Seriously God, you chose them??????

[Seeler]

Does anybody else find it amusing that airclean seems to think it is his duty to explain the Bible to the clergy who post here?

 

[chansen]

Hi GordW--Well Rev I should not have to explain GODS Word to you. But will try and help.

Reading that was like walking into a telephone pole.

 

[GordW]

No Airclean I mean quite simply the role of the Messiah (or Christ if you prefer--same word, different languages) was re-visioned, seen in a new way, re-defined by those who followed Jesus and exeprienced Easter. JEsus did not fulfill the Messianic expectations of the Judaism of his day (for example he did not restore the throne and kingdom of David). So it is not confusing to me that he was not universally seen as MEssiah [I am not actually convinced even Peter et al really saw the role of Messiah differently until they had experienced Easter] . SOme have suggested that Judas was a zaealot who wanted the warrior Messiah and either gave Jesus up to spur him on to revolution or because Judas had grown disillusioned the Jesus was not the MEssiah they were waiting for,

ADDENDUM: I have always thought it interesting that while the early Christians had to re-vision/re-interpret the meaning of several Messianic predictions (not all of which were necessarily Messianic predictions originally) in light of their experience of God in Jesus modern Christians have no trouble expecting that when the Second Coming happens it will be exactly as they interpret Scripture now

 

[Neo]

I have always thought it interesting that while the early Christians had to re-vision/re-interpret the meaning of several Messianic predictions (not all of which were necessarily Messianic predictions originally) in light of their experience of God in Jesus modern Christians have no trouble expecting that when the Second Coming happens it will be exactly as they interpret Scripture now

And modern Christians will likely be wrong again in their interpretation of the "second coming". For one thing, I believe, it should more accurately be called the "reappearance" as opposed to the "second" coming. I don't believe the Christ ever left this earth but rather has be working behind the scenes on our behalf.

 

[Luce NDs]

airclean--post---
Hi GordW--Well Rev I should not have to explain GODS Word to you. But will try and help.

Airclean--post--
In Well there is that whole thing about Jesus not actually fulfilling the Messianic job description
This of course this is man judgment . God seem to think He did a great job. You can believe man or GOD, it is your choice .
I am not sure of part of you post here. It may just be a spell mistake, which as you know I never make.heard form/of him.
I take it you mean they did not know or recognize the Christ, in that He didn't do some of the things they thought He would do. We know by having The Book of Rev. Many of the things they were looking for would happen on His Second coming. Oh yes He did upset the apple cart. The church at that time did not like Him.
That is the Priest---Nor will they on His second coming.

Also as you know , Juda is not the only tribe of Israel . It is very mixed up today. Indeed Israel is part of many country's through out the World.
As far as " being a part of Israel . We put on Christ Jesus , was not He a Jew by Birth? Let alone we are GODS Chosen People. God Bless you Rev GordW. airclean33.

The stuff to put up with in God's world ... a deep well?

 

[Luce NDs]

And modern Christians will likely be wrong again in their interpretation of the "second coming". For one thing, I believe, it should more accurately be called the "reappearance" as opposed to the "second" coming. I don't believe the Christ ever left this earth but rather has be working behind the scenes on our behalf.

Due to things intuitively law-St ... loss'd as spirit of Larry, Lawrence, once gaining the revelation of caring thoughtfully ... some choose knot ... tis snotty and gui ease ... go easy on the lesser folk now!

One has to recess and think about the pas Zions ... their out there ... a whorl'da float in harems ... some say warrens ... wabi'd with ideas of excessive creation! Men fall for it ... thus web' ithchii ... the fissure feeling? Into the pool they goes ... to be shore they'll pop up again ...

 

[revjohn]

Reading that was like walking into a telephone pole.

Repeatedly.

 

[Luce NDs]

Repeatedly.

Heis was posted?

 

[revjohn]

Does anybody else find it amusing that airclean seems to think it is his duty to explain the Bible to the clergy who post here?

It is sometimes a source of bemusement. Often a source of frustration.

Frustrating not because we clergy should simply be acknowledged as resident experts and considered infallible but rather because often the catalyst for correction is ignorance.

I generally do not speak for my clergy siblings, in this case I will make an exception, part of the joy of our calling is the ability to engage with others in matters of faith and to explore our religious texts as mutual exercise. We know that isn't always going to end in agreement. It never has to end in bitterness.

I'm quite happy and willing to engage anyone in an exploration of any given text. That joy and willingness take a beating when it becomes apparent that the agenda was never to learn from one another so much as it was to school the other.

Yes, we clergy have some expertise. That is expected in academic environments you have to demonstrate competence in a given subject matter. In the United Church of Canada we are held up to many levels of examination and testing prior to being ordained. Which doesn't make us all geniuses, at most it makes us all Masters, which is the point of the M. Div degree.

There will always be those who think, by virtue of never being tested in the same way we were they obviously know more and better. Just as there are those who have no medical training who believe they know better than the doctor at emerg.

And yes, sometimes it is amusing when somebody displays incredibly whacky diagnostic ability while insisting it is the only way a problem can be solved. I am always amused by the rebranding of the humble enema and how that became a health fad.

Othertimes, that kind of ignorance can be harmful and then, it is no longer amusing.

 

[Luce NDs]

It is sometimes a source of bemusement. Often a source of frustration.

Frustrating not because we clergy should simply be acknowledged as resident experts and considered infallible but rather because often the catalyst for correction is ignorance.

I generally do not speak for my clergy siblings, in this case I will make an exception, part of the joy of our calling is the ability to engage with others in matters of faith and to explore our religious texts as mutual exercise. We know that isn't always going to end in agreement. It never has to end in bitterness.

I'm quite happy and willing to engage anyone in an exploration of any given text. That joy and willingness take a beating when it becomes apparent that the agenda was never to learn from one another so much as it was to school the other.

Yes, we clergy have some expertise. That is expected in academic environments you have to demonstrate competence in a given subject matter. In the United Church of Canada we are held up to many levels of examination and testing prior to being ordained. Which doesn't make us all geniuses, at most it makes us all Masters, which is the point of the M. Div degree.

There will always be those who think, by virtue of never being tested in the same way we were they obviously know more and better. Just as there are those who have no medical training who believe they know better than the doctor at emerg.

And yes, sometimes it is amusing when somebody displays incredibly whacky diagnostic ability while insisting it is the only way a problem can be solved. I am always amused by the rebranding of the humble enema and how that became a health fad.

Othertimes, that kind of ignorance can be harmful and then, it is no longer amusing.

Sometime a good wash sometime foul ...

 

[chansen]

It is sometimes a source of bemusement. Often a source of frustration.

Frustrating not because we clergy should simply be acknowledged as resident experts and considered infallible but rather because often the catalyst for correction is ignorance.

I generally do not speak for my clergy siblings, in this case I will make an exception, part of the joy of our calling is the ability to engage with others in matters of faith and to explore our religious texts as mutual exercise. We know that isn't always going to end in agreement. It never has to end in bitterness.

I'm quite happy and willing to engage anyone in an exploration of any given text. That joy and willingness take a beating when it becomes apparent that the agenda was never to learn from one another so much as it was to school the other.

Yes, we clergy have some expertise. That is expected in academic environments you have to demonstrate competence in a given subject matter. In the United Church of Canada we are held up to many levels of examination and testing prior to being ordained. Which doesn't make us all geniuses, at most it makes us all Masters, which is the point of the M. Div degree.

There will always be those who think, by virtue of never being tested in the same way we were they obviously know more and better. Just as there are those who have no medical training who believe they know better than the doctor at emerg.

And yes, sometimes it is amusing when somebody displays incredibly whacky diagnostic ability while insisting it is the only way a problem can be solved. I am always amused by the rebranding of the humble enema and how that became a health fad.

Othertimes, that kind of ignorance can be harmful and then, it is no longer amusing.

As engineer on construction sites, people often think they have more construction experience than I do. For many engineers, that may be true. They usually don't know that I can swing a hammer, grew up around this stuff and take pride in learning from every tradesman I come across. Guys who want to show me up often end up looking pretty bad. I especially love it when they call me "son", and it turns out I'm older than they are.

But they are arguing that what they've been doing for years has always worked. My counter argument is that's fine, but I can't certify it and I'm not going to certify it because it's not to code.

What airclean does is argue that he knows the code better, and talks down to the code experts.

Building code experts have disagreements over code interpretation all the time. There is ambiguity in any code, because it has to be applied to so many different things and no code is perfect.

If I consider myself a code expert, and I have a disagreement with, say, a city building inspector or plans examiner, then I explain how I interpret the code and ask them how they are interpreting it. I don't go and tell them they are wrong. There is no use getting into an argument. The project shuts down and someone, probably me, gets in trouble. whether I'm right or wrong.

But biblical literalists are not built like that. There is only one interpretation, and they are going to tell all the other code experts what that interpretation is. And they look shockingly ignorant and arrogant every time they do. It's like a guy on the sidewalk who read an article once, arguing with a city building inspector. A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.

It isn't not knowing that gets you in trouble. It's thinking you know that really does you in.

 

[Neo]

But this isn't a material science like being a medical doctor or a professional engineer. Having a Masters Degree in Divinity does not make one a Master of all things spiritual. That comes from within. One interprets the Bible based on a combination of experience and intelligence. A Masters Degree in Theology comes from the same source that created the theology in the first place, which in my experience tells me they got some pretty fundamental things wrong from the onset.

 

[Mendalla]

But this isn't a material science like being a medical doctor or a professional engineer. Having a Masters Degree in Divinity does not make one a Master of all things spiritual. That comes from within. One interprets the Bible based on a combination of experience and intelligence. A Masters Degree in Theology comes from the same source that created the theology in the first place, which in my experience tells me they got some pretty fundamental things wrong from the onset.

I see neither experience nor intelligence in AC's interpretation of scripture. He's likely read stuff and gone "that's cool, I like that" (not in so many words but that general sentiment). I see much experience and intelligence in the interpretations we get from the revs. They haven't been taught AN interpretation but HOW TO read and interpret. That's a huge difference between someone with a Master's degree and someone parroting something they read. Having the credentials doesn't automatically make one an expert, but it does mean you've put in some effort on learning skills that help you become one. It means you've spent time digesting and critically thinking about ideas rather than just swallowing them whole. This is why I largely ignore AC and read John and Steven closely. I learn things from them, I get ideas from them.

 

[Neo]

I see neither experience nor intelligence in AC's interpretation of scripture...

I can't disagree with you here.

 

[Luce NDs]

If you have time it is good to read everything ... as N Frye stated in The Great Code ... alas we are significantly limited ... as metaphor for mortal in-thought! Internally the metaphor is infinite understanding of stuff we can't individually comprehend until expanding right out of limited space ... becoming a part of the eternal sol ... omi god could this be yet a' head?

I've been told many times by those settled in belief: "I wouldn't read that chit!"

It was interesting the response by theologians scientists, philosophers and psychologists ... to my questions of what they felt about alternate theological scripts ... the source being extensive if some of it weren't quelled, quashed, etc.

Then "quelle" is the source in some foreign language ... the source of what slips from mind ... its enough to cause the gaggle to GOGGLE ... guise, guys, or goose ... then there's the Black Swan ... like a raven something to terrorize with trickery ...

have been condemned for reading much ... for which I have time and place due to restrictions of age, health and profession ... they tell me I shouldn't speak of unknown idealisms ... sort of like goal or God confined?

 

[revjohn]

But this isn't a material science like being a medical doctor or a professional engineer.

Which I am not claiming. Compare it to Philosophy if you want. The same still holds true.

Having a Masters Degree in Divinity

does not make one a Master of all things spiritual.

Which I am also not claiming. That said, since I studied Christian theology and history I expect my mastery of it is better than those who have not studied it.

And the purpose of academics is not to impart the sum total of knowledge on any given discipline. It is to equip you so that you might add to the sum total of knowledge in your given discipline and hopefully, share what you do know with others.

That comes from within.

One does not need to adopt an anti-intellectual position to advance a pro-spiritual one.

One interprets the Bible based on a combination of experience and intelligence.

They contribute in varying degrees yes. Arguing for less of either is an argument for poverty.

A Masters Degree in Theology comes from the same source that created the theology in the first place

How unusual. Mathematicians teach others mathematics and all is well and good but when theologians teach others theology . . . What a conspiracy! All of it! The only real knowledge is personal opinion.

which in my experience tells me they got some pretty fundamental things wrong from the onset.

In that you aren't radically different from airclean33 and his repeated efforts to teach GordW, revsdd and myself. Airclean33 is arguing from his own experience and his own understanding which his own experience and understanding assures him is straight from the Holy Spirit and more of God than the studying any of us who have gone to seminary have received.

 

[airclean33]

Does anybody else find it amusing that airclean seems to think it is his duty to explain the Bible to the clergy who post here?

Hi seeler I would say if you .Where reading GODS word more. You would know why I can help. Try 1 Peter 2:9-----John1: 12-13 --1-John-3: -3 GOD Bless You An Help You. airclean33.

 

[airclean33]

Neo said: ↑
And modern Christians will likely be wrong again in their interpretation of the "second coming". For one thing, I believe, it should more accurately be called the "reappearance" as opposed to the "second" coming. I don't believe the Christ ever left this earth but rather has be working behind the scenes on our behalf.

Airclean--post--I agree in a way He is not of this earth though. He changed us" who follow him into Him. I should have said in flesh" when He reaturns. Not of this earth though a body formed in Heaven . As will we.

 

[chansen]

Hi seeler I would say if you .Where reading GODS word more. You would know why I can help. Try 1 Peter 2:9-----John1: 12-13 --1-John-3: -3 GOD Bless You An Help You. airclean33.

Do any of those passages read, "Blessed are the functionally illiterates, for only they can truly understand these words?"

 

[airclean33]

Do any of those passages read, "Blessed are the functionally illiterates, for only they can truly understand these words?"

Why do you feel dum? Some times I can use candy's and flowers. Other times it takes some salt.
Feel free to read those passages I gave Seeler.