| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| is God perfect? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 20 2005, 09:23 AM (735 Views) | |
| Fesarius | Apr 20 2005, 10:43 PM Post #46 |
|
Admiral
|
Question: How is it that we (the reader) can know for certain when Christ is being literal, and when he is using hyperbole, chaism, or parabolic (as well as other literary) structures and forms? Perhaps the greatest scholar on the parables of Jesus, Joachin Jeremias, wasn't even certain in every case whether Christ was being literal or not. I am asking the question in the spirit of inquiry.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | Apr 20 2005, 11:58 PM Post #47 |
|
psyfi
|
Well, coming from a strictly bible perspective (as opposed to engaging in some sort of epistemological discourse), it seems to me that there would be several ways to know what Jesus meant. We could do a bible study as to Wisdom, Knowledge, and Holy Spirit Revelation and put the principles and strategies we learn into practice by applying them to our understanding of this scripture so that the meaning is revealed, and known. Another method, if we believe Matthew 7:7-8, would be to ask and keep on asking until we receive the answer. A third method would be to settle in on an answer and then apply it in our endeavors to be perfect (as the bible means it) and see if it works for us. If it does, fine, and if it doesn't, modify the answer and try again. What would probably be less than fruitful would be to throw up our hands and proclaim, "Oh well, no way to know." This stymies us and places us in a position of trusting nothing but our own doubt. I don't see that position as biblical. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Franko | Apr 21 2005, 07:22 AM Post #48 |
|
Shower Moderator
|
The interesting thing about this is that we are using the term "perfect" from a human perspective. By what critieria can a human decide whether God is perfect or not ? Even if He is without sin, one could still attach "human-determined" ideas as to what constitutes "perfection". If I were to imagine myself as "perfect", for instance, I have no idea what that would imply, really, about my behaviour. This may likely be why God and creation is such a mystery to human thinking. The concept of "perfection" may be the same thing as trying to imagine the concept of infinity. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 21 2005, 07:30 AM Post #49 |
|
Admiral
|
Psyfi, I submit that it is difficult to know in every case for certain. To cite but one example, how about when Jesus says "There was a man...". Do you think he always had someone specific in mind? Also, historical truth can be--and often is--told in literary form. Certainly in John, literary devices are more or less constant. Of the options you list, the third option is the one that matches most closely to that which I have tried, and have found to be useful. The second option is less exact (and for me, more problematic), since even if the answer is forthcoming, uncertainty can still exist (lacking corroboration), esp. where private interpretation is concerned. And when this lack of corroboration is dismissed (cult leaders frequently use this methodology to assert their position), and the answer is somehow gleaned through private (and to them, unerring) interpretation, the possibility for distortion is increased. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 21 2005, 07:53 AM Post #50 |
|
Admiral
|
Psyfi et al., Approach 1) As you explain it, I would say that it comes to choosing a frame, or an interpretive approach--i.e. 'This is saying something about Wisdom' and exploring that. Approach 2) Appears to be faith-based, it seems--i.e., "Keep asking." Approach 3) I mentioned that this seems to be my approach. Approach 4) Agreed. It is not satisfying to admit impenetrability. I can see tradeoffs in each. From a literary perspective, it seems likely that some, at least tentative understanding of each verse can be gleaned--and in the case of the NT texts, there are hundreds of years of commentary to draw on and digest. From a position of faith, one may also ask: What is this God trying to get across to me in this passage? Pragmatically, one can ask: What difference (in behavior, including thought and speech) may this be pointing me to? N.B.: There is a whole literature analyzing literary forms in the NT. In Amazon, searching the following under Books: form criticism "new testament" yields a cornucopia. You have to do the evaluations of the analysis yourself. For my own part, I don't hold much with Bultmann. But the presence of literary form is often fairly plain to me, I think it would be silly to try and overlook it. Thus, as with so many other things, it entails a careful reading and a balanced assessment. 'Picking and choosing' sounds arbitrary--not a good approach to any rich text, and not a good approach to Scripture. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | Apr 21 2005, 08:49 AM Post #51 |
|
psyfi
|
The bible does say to go for corroboration in The Word and in what The Holy Spirit says through others, so I do think that is important---and it is often through this lack of confirmation that cults begin. However, the asking and receiving of the revelation comes first. An example of this sort of thing can be seen in the experience of actor Bruce Marchiano who plays Jesus in Visual Bible film "The Gospel According to Matthew." Marchiano prayed to Jesus saying, "I want to play this role as you really were. I want to know how you truly behaved. I want to know your manner and your heart and your intent, when you preached. I want my every action to be just as you in fact behaved." He prayed and prayed and prayed this for the longest time. And he had a revelation. A scripture came to him which was Heb. 1:9 – “… your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” He was surprised because it seemed to him in that moment that other than the reverent, the calm and serene, the wise Jesus that most other actors had played, he was being told that Jesus was always laughing, always happy, always 'bubbly.' He felt this was what had been revealed and now waited for the confirmation. Within a few days the producer of the film called him. He had also been praying and he also had all sorts of scriptures about joy coming to him. Marchiano wanted more confirmation because this idea seemed to him so radical. He went over to his girlfriend's house for dinner, and talked a little about the Jesus role, although he didn't mention his revelation as to Jesus' character and behavior. It was a pleasant evening and as he was leaving, her daughter (who I think was around 9 at the time) said to him, "Promise me something." He said, "What do you want me to promise?" She said, "Promise me you will play a happy Jesus. They never show him happy. They never show him smiling." For Marchiano, that was it. And if anybody has ever seen this film, his Jesus is superb. When he heals people, he is so happy, he rejoices and is grateful to God with them, sometimes embracing and falling to the ground and laughing for the sheer joy of such a wonderful miracle. Even when he tells the Pharisees off, he doesn't do it filled with anger and condemnation, but rather as one might speak to much beloved brothers, in a truthful but nonetheless loving manner, very quietly, pointing our the error of their ways but yet without condemnation for their existence and being. In my mind, he is the one and only actor that really captured Jesus fully. I wish that I knew how to put pictures on this because I would send you an image from this film that totally captures what I am talking about. Anyway, all this by saying, I agree with you. Get your revelation but verify. The main thing is don't forgo revelation if getting the answer is important to you. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 21 2005, 08:58 AM Post #52 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Perhaps I should get this film (if and when it becomes available).
Psyfi, I own the complete Gospel of Matthew and The Acts on eight VHS tapes (four each). Both are excellent, and are word-for-word. I also own the Gospel of John on DVD (both the two-hour and three-hour versions). I have yet to watch this one yet. But I will. N.B: LOL. It just occurred to me that I may already own this version. I don't know who plays Christ in the version I have seen, but you are describing him as I have viewed him in the film I own. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | Apr 21 2005, 08:58 AM Post #53 |
|
psyfi
|
The main thing here is to select that way, method, strategy that feels right for who we are; and, if we are bible believers, to do it in a biblically sound manner as the bible gives very good advice about coming to understand what we are being told in its pages. Studying commentary from others is wonderful and proper and most appropriate. However, you presented me with a scenario in which even the greatest scholar didn't know and had no answer, namely did Jesus call upon us to be perfect because he believed it was possible in short order, perhaps, through God Almighty, in the wink of an eye? Is such a miracle possible? It is an interesting question and I just wanted to provide a couple of ways that somebody who believes in the bible might go about getting a revelation as to the answer rather than leave in perpetually in 'doubt mode.' |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 21 2005, 09:01 AM Post #54 |
|
Admiral
|
Sorry.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | Apr 21 2005, 12:05 PM Post #55 |
|
psyfi
|
I just find Marchiano's Jesus soooo inspiring. He looks as I have always pictured Jesus to look and I just feel that he captured the person of Christ perfectly. I find it far, far, far easier to believe this Jesus than the others I have seen in many films. In fact, every time I see even an excerpt from the film, I feel this aura of God's Presence, this tugging within my spirit. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 21 2005, 12:14 PM Post #56 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Have you ever seen Jeffrey Hunter (Capt. Pike) as Jesus? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | Apr 21 2005, 01:05 PM Post #57 |
|
psyfi
|
Not that I recall. What movie was he in? I've seen many of the biblical movies, e.g., Quo Vadis, Ben Hur, Ten Commandments. (Hur is my favorite). In fact I was watching some old movie just last night about King David. David was played by Jeff Chandler (the Silver Fox) who was even then really too old for the part but his acting was very good. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 21 2005, 01:17 PM Post #58 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ He was Christ in The King of Kings (1961). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055047/ |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | Apr 21 2005, 06:07 PM Post #59 |
|
psyfi
|
I am sure I saw this movie (long ago in a galaxy far away) yet, if I did, I don't remember it. I will rent it when I get a chance. My daughter just won three free months of NetFlix as a job bonus, so I should be able to find it there even if it is old. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Franko | Apr 22 2005, 03:54 AM Post #60 |
|
Shower Moderator
|
I actually used to like that film in my younger years; in fact I wouldn't mind seeing a remake. Just to tangent for a moment here, I find it a little bit hard to believe that someone out there can't make a sensible movie dealing with the popular version of the story of Jesus. Scorcese's "Last Temptation" and Mel Gibson's "Passion" seem to represent two extremes; variation on a theme and exploiting a singular theme to absurdity. I'm of course referring to mainstream big budget Hollywood films. On a side note, I don't think that it was any coincidence that Jeffrey Hunter's name in "The Cage" was Christopher Pike. The first name is self-evident, and Pike is a fish; ancient symbol of early Christianity. I've often wondered whether going to "James" for Captain Kirk was still a play on this, since "James" is considered by some to have been the closest disciple to Jesus (some say in fact his brother) and that at this time Roddenberry wanted a degree of traditional Christian thinking in the original series. Just speculating. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Spiritual Journeys · Next Topic » |


1:52 PM Jul 11