Sai

Thing is that they believe gods hand directed them. Same idea as papal infallibility.

bacht

Yes. The Bible was not written as straight history, yet inerrantists and literalists insist it was, thus trapping themselves in various inconsistencies and errors. It's a revelation of God's work in history, written from a subjective perspective (assuming the existence of God) by relatively ignorant Iron Age people.

Failte

But even papal infallibility only applies to the topics of doctrine and faith, not history or politics or economics or any other realm of study.

And not all Christians believe that the bible is divine or even divinely inspired. Many do not. Yet another area where the 'christian' label is no clear indicator of how someone views scripture.

Justin Z

Correct -- plagiarized from here . . .

"glorifies the Ancient of days who then proceeded to give this person authority to rule on earth" - p. 81

"the one who achieved a sinless life (Isa 53:9), paid the price for man's redemption (Isa 53:5,6), and was vindicated by his bodily resurrection as Judge of the entire human race (Acts 17:31; Rom 2:16)." - p. 82

. . . and here . . .

"It is not certain whether the resurrection envisioned here is intended to be literal or figurative. A comparison with Isaiah 25:8 and Daniel 12:2 suggests a literal interpretation, but Ezekiel 37:1-14 uses resurrection as a metaphor for deliverance from exile and the restoration of the nation (see Isa 27:12-13)." - bottom of the page

andrewcriddle

I agree that one of the things maybe one of the main things Jesus is talking about is being prepared to die for your faith no matter the cost to your family. However, there are surely other situations in which this sort of conflict would have occurred. Eg your family don't want you wandering the countryside following a controversial religious extremist leaving your father shorthanded in the family business and ruining your mother's plans to marry you to the nice girl down the street.
At face value the kingdom is in this world but supernatural in the sense that God is going to establish it not human effort.

Andrew Criddle

Elijah

I guess if you recognize the potential for death aspect as the main thing he is talking about there then I can’t ask for much more than that. I wouldn’t say that it was the main thing but the specific thing he is speaking about since that’s how people usually talk; with certain things in mind even though a broader interpretation can be applied later creating a more general ethical teaching which still makes some sense in rare instances.

Now the problems I see with this is that there is no real meaning of Christianity or this passage without the martyrdom aspect considered. Even if you were able to convince someone that it wasn’t actually hating your parents but about loving god/christ more (which is going to be a problem) you are left with having to make up scenarios like the above to justify what he is talking about instead of using the scenario/martyrdom that defines the Christian in those days. Now your scenario surely came up but only in particular instances of people still tied to the responsibilities of their parents with parents who don’t expect some independence from their children, while the martyrdom fear is for all Christians who exalt Christ regardless if they are still working at home with controlling parents.

I wouldn’t normally be so adamant on the specific meaning but this hate your parents deal seems to come up a fair bit and it would be nice to have a response that addresses it concretely; not by interpreting it as a vague ethical teaching about putting god over your family. The god over your family thing isn’t much better for most people but explaining that martyrdom was expected and engaging in an activity which will lead to your early death, (which is being completely disrespectful to your parents’ feelings), does make sense and helps explain the whole martyrdom thing that followed.
Not sure what you mean by without human effort. Even if you don’t consider Jesus to be a man doesn’t Peter Paul and the rest count as human effort to bring about the kingdom? Or is it a deal where every action is the will of God? Or are you imagining God as an anthropomorphic entity that lives behind the curtain and watches us and interacts when he sees fit? And one day he will come and abracadabra a magical new kingdom appears which he will rule over us?

I asked you about your understanding of God a loooooooong time ago and never got a clear answer so I am extremely curious if you are using a pre Socratic superstitious understanding of God or a more rational philosophical constant within the universe.

andrewcriddle

Hi Elijah

The language you use here is maybe a bit biased, but at face value Jesus as reported in the synoptics did see God in (somewhat) anthropomorphic terms and did expect God to finally directly intervene and establish his kingdom. Some of this language used by Jesus here is metaphorical/symbolic and not meant to be taken literally, but some appears to be intended reasonably literally.

You mentioned Peter and Paul. One of the problems here is that although you are right that Paul saw his ministry as helping to accomplish God's purposes, he doesn't talk about this in terms of "bringing about the kingdom".


Andrew Criddle

No Robots

Those who think that by “Father” he meant what religion calls god-in-heaven should recall that he speaks of the Father whom no one knows but he alone and those to whom he reveals this Father.--Brunner, Our Christ, p.55.

bacht

...which is Marcionism or gnosticism

You need to find a modern gnostic church, doesn't sound like you belong with mainstream Christians

No Robots

I'm following Brunner. He identifies Christ's Father with the abstract spiritual principle, identical to the One, Brahman, the Tao, the Stoic Logos, and so forth. Brunner's own choice is das Denkende, ie. the Cogitant, the active principle of eternal and infinite thought. He also draws Judaism into this, translated Jahve as das Seiende, ie. Beingness. I guess it is a kind of gnosticism, yes.