figurative, a revelation knowledge as one grows in God.
Can you explain your statement, please, and perhaps give some examples of what you mean?
There are three basic kinds of knowledge mentioned in the bible I believe. There is the most fundamental kind called knowledge - the knowing about things, facts, and information whether they be spiritual, academic, secular, etc. Example: I know that one of the commandments in the bible says we should not commit adultery.
Then there is level called wisdom or understanding. It goes beyond knowledge in that it deals with the applicability of knowledge in certain situations and instances. It's something that is a bit more experiential than knowledge and usually is practical.Example: I am a married man and I choose not to let my female friends get too close, so, I set boundaries to safe guard my relationship between my wife and myself.
And then the bible introduces something called revelation knowledge. This pertains to an intimate knowledge and wisdom revealed by God's Spirit confirmed in one's own spirit. The way we can obtain it is when we fellowship, read, and study God's word.Example: Pornography is a spirit (demonic/Satanic) driven activity in , which degrades women (and men), destroys families and marriages, and introduces an unrealistic expectation and warped mindset about sex that handicaps millions of American men. It breeds infidelity between spouses by excluding the perfect will God where one man and one wife are to be joined and enjoy each other.
I don't have a problem to what you call fundamental knowledge and wisdom, and you give good examples for each. But I'm not sure that I completely understand what you mean be revelation knowledge. The example you gave mentions your conviction that pornography is "a spirit (demonic/Satanic) driven activity." I agree with you about the harms that porn can induce. However, I would ask you what evidence do you have that it is demonic? This sounds a bit like the "Satan made me do it" defense. May I suggest an alternative interpertation for your consideration? Porn is nothing more or less than media-- film, photographs, the internet. If you chose to expose yourself to that media, if you allow it to do all the bad things you mention, it is not because of some demon but because of choices you freely make. This freedom comes from God, who gives us the freedom to be be either porn-obsessed or not-- depending on the decisions we make and the emotions we feel. The devil has nothing to do with porn at all, IMO.
You suggest that "as we grow in God", we become more discerning and astute in intepreting God's revelation. May I suggest that the opposite is true. Could it be that as we become more spirtually mature, we become less certain and more aware of the shades of gray that is morality and that makes up life and indeed the Bible itself, and that doubt is a kind of faith whereas faith-- at least the dogmatic kind-- is a kind of apostasy? As the Apostle Paul notes: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. When I was a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass darkly; but then, face to face; now I know in part, but then shall I know even as I am known."
"The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. For who has known the mind of Christ so as to instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." (I Cor. 2:14-16)
There are other verses... that suggest that we can train up our spiritual discernment through the study of God's Word and as we grow by faith.
I think you are mixing apples and oranges as it were. I certainly agree that "we can train up our spiritual discernment through the study of God's Word and as we grow by faith." But that proposition hasn't much to do with the verses you quoted. In fact, it seems to suggest that the spiritual man since he has the mind of Christ is exempt from accountability. But, the implication is, that cannot be so, as no one completely has the mind of Christ, which mean we must be accountabile to others. I read those verse somewhat more ironically than you do.
Multi-tiered is not inaccurate. Heaven above (space/ atmosphere) and earth (ground/water) below. How is that wrong? Or did you not know that when the Bible refers to "the heavens" they aren't referring simply to the sky, but to a more grander picture - everything above - including space, planets and stars.
You'd have a better chance of convincing me of alien abduction in the Bible than a flat earth theory. And as I said, the original audience may have understood it as meaning 'flat earth', but that isn't what the text actually says.
I think you are being a tad disingenuous in allowing your scientific knowledge to warp what the Bible states and what has been believed for thousands of years. Where do you suppose the pre-Colombus belief come from that you could sail off the edge of the earth? It came from the theology of the time.
It is false when the reader of the Bible identifies the material world with the spiritual world-- the clouds and planets and stars with the celestial heaven. And yet that was the Biblical belief for milleniums. We see that in the writings of Dante, for example, and in the persecution of Galilio.
I'm curious about your motivation. A fair literal reading of the Bible-- and the verses I gave you merely scratch the surface-- supports a flat earth doctrine. Do you think that doctrine never existed? Or that the admission that the doctrine exists opens the door to eroding some other doctrine?
What I don't agree on, is that the Bible is explicit or implicit in describing the world as such. And you haven't demonstrated that with any of the verses you've cited.
I've already cited references to an unmovable earth, such as this: Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...” As far as the shape of the earth is concerned, consider Daniel 4:10-11, where the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds,” something that would only be possible if the earth was flat. Also, in Matthew 4:8, Satan tempted Jesus by showing him the whole world from a single geographic point : “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory.” And, in Revelations 1:7, “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him,” presupposing an audience on a plane.
For more information on flat-earth apologetics:
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/febible.htm
I have repeatedly agreed with you that the original audience (more than likely) would have understood the earth to be flat. I agree on that point.
Your premise is what is <*)))-{ (fishy) and in fact confounds me. If I understand your argument, the Bible never states that the earth is flat. Rather, the Bible has verses that people over the years have misconstrued. But why would they misconstrue them when the evidence from sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is overhelming? Further, if that is so, on what basis can you be sure that you are not misconstruing the Bible today? The Bible sometimes speaks at length on subjects that are irrelevant or of tangential relevancy, such as the campaigns of genocide in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 15:3, 2 Samuel 24:15, 2 Samuel 6:6, and 1 Chronicles 21:14.) and the speaking of tongues in the New Testament (Acts 2:3, 10:46, etc.). The Bible mentions explicitly doctrines that express something quite different from how other Christians understand them, such as predestination and creation whereas other doctrines exist only by implication, such as the doctrine of the trinity, God's omniscience, and the rapture-- all words that don't exist in the Bible. There are also factual contradictions in the Bible, and only a few out of the hundreds that exist will suffice for me to make my point. According to Ezra 2:15, 454 of Adin’s offspring returned from ; according to Nehemiah 7:20, 655 of Adin’s children returned from . Ahaziah began to reign in the 12th year of Joram, according to 2 Kings and in the 11th year of Joram, according to 2 Kings . Simon the Cyrenian carried Jesus’ cross in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but John 19:17 shows Jesus carrying his cross and Jesus getting crucified at two different times in the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John. I hope by now you appreciate that exegeting the Bible is more than just reading and reflecting on the Bible, and that Biblical truth is sometimes far from self-evident.
That's a nice insight.
In terms of what the Bible does say on any given topic, I think it is safe to say that we read the Bible through each of our own glasses. I'm a bit amused at how some folks insist on a literalist interpretation, say, of Genesis, but by the time they reach Ezekial, Daniel, and Revelations, they are quite sure that they find the USA, the Arab-Israel conflict, China, and Russia in the metaphors they read. A literal interpetation would mean that Gog and Magog would be literally Gog and Magog, and nothing else. And, of course, a literal reading of the Bible must endorse pologamy and concubines, the faith handling of poisonous snakes, and a flat earth.
Flat earth? Where do you get "flat earth" in the Bible?
It just so happens that I wrote an essay on this point.
The Bible doesn’t interpret itself. We interpret the Bible, and we all read the same words in different ways. A person who claims that the Bible must be read literally hasn’t read enough of the Bible to justify that statement. Some books such as the Song of Solomon make no sense at all unless read allegorically. We can read Biblical justifications for slavery (such as The Epistle to Philemon), polygamy (the biographies of the kings and patriarchs of the Old Testament), the holocaust (from the Gospel of John and the writings of Martin Luther and others), and the flatness of the earth. The Bible’s doctrine of the flat earth, believed by all the writers of the Bible and Jesus as well as Calvin and Luther, is an example of why we must be cautious in applying broad brush principles of interpretations to such a complex book with so many different styles of writing, authors, and messages.
In the New York Times obituaries in 2001, I read of the death of Charles Johnson. He promoted the view that the earth was a flat disk floating on primordial waters instead of a ball spinning and orbiting in space. The basis for his belief was the many references in the Old Testament referring to a flat earth and the New Testament’s claim that Jesus ascended into heaven. On eclipses, he said that “The Bible tells us that the heavens are a mystery.” That the earth is flat doesn’t derive from the classics. Many ancient writers speculated that the earth was a ball or a point in space well before Copernicus and Galileo. Nor does can it derive from common sense. If the earth is flat, a person on the top of the on a clear day should be able to see the . It is a doctrine that comes exclusively from the Bible, or, more precisely, an interpretation of the Bible.
There are many scriptures that support that the earth is unmovable:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
Genesis describes creation as three tiers, with the firmament being the visible vault of the sky—a physical dome:
Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”
Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”
Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”
Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”
Some apologists try to re-interpret a flat-earth verse to give ancient writers modern voices. An example is Isaiah 40:22, where “he sitteth upon the circle of the earth”, where circle should really mean sphere. “In my view, all arguments to prove the Bible teaches a spherical earth are weak if not wrong-headed,” Robert Schadewald writes. “On the other hand, the flat-earth cosmology previously described is historically consistent and requires none of the special pleading apparently necessary to harmonize the Bible with sphericity. From their geographical and historical context, one would expect the ancient Hebrews to have a flat-earth cosmology. Indeed, from the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible.” There are few creationists who believe that the earth is flat, but I don’t understand why they don’t. If a day in Genesis 5:1 is 24 hours, why shouldn’t we assume that there are four literal corners of the earth as stated in Genesis 7:1? Fundamentalists use the phrase “cafeteria Christians” in picking and choosing which doctrines to believe or reject. But I would suggest that such people use a cafeteria approach in choosing how they will interpret the Bible in ways that support a pre-defined dogma. And where does that dogma come from? The answer can only be: their reason and their traditions.
I think it's easy to differentiate between literal, figurative, a revelation knowledge as one grows in God.
Can you explain your statement, please, and perhaps give some examples of what you mean?
There are three basic kinds of knowledge mentioned in the bible I believe. There is the most fundamental kind called knowledge - the knowing about things, facts, and information whether they be spiritual, academic, secular, etc. Example: I know that one of the commandments in the bible says we should not commit adultery.
Then there is level called wisdom or understanding. It goes beyond knowledge in that it deals with the applicability of knowledge in certain situations and instances. It's something that is a bit more experiential than knowledge and usually is practical.Example: I am a married man and I choose not to let my female friends get too close, so, I set boundaries to safe guard my relationship between my wife and myself.
And then the bible introduces something called revelation knowledge. This pertains to an intimate knowledge and wisdom revealed by God's Spirit confirmed in one's own spirit. The way we can obtain it is when we fellowship, read, and study God's word.Example: Pornography is a spirit (demonic/Satanic) driven activity in , which degrades women (and men), destroys families and marriages, and introduces an unrealistic expectation and warped mindset about sex that handicaps millions of American men. It breeds infidelity between spouses by excluding the perfect will God where one man and one wife are to be joined and enjoy each other.
I don't have a problem to what you call fundamental knowledge and wisdom, and you give good examples for each. But I'm not sure that I completely understand what you mean be revelation knowledge. The example you gave mentions your conviction that pornography is "a spirit (demonic/Satanic) driven activity." I agree with you about the harms that porn can induce. However, I would ask you what evidence do you have that it is demonic? This sounds a bit like the "Satan made me do it" defense. May I suggest an alternative interpertation for your consideration? Porn is nothing more or less than media-- film, photographs, the internet. If you chose to expose yourself to that media, if you allow it to do all the bad things you mention, it is not because of some demon but because of choices you freely make. This freedom comes from God, who gives us the freedom to be be either porn-obsessed or not-- depending on the decisions we make and the emotions we feel. The devil has nothing to do with porn at all, IMO.
You suggest that "as we grow in God", we become more discerning and astute in intepreting God's revelation. May I suggest that the opposite is true. Could it be that as we become more spirtually mature, we become less certain and more aware of the shades of gray that is morality and that makes up life and indeed the Bible itself, and that doubt is a kind of faith whereas faith-- at least the dogmatic kind-- is a kind of apostasy? As the Apostle Paul notes: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. When I was a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass darkly; but then, face to face; now I know in part, but then shall I know even as I am known."
"The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. For who has known the mind of Christ so as to instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." (I Cor. 2:14-16)
There are other verses... that suggest that we can train up our spiritual discernment through the study of God's Word and as we grow by faith.
I think you are mixing apples and oranges as it were. I certainly agree that "we can train up our spiritual discernment through the study of God's Word and as we grow by faith." But that proposition hasn't much to do with the verses you quoted. In fact, it seems to suggest that the spiritual man since he has the mind of Christ is exempt from accountability. But, the implication is, that cannot be so, as no one completely has the mind of Christ, which mean we must be accountabile to others. I read those verse somewhat more ironically than you do.
Multi-tiered is not inaccurate. Heaven above (space/ atmosphere) and earth (ground/water) below. How is that wrong? Or did you not know that when the Bible refers to "the heavens" they aren't referring simply to the sky, but to a more grander picture - everything above - including space, planets and stars.
You'd have a better chance of convincing me of alien abduction in the Bible than a flat earth theory. And as I said, the original audience may have understood it as meaning 'flat earth', but that isn't what the text actually says.
I think you are being a tad disingenuous in allowing your scientific knowledge to warp what the Bible states and what has been believed for thousands of years. Where do you suppose the pre-Colombus belief come from that you could sail off the edge of the earth? It came from the theology of the time.
It is false when the reader of the Bible identifies the material world with the spiritual world-- the clouds and planets and stars with the celestial heaven. And yet that was the Biblical belief for milleniums. We see that in the writings of Dante, for example, and in the persecution of Galilio.
I'm curious about your motivation. A fair literal reading of the Bible-- and the verses I gave you merely scratch the surface-- supports a flat earth doctrine. Do you think that doctrine never existed? Or that the admission that the doctrine exists opens the door to eroding some other doctrine?
What I don't agree on, is that the Bible is explicit or implicit in describing the world as such. And you haven't demonstrated that with any of the verses you've cited.
I've already cited references to an unmovable earth, such as this: Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...” As far as the shape of the earth is concerned, consider Daniel 4:10-11, where the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds,” something that would only be possible if the earth was flat. Also, in Matthew 4:8, Satan tempted Jesus by showing him the whole world from a single geographic point : “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory.” And, in Revelations 1:7, “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him,” presupposing an audience on a plane.
For more information on flat-earth apologetics:
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/febible.htm
I have repeatedly agreed with you that the original audience (more than likely) would have understood the earth to be flat. I agree on that point.
Your premise is what is <*)))-{ (fishy) and in fact confounds me. If I understand your argument, the Bible never states that the earth is flat. Rather, the Bible has verses that people over the years have misconstrued. But why would they misconstrue them when the evidence from sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is overhelming? Further, if that is so, on what basis can you be sure that you are not misconstruing the Bible today? The Bible sometimes speaks at length on subjects that are irrelevant or of tangential relevancy, such as the campaigns of genocide in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 15:3, 2 Samuel 24:15, 2 Samuel 6:6, and 1 Chronicles 21:14.) and the speaking of tongues in the New Testament (Acts 2:3, 10:46, etc.). The Bible mentions explicitly doctrines that express something quite different from how other Christians understand them, such as predestination and creation whereas other doctrines exist only by implication, such as the doctrine of the trinity, God's omniscience, and the rapture-- all words that don't exist in the Bible. There are also factual contradictions in the Bible, and only a few out of the hundreds that exist will suffice for me to make my point. According to Ezra 2:15, 454 of Adin’s offspring returned from ; according to Nehemiah 7:20, 655 of Adin’s children returned from . Ahaziah began to reign in the 12th year of Joram, according to 2 Kings and in the 11th year of Joram, according to 2 Kings . Simon the Cyrenian carried Jesus’ cross in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but John 19:17 shows Jesus carrying his cross and Jesus getting crucified at two different times in the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John. I hope by now you appreciate that exegeting the Bible is more than just reading and reflecting on the Bible, and that Biblical truth is sometimes far from self-evident.
Labels: theology
posted by My Mall and News at
3:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home