Mystery and Uncertainty in Christian Belief

[Pablo Rafael]

I was pondering this idea on a mountain bike ride this morning. (Long rides through the high country are great places to ponder religious issues.)

Why is it that so much of Christianity seems afraid of the idea of mystery and uncertainty in religion? Does everything needs to be defined by a doctrinal statement. Are "real" Christians or "good" Christians the ones who can answer any question and have an explanation for every situation and can quote a Bible verse? How much of Christianity is black and white?

It seems to me that Eastern Christianity (such as Greek Orthodox) is much more comfortable with the idea of mystery and uncertainty. God is a mytserious figure who is greater than all comprehension. Jesus is the Savior and also the Lord of all time and space. Less emphasis is given to "what happened" and more time in reverance of who God is.

It seems to me that most of Christianity is rather grey. Does it really matter whether creation was six 24-hour days? Doesn't dwelling on that and trying to work out the science detract from the message that God is the creator of the universe and deserves our worship? It seems to me that trying to figure out how Noah could get all those animals on a boat and how a flood could cover the whole earth detracts from the idea that God wants an end to selfishness and wickness and has the power to accomplish it. Am I the only one who thinks the book of Job is much more powerful read as a parable than as a historical event? Does it matter whether one author or two wrote the book of Isaiah?

I don't mean to discount the teachings of the Bible at all. I believe that Christ came to this world to save those who believe in Him. God saves us by his grace through faith, but I don't really know how that happens. It seems to me that being a Christian means saying "I don't know." a lot. I don't think there is any problem with saying "I don't understand, and I am very comfortable with not understanding." I don't feel useasy if I don't understand. And I don't think that admitting that I don't understand makes me a weak Christian.

Has our western need to quantify, define and analyze everything actually taken AWAY from the meaning of God's Word rather than helping us to understand it?

What do you think?

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[BrentRichards]

Amen, brother. Our desire to lock-down the faith, imho, is reflective of modernism (a dying philosophy), not of anything necessarily Christian. With modernism came the belief that mankind would ultimately be able to get all the answers, cure all disease, end all problems, etc... and it clearly bled over into our view of Christianity. Dangerously so. Unfortunately, most Christians don't recognize that this underlying assumption to their faith came from secular philosophy.

One of the cool words I learned in seminary was "ineffable" ... it has to do with God's ultimate unknowability. Not that we cannot know anything about Him, but that we can never even approach fully knowing Him. Put another way, someone has said, "If God were small enough for our minds, He wouldn't be big enough for our needs."

Thanks for pointing this out, Pablo!

[Daniel]

I think that the more we understand about biology and the brain can tell us a great deal about how we think about spiritual matters.

It has been much written about that the left hemisphere of the brain is linear, logical and language oriented. The right side, on the other hand is visual, abstract and non-linear. It's also known that the majority of people are 'left dominant', that is, they use the left side of their brain to think with.

What does this have to do with spiritual matters? My sense is that those who are drawn to order, logic and dogmatism are very left centered people. Those who lean towards the mystical side of things are- frankly- working in their right brain. Women, of course, use their right brains more than men (intuition)- they have more connective tissue between the two hemispheres. And those who are left handed use the right hemisphere 11 percent more than those who are right handed.

I don't think either side is better than the other, but my sense is that a fully developed human being uses both sides in tandem, which happens, btw, when one has a good comprehension of poetry.

With this in mind, the statement..."Has our western need to quantify, define and analyze everything actually taken AWAY from the meaning of God's Word rather than helping us to understand it?" could also we read this way:

"Has the left brain's need to quantify, define and analyse everything actually taken AWAY from the meaning of the God's Word rather than helping us to undertand it?"

I would say yes. A run-amok left brain is trying to control everything and everyone. The only way to change the situation, in my view, is to sit on a cushion, pray, visualize- something- anything- to activate that part of ourselves which 'knows' in another way.

I've always read a hidden meaning in the admonition to "be as little children to enter the kingdom of God."

A child's left brain really doesn't kick in until the age of reason. Before then, they are in their right mind. And the world is full of mystery and awe.

[u-dog]

I've always seen a hidden meaning in the admonition to "be as little children to enter the kingdom of God."

A child's left brain really doesn't kick in until the age of reason. Before then, they are in their right mind. And the world is full of mystery and awe.

Thank you for this Daniel... I believe that will be the jumping off point for a sermon in the not too distant future! :lol:

[Gennee]

There's no shame in not knowing something. I would rather tell someone that I don't know something than pass along wrong information. There's mystery and God's unusual working all through the bible. I don't understand it but then His ways and thoughts are not our thoughts.

Everything cannot be explained with pat answers. That's the heart of the issue with gender and sexual expressions. There's many gray areas that cannot be so easily explained or defined. It's the same way with scripture.

God is more interested in our hearts rather that whether or not we understand everything.

Gennee

:)

[Zerbie]

Thank you for this Daniel... I believe that will be the jumping off point for a sermon in the not too distant future! :lol:

I wanna hear that talk!! I would love to visit incognito to see you in action on this topic! Fly on the wall, kinda thing.

You're not near Phoenix are ya?

[BenL]

Two Greek words, most recently made popular by Karen Armstrong, in her "Battle for God."

Her understanding of those words isn't what I'm getting at. Logos is the word John used for Word in the Prologue to the Gospel that carries his name. It is rational, mind of God kind of stuff. The word logical derives from it.

Unfortunately the English word myth has a bad rep in our modern culture, where it has come to mean false stories about false gods. Mythos means so much more than that. It is truth as told by fertile imagination, where the story is the vehicle for the truth but not necessarily historical accuracy. The creation story in Genesis is mythos of the highest order. What is it trying to say? That God created the world and humans in his own image, was pleased with it all, and wants us to be stewards over it. Is it true in every detail? I don't think so. It doesn't have to be. The overarching truth of it is so much truer than the pesky little details. Mythos soars. Logos lumbers. One is poet, the other scientist or engineer.

Thankfully, we are so wonderfully created that poet-lawyers and mathematical-musicians are not uncommon at all. Pablo, thanks for bringing this up. I use hikes in the woods for the same kind of meditation.

[nmwolfboy]

Hear, hear, Pablo!

One of the qualities that attracted me to the Anglican tradition of the Episcopal Church is that Mystery is valued.

A chapter in one of the texts that I was assigned during a New Members' class covered various historic values of the Anglican tradition. One of these is living with ambiguity. This is not ambiguity in a negative sense. Rather, it is affirming the benefits of living with uncertainty and things that don't fit neatly into comprehensible categories. Given the current conflicts within some sectors of the Episcopal Church, it seems that not all Anglicans share this value.

Now ambiguity isn't exactly the same as Mystery. However, i think that affirming the benefits of living with ambiguity fosters a mindset that supports embracing Mystery.

Encountering Mystery, and welcoming it leads us outside of our rational selves. I agree that it's approaching the spiritual as little children.

One Mystery that i find great value in contemplating is the Incarnation. In my tradition Christ is understood to be both fully human and fully God. That's like a koan for me. My rational mind tries to resolve the two, to understand how someone can fully be two different natures. I can't understand it, but i can meditate on it. I can enter into the experience of that mystery.

What i can't do is explain it in any meaningful way. And isn't that the hallmark of a Mystery?

[u-dog]

Two Greek words, most recently made popular by Karen Armstrong, in her "Battle for God."

Her understanding of those words isn't what I'm getting at. Logos is the word John used for Word in the Prologue to the Gospel that carries his name. It is rational, mind of God kind of stuff. The word logical derives from it.

Unfortunately the English word myth has a bad rep in our modern culture, where it has come to mean false stories about false gods. Mythos means so much more than that. It is truth as told by fertile imagination, where the story is the vehicle for the truth but not necessarily historical accuracy. The creation story in Genesis is mythos of the highest order. What is it trying to say? That God created the world and humans in his own image, was pleased with it all, and wants us to be stewards over it. Is it true in every detail? I don't think so. It doesn't have to be. The overarching truth of it is so much truer than the pesky little details. Mythos soars. Logos lumbers. One is poet, the other scientist or engineer.

Thankfully, we are so wonderfully created that poet-lawyers and mathematical-musicians are not uncommon at all. Pablo, thanks for bringing this up. I use hikes in the woods for the same kind of meditation.


Ben,

I love what you say about "Mythos" and you are right that the English cognate "myth" has been distorted over time. However, I think you are over stretching the sense of "logical" and "rational" in John's use of "Logos" I think he has something much more mystical and poetic in mind when he uses that term. After all the only time he uses the word "logos" in John 1 he is actually quoting a poem or song lyric from a pre-existing hymn. I think that you have to draw on the Hebrew understanding of "Sophia" or "Wisdom" from the Old testament. She who was with God and danced before him at creation.

[antonyh]

Has our western need to quantify, define and analyze everything actually taken AWAY from the meaning of God's Word rather than helping us to understand it?

What do you think?

Tu Amigo, Pablo

I like your thinking. It reminds me of this meditation I wrote a while back. It will definitely get me run out of the Convent for good.

I've always been a spiritual explorer trying to unearth some truth about ultimate reality. I found myself pondering ultimate reality last night, trying to figure out where I was in my search.

My heart wandered to the Buddha and his brilliant approach to reality. It is simply to sit with openness. Buddhist meditation is about following your breath and watching the mind. When we watch the mind, worries dissolve, judgments disappear, and attempts to color reality cease and the natural state of the mind reveals itself. This intrinsically luminous state of mind is the green pasture on the other side of the cessation of mental activity.

I wonder if I've ever experienced this natural state of mind because when I meditate, I always sense the presence of God lapping on the shores. Some Buddhists would tell me that this is a conditioned response, the ultimate illusion, the final attempt of the human mind and heart to cling to a sense of certainty in the universe. This clinging brings suffering because the divine security blanket is simply not there.

But maybe God is there. John Horgan in his book Rational Mysticism wrote:
The more science learns about the origin and history of the cosmos and of life on earth and of Homo sapiens, the more it reveals how staggeringly improbable we are. First there is the fact of exisitence itself. The big bang theory represents a profound insight into the history and structure of the cosmos, but it cannot tell us why creation occurred in the first place...Honest physicists will admit that that they have no idea why there is something rather than nothing....Next questions: Why does the universe look this way rather than some other way? Why does it adhere to these laws of nature rather than to some other laws? Altering any of the universe's fundamental parameters would have radically altered reality. For example, if the cosmos had been slightly more dense at its inception, it would have quickly collapsed into a black hole. A smidgen less dense, and it would have flown apart so fast that there would have been no chance for stars, galaxies, and planets to form. Cosmologists sometimes call this the fine-tuning problem, or more colorfully, the Goldilocks dilemma: How did the density of the universe turn out not too high, not too low, but just right? The odds that matter would have precisely its observed density, the physicist Lawrence Krauss has calculated, are as great as the odds of guessing precisely how many atoms there are in the sun.

Buddhists talk about the peace, joy, compassion, and love that spin off from resting in the natural state of the mind. I wonder if this is because they have touched the Being of God, the numen or mysterium tremendum. The Buddha would call this speculation, but I wonder if Buddhism stops a little bit too soon. Thomas Merton wrote this in the book published after his death:

In Zen there seems to be no effort to get beyond the inner self. In Christianity the inner self is simply a stepping stone to an awareness of God. Man is the image of God, and his inner self is the kind of mirror in which God not only sees Himself, but reveals Himself to the 'mirror' in which He is reflected. This, through the dark, transparent mystery of our own inner being we can, as it were, see God 'through a glass'. All this is of course pure metaphor. It is a way of saying that our being somehow communicates directly with the Being of God, Who is 'in us'. If we enter into ourselves, find our true self, and then pass 'beyond' the inner 'I', we sail forth into the immense darkness in which we confront the 'I AM' of the Almighty (Merton, 11).

The problem with Christianity, Islam and Judaism is that we've made too much of the inner self. When we encounter the numen or mysterium tremendum, our minds rush to the task. We create labels: "God", "Jesus", "Holy Spirit", "Allah", "Jehovah". We become the chosen people. Our ideas of cleanliness and what is right and wrong become the mind of God. We develop complex systems of theology that require pastors to earn Master of Divinity degrees to decode the mind fluff we've developed around the numen or mysterium tremendum. We become so obsessed with our hair-splitting interpretations that we're willing to kill, divide, exclude and hate over them.

Where does that leave me in my spiritual wanderings? I have a growing conviction that the best thing I can do is to let my mental activity cease and to sit before God. Buddhist meditation will always be my central spiritual practice. As I sit in meditation, I discover what Rumi once wrote,

"The secret Heart-Ravisher has been exposed! I have found traces of his footsteps all around."

Sources:

Horgan, John. Rational Mysticism: Spirituality Meets Science in the Search for Enlightenment. New York: Hougton Mifflin Company, 2003.
Merton, Thomas. The Inner Experience: Notes on Contemplation. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2003.

[BenL]

Ben,

I love what you say about "Mythos" and you are right that the English cognate "myth" has been distorted over time. However, I think you are over stretching the sense of "logical" and "rational" in John's use of "Logos" I think he has something much more mystical and poetic in mind when he uses that term. After all the only time he uses the word "logos" in John 1 he is actually quoting a poem or song lyric from a pre-existing hymn. I think that you have to draw on the Hebrew understanding of "Sophia" or "Wisdom" from the Old testament. She who was with God and danced before him at creation.

You're right on, Dave. That's what happens when I try to write deep thoughts between tasks at work. I so love that Wisdom is female, that the Christ as both Logos and Sophia is dual-gendered. Talk about your gender outlaw!

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Ah, you are all poofaces. You said everything I was going to say before I could. Meanyheads.:'(:'(:'(:p

Now it is my turn. I will give you two, nay, three words, two of which are a name:

Brian McLaren
emergent

There, that basically sums it up.

[Wanderer]

Pablo,

I was going to say that it's actually pretty simple (i.e., knowledge = controllable; mystery = not controllable,) but everyone else seemed to get there ahead of me.

So instead...here are some Bible references on the idea that God is above our understanding:
Job 11:7-9; 36:25-26; Ps 139:17-18; Is 40:18; 55:8-9; Rom 11:33
(See also Acts 17:29.)

And, if you use a Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Bible:
Wis 17:1; Sir 43:29

Dominus vobiscum

Wanderer

[Pablo Rafael]

I have appreciated all that everyone has had to say. It seems that we are all in substantial agreement on this issue.

This whole point about whether God can be defined and quantified seems to be a major issue with people as they make their first posts here. I see people who come in with "all the answers". They have a tendency to offend others and and generally refuse to listen. Those who come with an attitude of humility are warmly received even if they might disagree. It seems to me that an attitude of humility is a key characteristic of a truly Christian person.

I see humility quite lacking generally in the Christian church. Being in the Catholic church I see that ideas about God are defined by church teaching. Though there is much variety of belief within the Catholic church, the official stance is that the church has the one true teaching and it is not to be questioned. (However, many of us Catholics don't make very obedient sheep.)

Growing up in the Lutheran Church I found things to be much more rigid. Everything that we were to believe was written in the Book of Concord and the writings of Martin Luther. (Nothing new since the 1500's right?) I remember being asked once as a teenager what I believed on a certain topic. (I don't remember what it was now.) I replied I didn't know and would have to go to the cathechism and see what I believed. Even at the time (my very obedient, conservative days) that answer bothered me. In one of my Lutheran doctrine books it said that the bread and the wine at the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ when given to the person, but it ceases to be the body and blood when it is in the person's mouth because it would be sacreligious to have Christ's body and blood go through the digestive tract. That seems to me a worst-case example of how over-defining and explaining can remove the mystery and take away the meaning. The joy of the Eucharist for me is being in the presence of Christ in a special way. I don't need to know how it happens, or even WANT to know.

I don't want to pick on the Catholic and Lutheran churches. I think both have a lot going for them and both are doing a lot to show the Gospel of God's love. (Both have room for improvement too.) They are just the two churches that I know the best.

As Saint Paul says we now look as through a glass darkly. But in the life hereafter we will see clearly face-to-face. For now I am content to say that I am but understanding darkly. I look forward to seeing all clearly.

I am sure a lot of "Christians" are going to be really surprised at how wrong they were on many doctrines that they held so firmly. It's going to worth going to heaven just to see the looks on their faces.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[sailaway58]

I am sure a lot of "Christians" are going to be really surprised at how wrong they were on many doctrines that they held so firmly. It's going to worth going to heaven just to see the looks on their faces.
There in lies the beauty of Gods grace.
I have friends that believe the Bible has to be literal. 6 days is 6 days and on it goes. I do not share there view and I believe God is big enough to handle it if I am wrong.
I am an evolutionist to the dismay of many believers. I could be completely wrong but I don’t think that separates me from Gods love.
The bible doesn’t teach you have to be a literalist. It doesn’t teach you have to believe in the virgin birth. We can be wrong about all kinds of things. The only thing that will keep us from life eternal is not accepting Gods gift of life through his son.
If you think it is a struggle for some to accept some of this discussion you should have seen my pastors when I asked them if an openly gay couple attended our church would they be welcomed without the underlying agenda of changing them. Sure, share the gospel, but would they be able to participate as believers. Then I told them I joined a Gay kind of Christian website.:eek: Let’s just say I am moved to the top of their prayer list.:pray:
FYI their answers might surprise you. We believe Christ is for everyone.

[KennethJ]

I think all of this goes along with many Christians' obsession with having the "correct" beliefs. I am hopeful that we are slowly shifting to a paradigm where beliefs are formed through honest reflection and knowledge based on experience, instead of strict adherence to a set doctrine with the direct or indirect threat of hellfire.

[u-dog]

We can be wrong about all kinds of things. The only thing that will keep us from life eternal is not accepting Gods gift of life through his son.

I believe this too, Sailaway! but I always have to remind myself that the scripture on which this belief is based is John's gospel where Jesus is understood to be the incarnation of the Eternal Logos. So when Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the light and no one comes to the father but by me" is it Jesus of Nazareth speaking? or the Divine Logos.. the Word of God? I rather think that its the latter rather than the former. And while Jesus Christ is the perfect manifestation of the Logos, nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Logos is ONLY manisfested in Christ. I have personally known MANY people who don't claim the name of Jesus but who nonetheless have clearly been transformed by the Word of God that Jesus manifested. Some of them even post on this forum!! :love:



If you think it is a struggle for some to accept some of this discussion you should have seen my pastors when I asked them if an openly gay couple attended our church would they be welcomed without the underlying agenda of changing them. Sure, share the gospel, but would they be able to participate as believers. Then I told them I joined a Gay kind of Christian website.:eek: Let’s just say I am moved to the top of their prayer list.:pray:


:rofl: Thats one way to get your pastor's attention!! Good for you!

[Zerbie]

I believe this too, Sailaway! but I always have to remind myself that the scripture on which this belief is based is John's gospel where Jesus is understood to be the incarnation of the Eternal Logos. So when Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the light and no one comes to the father but by me" is it Jesus of Nazareth speaking? or the Divine Logos.. the Word of God? I rather think that its the latter rather than the former. And while Jesus Christ is the perfect manifestation of the Logos, nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Logos is ONLY manisfested in Christ.

I didn't know that this was a Christian thing to believe. Is this common? Did you come to this on your own or from someone else?


I have personally known MANY people who don't claim the name of Jesus but who nonetheless have clearly been transformed by the Word of God that Jesus manifested. Some of them even post on this forum!! :love:

:flower2::flower::magic:

[sailaway58]

Interesting U-Dog. You got me looking now. I would tend to agree with you but I have never seen it quite this way before. Good stuff.

[u-dog]

:flower2::flower::magic:

I thought of it on my own and then I read it... I'm not certain but I think it was in Mere Christianity by CS Lewis... Brent? Andy? a little help here. Is that a CS Lewis thing? or was it somebody else? :confused:


And Zerb! I had to think of SOME WAY to get you in to heaven cuz it shor wouldn't be much of a party without you!

[Steven E. Webster]

I believe this too, Sailaway! but I always have to remind myself that the scripture on which this belief is based is John's gospel where Jesus is understood to be the incarnation of the Eternal Logos. So when Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the light and no one comes to the father but by me" is it Jesus of Nazareth speaking? or the Divine Logos.. the Word of God? I rather think that its the latter rather than the former. And while Jesus Christ is the perfect manifestation of the Logos, nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Logos is ONLY manisfested in Christ.

Zerbie wrote:
I didn't know that this was a Christian thing to believe. Is this common? Did you come to this on your own or from someone else?

U-dog wrote"
I have personally known MANY people who don't claim the name of Jesus but who nonetheless have clearly been transformed by the Word of God that Jesus manifested. Some of them even post on this forum!!

Zerbie,
U-dog's view is not peculiar at all. The "Logos" or "Word of God" manifested in Jesus in the New Testament is described as a woman in the Old Testament--Lady Wisdom or Sophia. The huge church (now a mosque) in Istanbul was named St. Sophia in honor of Lady Wisdom. Lady Wisdom, like the Logos or Word in John was with God at the beginning of Creation and helped bring the whole thing about. (Fundamentalists, naturally, dismiss all this as "Goddess worship.")

While there seems to be a predominant notion that right-believing Christians think they have the only way to God, the fact is that there are alternative Christian views on that in both Protestant and Catholic theology. The disputed Christian doctrine that God is going to save everyone is called "Universalism" and has an ancient history in the church. My own (Methodist) denominational hero, John Wesley, taught that God's grace was universal and is the source of all the good in the world--including all the good that comes from what he called "honest heathen"--in various places Wesley makes it clear that he thinks "honest heathen" are among "the saved." You, too, might be an "honest heathen," Zerbie!

Christianity simply cannot be at war for ever with all the other faiths of the world! At least I hope not! Fundamentalists really despise interfaith cooperation that doesn't insist that the non-Christians must eventually convert or burn--but that's not the universal view among Christians.

I'm really excited about this story at Ex-Gay Watch:
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/06/tulsa-preacher-changes-mind-on-gays-ex-gays/
This is an example of a Pentecostal preacher who is both a Universalist and LGBT friendly!

Steven Webster

[Zerbie]

I thought of it on my own and then I read it... I'm not certain but I think it was in Mere Christianity by CS Lewis... Brent? Andy? a little help here. Is that a CS Lewis thing? or was it somebody else? :confused:

Hmm. I doubt it. That's about the only "christian" book I've ever read, and I don't recall ever coming across that description of Jesus in any christian sources.

And Zerb! I had to think of SOME WAY to get you in to heaven cuz it shor wouldn't be much of a party without you!

Um. . . thanks for the plane ticket. . .? :lol:

Zerb calls: Party in heaven!! Bring the food!! :aparty::tup::D:D

[antonyh]

And while Jesus Christ is the perfect manifestation of the Logos, nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Logos is ONLY manisfested in Christ. I have personally known MANY people who don't claim the name of Jesus but who nonetheless have clearly been transformed by the Word of God that Jesus manifested. Some of them even post on this forum!! :love:

It is interesting to understand the Logos in the context of ancient philosophy. According to Pierre Haddot:


Christian philosophy was made possible by the ambiguity of the Greek word Logos. Since Heraclitus, the notion of the Logos has been a central concept of Greek philosophy, since it could signify "word" and "discourse" as well as "reason." In particular, the Stoics believed that the Logos, conceived as a rational force, was immanent in the world, in human beings, and in each individual...

Beginning in the second century A.D., Christian authors--called "Apologists" because they tried to present Christianity in a form understandable to the Greco-Roman world--used the notion of the Logos to define Christianity as the philosophy. Greek philosophers, they claimed, had thus far possessed only portions of the Logos, mere elements of the True Discourse and of perfect Reason; but Christians were in possession of the Logos-- that is, the True Discourse and perfect Reason incarnate in Jesus Christ...

The transformation of Christianity into philosophy became even more marked with Clement of Alexandria, in third-century Alexandria. For Clement, Christianity, as the complete revelation of the Logos, was the true philosophy, which "teaches us to conduct ourselves so as to resemble God, and accept the divine plan as the guiding principle of all our education." 238-239

http://astore.amazon.com/thst-20/detail/0674013735/105-9479871-3835611

For me personally, I've back tracked to the original Greek concept of Logos, that there is a rational force immanent in the world, in human beings and in creation. I am very uncomfortable with the New Testament adding labels to the Logos, i.e. Jesus Christ.

I think the ancient Greeks were right to maintain the ambiguity around the concept of the Logos.

Hence my caution in the meditation posted earlier in the thread about "labeling" my experience of the divine:
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=33930&postcount=10

[Zerbie]

Jesus is understood to be the incarnation of the Eternal Logos. So when Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the light and no one comes to the father but by me" is it Jesus of Nazareth speaking? or the Divine Logos.. the Word of God? I rather think that its the latter rather than the former. And while Jesus Christ is the perfect manifestation of the Logos, nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Logos is ONLY manisfested in Christ.

!

Dave, Stephen,

The above paragraph describes my understanding of Jesus perfectly. What was significant about the man Jesus was that he embodied the Word.

There are two reasons why I am not Christian:

1. because perfect embodiment manifests in beings other than the physical body of Jesus

and
2. the terrible blasphemous thing that was done by a Christian leader when I was a little girl, which led to many thousands of deaths, and since he was the first Christian I ever saw, he defined them all.

[antonyh]

2. the terrible blasphemous thing that was done by a Christian leader when I was a little girl, which led to many thousands of deaths, and since he was the first Christian I ever saw, he defined them all.

Can you elaborate on this Zerbie.

[Zerbie]

Can you elaborate on this Zerbie.

Might be better if it was its own thread, to not hijack this one.

[BrentRichards]

I thought of it on my own and then I read it... I'm not certain but I think it was in Mere Christianity by CS Lewis... Brent? Andy? a little help here. Is that a CS Lewis thing? or was it somebody else? :confused:

Yes and no ... I'm not aware of Lewis making the incarnate Jesus/eternal Logos distinction, but he definitely posited (in MC, yes) that it might be possible to be saved THROUGH Christ without an overt faith IN Christ, by name. This, to my mind, is a natural outgrowth of the "true faith" (humble, arent' I?) that salvation is not, as often misstated, through FAITH alone, but rather through GRACE alone ... God's work, beginning to end, not ours: "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." I like to tell fundies ... "Don't tell God who He can't save."

[paul]

Pablo,
Your a man after my own heart, I like your take.

Something happens when we say "I know." Suddenly we go deaf and blind, but not mute...our mouth goes into high gear when we "know." But when we know we stop looking and listening, there's no need, we "know" already.

Was it the mistake of the pharisees that they followed a knowledge of God written down instead of following God? In so doing, did they miss God when God stood before them?
I guess it will be left to the heathen to quote scripture since everyone else has already been brilliant. I'll have to rely on someone elses brilliance with a few thoughts you evoke. (sorry to you purists, this is from memory)

to know is to see but "the righteous walk by faith, not by sight."

"we see through a glass darkly, so these three things are very important: faith, hope and love, but the greatest is love."