I am increasingly skeptical, after having grown up in a very conservative Christian environment and being involved in Christian organizations, of evangelicalism and its theological assumptions. I can no longer believe in inerrancy and infallibility. For one thing, the open declarations of Jesus in the book of John simply do not square up with the personality and perspective of the Jesus presented in the synoptics. Also, Paul's snap changes (recorded in the book of Acts)in perspective - Jesus was suddenly the Son of God, then the Messiah and finally the very creator of all - must be regarded with suspicion. The repeated assertions in the NT that the post-resurrection Jesus ascended into heaven to be seated at the right hand of God is theological and not historical [e.g., no human observed this take place]. A great deal of orthodox Christian theology is assumed and neither proven nor provable: e.g., as a start ... that God is eternally self-existent and knows everything. Simply nonsense although convenient and a Linus-blanket type of claim. More: Peter's quotations in Acts 2 from Joel 2 assumes that Jesus as the Messiah will come in the clouds within another seven years (per the 70 heptads of Daniel 9) to impose the "day of the Lord" judgments and to set up the eternal kingdom of the saints declared in Daniel 7. His warning to be saved concerns the catastrophic judgments to come soon and not that of personal salvation from sin. Interestingly, the early communal aspect of the early Messianic community appears to be a "jump on the bandwagon" response; if the saints (followers of the Messiah) are to rule in the coming eternal kingdom, of course, possessions in the temporal sense could be shared freely in light of the great abundance soon to come.
skeptical
- Thread starter the_erv
- Start date
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Welcome to TOL.
Your misconceptions are not uncommon.
Likely you will get many responses that will challenge some of them.
You have thought about these things and can articulate them.
Many can't. So - good job!
But right off the start, let it be said that the things of God are spiritually discerned.
It is impossible for anyone to appreciate God's truth by unregenerate reason (the flesh).
You must be born again.
Do you have a history of disappointment with Bible believers?
Did you make a profession of faith at one time?
Just curious.
Acts 1:9-11 KJV - 9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel,
11 who also said, Ye men of Galilee, what do ye stand gazing at up into heaven? This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
It wasn't 'suddenly', bozo.
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
You seem to be making perfectly normal assumptions for someone who has "grown up in a very conservative Christian environment and being involved in Christian organizations"
You are questioning what you have been told which is what most people do at some point when they have grown up in a particular belief system.
You have a lot of question so will answer your first one for now; "For one thing, the open declarations of Jesus in the book of John simply do not square up with the personality and perspective of the Jesus presented in the synoptics." This is because personal accounts never match perfectly, this is well understood in the field of detection, such as with the police or say insurance companies. In fact when witness testimonies match too perfectly then they know there is a high probability of collusion and fraud. Therefore the fact the Gospels don't match perfectly only adds weight to there validity.
Keep questioning and searching for truth is my advice, as I did the same and found that Jesus really did resurrect from the dead: http://creately.com/diagram/gzqv8c5z2/knxGs5iaraoQgyinDk3jxQMEYQA=
Derf
Well-known member
"Skeptical" is not the same as "unbelieving". It is healthy to be skeptical of miracles and of claims that someone rose from the dead. But be just as skeptical of those that have not been able to put down the claims of Jesus' life and death over the last 2000 years. Be just as skeptical of those that say, 2000 years later, that the events never happened. Be just as skeptical of those that claim there is no evidence of Jesus miracles or resurrection, as they hold such evidence (the gospel accounts) in their hands.
But "skeptical" can lead to either strong belief or strong disbelief. Both have serious consequences. Do your homework. Ask lots of questions. Beware of those who pretend to know and are willing to lead others down a false path.
And welcome to TOL!
according to the book of Acts, bozo, the apostle Paul very soon after the Damascus road experience, progressively declared Jesus to be the Son of God and then the Messish. In Colossians 1 he further stated that Jesus was the very agent of creation. Just because Paul so stated, bozo, doesn't establish the fact; it is far too easy to accept whatever the NT writers say as inspired "revelation" without carefully examining if it is really so.
Derf
Well-known member
How do you determine if something is inspired by God?
Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app
Wrong, lunkhead.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Religious inquiry.......
Religious inquiry.......
Hi, welcome to the forum
There are descrepancies with the record in Acts compared with Paul's authentic letters, some things contradicting, which means some parts may have been redacted, revised or modified in some ways, - in some of these cases the genuine letters of Paul may be more accurate, although some of these may have also undergone selective 'editing' as it were. One can only follow whatever consistency exists within the writings and make their own judgments.
As you may know, Paul's own account of the Damascus road experience differs from others written, and at the end of the day, besides researching the historical veracity of anything ascribed to him or by him (or anyone for that matter),...what is left to consider is any spiritual value or religious significance in the writings he left, whose deepest meanings are conveyed 'allegorically' anyways. All is subject to the conditioning of one's own 'interpretation' and 'point of view', and subject to change as more information or revelation ensues.
We may be critical of human tampering, invention or religious fictions, but this does not diminish any useful ideals, concepts, principles or values hidden in religious books and teachings, however 'historical' or 'mythical' they might be. So the field of religious studies may still be worth pursuing, if nothing but an interesting psychology of the soul in its relationship with fundamental truth, expressed in religious terms of course.
Religious inquiry.......
Hi, welcome to the forum
There are descrepancies with the record in Acts compared with Paul's authentic letters, some things contradicting, which means some parts may have been redacted, revised or modified in some ways, - in some of these cases the genuine letters of Paul may be more accurate, although some of these may have also undergone selective 'editing' as it were. One can only follow whatever consistency exists within the writings and make their own judgments.
As you may know, Paul's own account of the Damascus road experience differs from others written, and at the end of the day, besides researching the historical veracity of anything ascribed to him or by him (or anyone for that matter),...what is left to consider is any spiritual value or religious significance in the writings he left, whose deepest meanings are conveyed 'allegorically' anyways. All is subject to the conditioning of one's own 'interpretation' and 'point of view', and subject to change as more information or revelation ensues.
We may be critical of human tampering, invention or religious fictions, but this does not diminish any useful ideals, concepts, principles or values hidden in religious books and teachings, however 'historical' or 'mythical' they might be. So the field of religious studies may still be worth pursuing, if nothing but an interesting psychology of the soul in its relationship with fundamental truth, expressed in religious terms of course.