Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen
Okay, I looked at the blog page.
I see what the author's position is. Oddly, the things the Seminar presented as their thesis or whatever do make sense to me.
But, you didn't answer my other questions. I'll ask again:
"Aside from just on principle and your sensibilities, what is inherently, factually "wrong" about the Gnostic ideas,
What is wrong with them is that, in a historical and theological context, they cannot be correct. Not "maybe they're not right" or "they got this
part right over here" -- the claim that Jesus was the Bringer of Gnosis is impossible. The reasons for that are far beyond the context of this
thread, and require a healthy understanding of Judaic theology and Greek philosophy, so I shan't bore you with the details, apart from pointing you
in that direction.
or "right" or "wrong" about Jesus being considered Divine?
Because that's the central tenet of Christianity! If Christ is not divine, then Christianity is nothing, it is a series of platitudes that were said
before, have been said many times since, and need no special insight to rattle off.
Isn't his message supposed to be the main thing?
No, it is not. The main thing is salvation and a relationship with God.
What does it really matter if he is revered as a fully wise HUMAN rather than fully God also?
Because if he wasn't God, then either the Bible cannot be trusted, in any sense, in which case there is no reason to "revere his wisdom", or he was
a liar and/or insane for claiming that he was God, in which case there is no reason to "revere his wisdom."
If "Being Christlike" insofar as possible is the goal of Christians, who also assert that he was "fully Divine" but none of
us are.... isn't it like a double-bind?
Because "being Christlike" and "being Christ" are two vastly different things.
"You can try, but you'll always fail" -- Who wants to always be a failure? Who wants to embark on a journey where they know ahead of time
they will not measure up?
Because in trying, even if failing, one cannot help but do good.
The Lutherans and Calvinists believe in Absolute Depravity, the concept that humans are inherently flawed, such that nothing we do can be excised from
sin -- you might be the most charitable person in the world, but can you really say that you do such out of pure love, without an inkling of
self-promotion? Anonymous giving? If one believes in karma, or believes that God sees everything that we do, how can one claim a completely pure
This is extended by Reformed Theology to say that all
of our acts are repugnant to God, that he sees through it all, and knows that our
actions, even noble ones, are ultimately self-serving. So, by that theology, everything that we do, even the good stuff, just makes God all the
angrier. However, we are to continue trying, doing those acts, even in the light of Absolute Depravity.
Why? Because no matter what our motivation is, good to others still comes out of it
(Kindly bear in mind that I am neither a Calvinist or Reformed Theology follower, I'm just using this as a very stark explanation of why we're
supposed to always try to be Christlike, even though we know we'll always fail.)