Modern Churches puting too much emphasis on Jesus instead of God?

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by Silas

A passion for the Supremecy of Christ in everything, ought to be the goal of every chruch. However, to neglect the Father who sent the Son into the world in the first place, and the Spirit who opens our eyes to Jesus and our need for Him (Regenerates), is to not have a correct understanding of God. We must praise God for who He is: A Triune God. And we must praise Him the way scripture taught us: To the Father, in the Name of the Son, and in the power of the Spirit.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Outsiders may think differently.

Well, they are wrong. You will still be in my prayers.

The Bible is NOT just a record. It is Gods written word to us and a book of transformation to a receptive heart. But we don't change just because we read it, it isn't mechanical. It's the HEART.

The key to a receptive heart is an understanding mind, not an argumentative mind. (or heart for that matter) I approach God's Word with trust in His word. I have total confidence in Him.

You are free to think you can be a Christian without having knowledge of what the bible is or isn't.

sincerely, pattimax

p.s. I put the box in the recycle bin.

[pattimax]

The heart and mind must be engaged. Is that "bible-thumping."

[Thomas]

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Well I suppose we have to take into account what denimination, and where...

Generally, as a Catholic, my concern is for the lack of the sense of Mystery – the Mass is a Sacred Rite – and I think there is a risk of 'dumbing down' for the sake of ecumenical outreach.

In the same vein, and along the lines of the original post, I see Christianity being reduced to a set of ethics bathed in some pseudo-mystical glow – I think my post on The Good Samaritan highlighted aspects of that for me – the mystical aspect was largely ignored in the discussion, which favoured ethics and personal morality.

This is a result of the trend of Western culture over the last few hundred years – I would trace it to the Reformation, at which point the Mystery began to be rationalised and explained away – God became present only in an abstract sense.

Thomas

[Dor]

Originally Posted by pattimax

BTW - I wondered too, until I started reading the bible.

Woot. Thank you

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by pattimax

Well, they are wrong. You will still be in my prayers.

Are they simply "wrong?" Not from their point of view. Moreover, even if they are "wrong," how could the poor buggers possibly know?

If we think about it, their reasoning isn't unreasonable if the reasoning we have presented is not adequate to justify them accepting our beliefs. They don't feel justified thinking as we do. We can't exactly blame people for thinking that way . . . If try to force our reasoning on them, they'd either think we're arrogant or that we're trying to manipulate them. People must be given a reason to think and believe in something. Otherwise they have no moral obligation to do so. In that sense, we can't accuse them of being "wrong" because we haven't justified it to them, why they are wrong. It's only when we convince them that they are "wrong." So we have a moral obligation to justify ourselves. Otherwise, it is not they who are wrong, but we who are wrong.

I disagree with the timing of the assessment of them being "wrong." We haven't even justified it to them. That's a bit premature don't you think? Aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves here? While you may find my defence of so-called "outsiders" unacceptable, there is also the question of whether our assessment of them is premature. Our assessments of them may be wrong if they are premature. Were we wrong about them?

Originally Posted by pattimax

The Bible is NOT just a record. It is Gods written word to us and a book of transformation to a receptive heart. But we don't change just because we read it, it isn't mechanical. It's the HEART.

The key to a receptive heart is an understanding mind, not an argumentative mind. (or heart for that matter) I approach God's Word with trust in His word. I have total confidence in Him.

You are free to think you can be a Christian without having knowledge of what the bible is or isn't.

I am hoping we are not starting off on the wrong foot here. Just to let you know I have done my homework, I thought I might list a few different ways I would have of conceptualising the "praying in Jesus' name" thing. I would say they are alternatives to John 14:9-14. You may recall me saying that I was "thinking outside the box" when I said that we could inherit the privileges of an honourable man if we were his brothers and sisters. Well, that actually came from ideas I got from reading the Bible. I just didn't tell you the whole story. The Bible has a lot of metaphors, allegory and symbolism. It can express the same thing in different ways.

Hopefully I have not given you the wrong impression here. I do draw my ideas from the Bible, but I don't always make that explicit in my conversations with people. I am not sure if it's because I am in the habit of being vague . . .

1. "Spiritual Descendents"
A descendent inherits the glory of his/her ancestor. One would think that the nation of Israel inherits all the blessings heaped on their forefather Jacob. The Israelites, and more presently the Jews inherit these blessings from Jacob by blood. Some Jews are not blood descendents of Jacob, but still inherit the blessings bestowed on him because they follow the same religion as that given to early descendents of Jacob.

Speaking of ancestors and forefathers, Paul describes Abraham as "the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised" (Romans 4:11). Galatians 3:29 says that "we are Abraham's seed" and "heirs according to the promise" God gave Abraham concerning his "seeds." Galatians 3:7 says that "those who believe are children of Abraham." Paul is basically talking about what we might call "spiritual descendents" of Abraham, people whom God accepts because of their faith.

My impression is that what Paul is really trying to convey is the idea of how Christ is a "spiritual ancestor" of people who try to emulate him. Because we are not blood descendents (not "physical descendents") of Christ, we must consistently assert that we are his followers. So when we pray in Jesus' name, we are asking for the same privileges that Jesus received in being resurrected because of the life he lived. We are "spiritual descendents" because we live with the same attitude as Jesus and because we are a eligible for receiving the same privileges.

2. The Cornerstone
1 Peter 2:4-5 says that we are the "stones" of God's temple. We, God's people, are the building blocks of God's home. The "Living Stone rejected by men but chosen by God" in 1 Peter 2:4 was Jesus. 1 Peter 2:5 says our "spiritual sacrifices" are "acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." Jesus was the Foundation Stone. But that means something else -- we can't be a part of God's temple if we're not built on top of the Foundation Stone. We can't be built on top of that First Stone if we're not "spiritual descendents" of Christ.

3. The Door-Opener
How did Jesus become the Cornerstone? He must have been very special to be ordained the cornerstone. How did he earn that place in God's temple? How else? He died an honourable death.

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven -- the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. John 3:14-15

He died an honourable death and was resurrected because he lived an honourable life. What next? Well, being the one privileged enough to gain entry into heaven, Jesus was granted a wish. His wish was to let other people into heaven, in exchange for his life, in heaven. So Jesus didn't just give his life on earth, but also in heaven. He became the Cornerstone. His destiny is sealed. That's his life-long career -- his life long job -- to be the Foundation Stone of God's temple. He can't quit. There is no such thing as resigning. But here's the point -- we pray in Jesus' name because he opened the door into God's temple. He was the first into heaven and the only one who could open the door to let us in.

4. The Mansion
John 14:1-3 says Jesus would be preparing "places" for us in heaven. This might actually have a connection with what it says in 1 Peter 2:4-5 about us being the "stones" of God's home/temple. Moreover, Jesus says in John 14:2 that "my Father's house has many rooms." Ring a bell? We all have a place in God's heart. We are the rooms. The rooms are filled when we fit in with our future destiny.

5. Summing it all Up
I guess it all has to hang together somehow . . . I would say I don't think it stops with just quoting John 14:9-14 -- that it's because Jesus was "the Son of God." There are half a dozen "sub-stories" in other places in the Bible to do with why we "pray in Jesus' name." Any one of them is a candidate for being a reason why we invoke Jesus in our prayers. Because each of these sub-stories are really part of the greater story of what Christianity means, it's just a matter of figuring out where things fit in.

While I did say I was "thinking outside the box," that was only to understand how I might "think inside the box." My ideas are still based on what I find in the Bible.

The point I was making was that John 14:9-14 would probably have been the most obvious answer to the question of why we invoked Jesus in our prayers. I would have classified it as "the Bible Thumper's response" in the sense that it's the kind of answer you would most likely expect. The guy just quotes directly from the Bible! The trouble, I think, though, is you'd then be under-representing Christianity. John 14:9-14 just isn't the only reason why Jesus is invoked in our prayers.

That was the reason why I might have "overlooked" that passage. I was looking for a different way of seeing things. The idea of being stereotyped for following rules and formulas and stating the obvious didn't quite appeal to me . . . I guess then that that's the nice thing when Christianity allows you to have a different way of seeing things. You don't have to be stereotyped if you don't want it to happen.

Concerning thinking "outside the box," my idea is to spend some time not reading the Bible and to think conceptually, theoretically and hypothetically about what I've read and learnt. Only after I'm satisfied with the ideas I've spawned do I open the Bible to read it. Even then, it's just to confirm that my ideas fit in with what the Bible says. Speculating about the meaning of Christianity takes a lot of thinking. So when I do read the Bible, it's only to consult it, and use it as evidence of whether my reasoning was right or wrong. So I think before reading, and when I do read, it's usually only to consult or confirm. If there's a part of the Bible I have never read, then I'd be exploring.

But I guess that might lead to another insight -- the Bible is perhaps just one instance of Christianity. You could say it's a book of examples of what Christianity might mean. So perhaps the purpose of the Bible is not to specify what Christianity is or isn't, and nor may its purpose have been it define it. For most of us, then, the Bible, as a book of examples, is sufficient for the purpose of explaining the meaning of Christianity . . .

[Matt Langley]

If we think about it, their reasoning isn't unreasonable if the reasoning we have presented is not adequate to justify them accepting our beliefs. They don't feel justified thinking as we do. We can't exactly blame people for thinking that way . . . If try to force our reasoning on them, they'd either think we're arrogant or that we're trying to manipulate them. People must be given a reason to think and believe in something. Otherwise they have no moral obligation to do so. In that sense, we can't accuse them of being "wrong" because we haven't justified it to them, why they are wrong. It's only when we convince them that they are "wrong." So we have a moral obligation to justify ourselves. Otherwise, it is not they who are wrong, but we who are wrong.

I agree completely.

If you label someone wrong simply because they disagree with you, without evaluating your own stance and the possibility of you yourself being wrong, then you are in fact wrong in my eyes.

Following Jesus isn't about accepting things, it's about beleiving things. To me the biggest difference in a beleif and an acceptance is a idea you must challenge before it becomes a beleif; however, if you don't challenge it, it simply is an acceptance of an idea, nothing more.


Now the rest of what you say Saltmeister I don't exactly agree with... though I do credit you for using your head and rationalizing and reasoning scripture into reality instead of what many Christians do of just accepting it and it then takes on some sort of psuedo-reality.

[pattimax]

For the record, when I spoke of "wrong", I was speaking of opinion about praying for you.
(their reasoning isn't unreasonable if the reasoning we have presented is not adequate to justify them accepting our beliefs.)
Absolutely priceless.
Saltmeister, I hit a nerve. I apologize.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Matt Langley

Following Jesus isn't about accepting things, it's about beleiving things. To me the biggest difference in a beleif and an acceptance is a idea you must challenge before it becomes a beleif; however, if you don't challenge it, it simply is an acceptance of an idea, nothing more.

Nicely said.

Originally Posted by pattimax

For the record, when I spoke of "wrong", I was speaking of opinion about praying for you.
(their reasoning isn't unreasonable if the reasoning we have presented is not adequate to justify them accepting our beliefs.)
Absolutely priceless.
Saltmeister, I hit a nerve. I apologize.

Concerning the comments I made about "Bible thumpers," they weren't directed at you. Maybe I should have been more careful in the way I introduced my thoughts into the post. Sorry if you took offence. Please don't take that personally.

I was saying generally . . . quoting verses . . . answering a question with a passage from the Bible. Stating the obvious?

I was a bit puzzled as to why there was a suggestion about me not reading the Bible . . . Did I say anything untoward? I had to give you that assurance -- that I had done my homework -- that I wasn't talking rubbish about Christianity. Salt, you didn't read the Bible. Eh? Huh? But couldn't we assume that all of us have read the Four Gospels and know the basics? I was wondering, what did I just get myself into?

Originally Posted by Matt Langley

Now the rest of what you say Saltmeister I don't exactly agree with... though I do credit you for using your head and rationalizing and reasoning scripture into reality instead of what many Christians do of just accepting it and it then takes on some sort of psuedo-reality.

Was my reasoning incorrect? I was just making a suggestion on how our relationship with God/Christ can be conceptualised . . .

Not setting any rules or formulas. My intent was to answer the question of the original poster. I made a list of things that were commonly attributed to Jesus. The last of the issues I was discussing was about "praying to Jesus" as opposed to "praying in Jesus' name."

The reason why I suggested the idea of "spiritual descendents" was that I believe that, in terms of invoking Jesus' name in our prayers, it's in parallel with him being Son of God. Jews and Muslims, followers of Judaism and Islam, would most likely proclaim that they follow religions bestowed on one or more of the descendents of Abraham, Moses for the Jews and Mohammed for Muslims, or at least that they are blood descendents of Abraham if they are Arab or Hebrew. That link is implicit in their prayers. They ask for the privileges of being God's people on the basis that they are "spiritual descendents" of Abraham. Paul uses the same idea when he says that Abraham is "the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised." Paul is alluding to the idea that Christ can be seen as a "spiritual ancestor" in the same way as Abraham. Spiritual descendents of Abraham inherit the status of a man close to God. Same with Christ.

When a Jew asserts that he is a follower of the religion of those rescued from slavery in Egypt, when a Muslim says that "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Prophet," they are asserting their identity as God's people in reference to the religion they follow. Likewise, a Christian asserts his identity as "a spiritual descendent" of Christ when he prays "in Jesus name." It was probably something the early Christians were familiar with that we've kind of forgotten. We're asking God to give us the same privileges as he gave Christ. Love and protect us in the same way you loved and protected Christ. In other words, Jesus is like our certificate of identity as God's people. It defines our status as citizens in God's kingdom.

(I think there's also a "tribal element" to this whole idea, ie. "spiritual descendents.")

It's commonly said that Christians are "followers of Christ," but very rarely do I hear it said that we are "spiritual descendents" of Christ. I see both views as valid, but it seems I hardly ever hear about the latter view. "Follower" and "spiritual descendent" aren't the same thing. A spiritual descendent has privileges. A follower does not. Are we denying the privileges that every Christian is supposed to receive? Maybe not, but if we just say "follower" we're not asserting our privileges strongly enough. Why not make our claims stronger?

John 14:1-3 says that Jesus is preparing places for us to live in when we get to heaven, but that the "mansion" belongs to the Father. As "spiritual descendent" implies "inheritance" it sounds more reasonable to say we get to live there if we "inherit" the right to live there. So Christians are meant to "inherit" the homes Jesus is preparing for us. As with praying "in Jesus name" we're asking to inherit privileges (ie. God's love and protection).

Ok, sorry about the "mind games" and "word games" here, but I see Christianity as a religion driven by how we express our beliefs.

The idea that our prayers are conveyed to God through Christ because he is "Son of God," "the Way, Truth and Life," "the One who leads us to the Father" or "spiritual ancestor" to me are really just the same thing. We're not compelled to take any specific approach to the idea of Christ. Plus all the other things I mentioned about Jesus being the Cornerstone, the Father preparing rooms in His mansion, Jesus being like the snake in the desert that was lifted up, etc.

But . . . the reason why I was saying this was . . . Jews and Muslims often have a problem (obviously) with the "Son of God" concept. The idea of a "spiritual ancestor" will probably be more appealing to a Jew or Muslim looking into Christianity than "Son of God." A Jew or Muslim asking questions as to why Christians invoke Jesus in their prayers will probably be more impressed if we say we are "spiritual descendents of Jesus" than if we said "Jesus was Son of God." Jews and Muslims can get quite theoretical about spirituality, so the idea of "inheriting" through a "spiritual ancestor" might be favourable.

Suppose one day there's an earthquake. I'm in a building with a few Jews, Muslims and atheists. The building collapses and we're all trapped inside. We all want to pray to God (the same God), to ask for help, including the atheists. They ask me to lead them in prayer. What do I say? Do I pray in Jesus' name and say afterwards that he's the Son of God? The Jews or Muslims might complain that the prayer was invalid because I wasn't praying to the same God. They reject my prayer. Then we'd get into an argument about the Trinity, etc., etc. Suppose instead that I say afterwards that I prayed in Jesus' name because that gives me "special privileges" as a "spiritual descendent of Christ." Also, since I prayed on their behalf, they too, may receive God's love and protection. Think that might sounds right?

I wasn't so much alluding to a question of "right thinking" but how we expressed our beliefs . . . Question: are there other ways in which we can express our beliefs?

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Suppose one day there's an earthquake. I'm in a building with a few Jews, Muslims and atheists. The building collapses and we're all trapped inside. We all want to pray to God (the same God), to ask for help, including the atheists. They ask me to lead them in prayer. What do I say? Do I pray in Jesus' name and say afterwards that he's the Son of God? The Jews or Muslims might complain that the prayer was invalid because I wasn't praying to the same God. They reject my prayer. Then we'd get into an argument about the Trinity, etc., etc. Suppose instead that I say afterwards that I prayed in Jesus' name because that gives me "special privileges" as a "spiritual descendent of Christ." Also, since I prayed on their behalf, they too, may receive God's love and protection. Think that might sounds right?

Saltmeister,

You are too much.... LOL

How about you just suggest each one pray as they were taught in their own relligion and then you will have all the bases covered just in case you were wrong... lol

After all.... It only takes one to get through...

James 5:16-17
The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. [17] Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.

Love in Christ,
JM

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Matt Langley

Following Jesus isn't about accepting things, it's about beleiving things. To me the biggest difference in a beleif and an acceptance is a idea you must challenge before it becomes a beleif; however, if you don't challenge it, it simply is an acceptance of an idea, nothing more.

Matt,

Are we making up our own definitions here? I get your point but your choice of words 'belief' and 'acceptance' need re-thinking.

be·lief (b-lf) n. 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.


Belief is the same as acceptance of true. You can't apply different meanings to the two words unless of course you disagree with Webster. Perhaps it would be more accurate to rephrase that "Some believe without challenging the idea before accepting it as their belief, while others challenge ideas before they believe or accept them"

Love in Christ,
JM

[pattimax]

I made an off-hand comment. I really did wonder about it. I didn't mean anything by it. And please don't worry, I am not offended.

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by pattimax

I made an off-hand comment. I really did wonder about it. I didn't mean anything by it. And please don't worry, I am not offended.

Good. That is a sign of real wisdom on your part. None was given and none was accepted.

Love,
JM

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by JosephM

How about you just suggest each one pray as they were taught in their own relligion and then you will have all the bases covered just in case you were wrong... lol

But what about that sense of togetherness . . . interpersonality . . . community connectness . . . we're in this together? Let's pray as one?

The ship is sinking!!! Abandon ship!!! Every man for himself?

You go your way, I go mine?

Was it not said somewhere that whenever two or more are gathered in his name, that there He is in the midst of them?

Moreover, if the ship is sinking, the building falling apart, your home getting razed to the ground, people getting chomped up by dinosaurs and abducted by aliens, there's a blue moon and the sky is falling and some miracle happens after Jesus' name is invoked in a prayer it might just be enough to say that Christ had something to do with it . . .

He's been gone for 2,000 years but maybe . . . just maybe . . . there is still value believing in him.

Hmmmm. Maybe there was something about that man . . . the one who worked wonders for people.

Did Jesus not say once that if you want to move mountains . . . just pray in my name and if you believe it will happen?

Actually, that was in Matthew 21:21-22.

Then people may start saying, hey, thank God you're here.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Good. That is a sign of real wisdom on your part. None was given and none was accepted.

Love,
JM

"... The just shall live by faith." Galatians 3:11b
Thank you