Intellectual Honesty from a Christian

Originally posted by knightmeister
I disagree with the extrapolation you have made from what he said. I doubt whether he saw himself as being intellectually dishonest - that's no doubt your interpretation - he probably , like me , felt that Paul et al were an integral part of the whole story of the NT and he was able to discern that the Holy Spirit was bringing men to a more complete ...[text shortened]... Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth"—John 16:12,13a.

Peace to you ToOne

I disagree with the extrapolation you have made from what he said.
Not sure what you are referring to here. Please try to be more explicit.

Regardless I'll take a stab at it:
He "acknowledged that he reads the words of Jesus through the lens of the writings of Paul and others".

He acknowledged that in doing so he "essentially [makes] the New Testament/Bible his 'Lord' rather than Jesus".

I recognized his intellectual honesty regarding the above.

He also admitted that he "didn't think himself capable of...[reading] the words of Jesus as if the rest of the NT did not exist."

I recognized his intellectual honesty in making that admission. Seems reasonable to conclude that he didn't think himself capable of that endeavor because he didn't think he could set aside his personal beliefs to do it. Intellectual honesty would require that he do so.

So what is it that you disagree with?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that the words of Jesus are seen through the lens of the gospel writers? In fact, we learn as much about the theology of the various writers as we do about Jesus from the gospels.

Not sure what you're driving at. I certainly don't see the Bible as "the inerrant word of God" or even that all words/actions attributed to Jesus were spoken/done by him.

However, I do believe that, by and large, the words that were attributed to Him while he walked the Earth are reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within themselves and that many of them fly in the face of the mythology and beliefs that have been created around Him since His death. The retired pastor acknowledged that in order to resolve those conflicts, he revises and/or dismisses the words of Jesus. (Hence his acknowledgement that in doing so, he "essentially [makes] the New Testament/Bible his 'Lord' rather than Jesus." ) From what I can tell, this is what the vast majority of Christians do. This despite the fact that Jesus repeatedly said to follow HIS words, HIS commandments, etc. They should be revising/dismissing the words of the the NT writers around His instead.

Does this at all address what you're driving at?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think John more clearly reveals who the Messiah (Christ) was than any other
single writer. John considered himself as the one that Christ loved. Well, read
it. John explains it much better than I could. Just pay attention to the details.
You can miss a lot if you don't. The letter to the Hebrews is a good backup.
These two are very helpful in understanding all the quotes of Jesus througout
the Gospels.

Doesn't seem like you understood the OP. Please try rereading it. If there's anything you don't understand, feel free to ask.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not sure what you're driving at. I certainly don't see the Bible as "the inerrant word of God" or even that all words/actions attributed to Jesus were spoken/done by him.

However, I do believe that, by and large, the words that are attributed to Him while he walked the Earth are sound and reasonably coherent within themselves and that many of them fly le his 'Lord' rather than Jesus."

Does this at all address what you're driving at?

That is the same way I saw it. The pastor can not come to grips with who
Jesus said He is. The JWs have the same problem. That is why I suggested
reading John's gospel slowly and carefully with support from the letter to the
Hebrews to help understand the words of Jesus correctly.

P.S. I think it might help you, too.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is the same way I saw it. The pastor can not come to grips with who
Jesus said He is. The JWs have the same problem. That is why I suggested
reading John's gospel slowly and carefully with support from the letter to the
Hebrews to help understand the words of Jesus correctly.

P.S. I think it might help you, too.

Seriously, reread the OP.

It's likely that the pastor's core beliefs are much like yours (I don't know what yours are).

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I disagree with the extrapolation you have made from what he said.
Not sure what you are referring to here. Please try to be more explicit.

Regardless I'll take a stab at it:
He "acknowledged that he reads the words of Jesus through the lens of the writings of Paul and others".

He acknowledged that in doing so he "essentially [makes] the Ne ctual honesty would require that he do so.

So what is it that you disagree with?[/b]

"essentially [makes] the New Testament/Bible his 'Lord' rather than Jesus".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is this what he actually said or are you quoting what you said about what he said?

Are you quoting him or quoting yourself and un /consciously trying to make it seem as if he actually said these words.

The reason I ask is because from your opening post it did not seem that this was a direct quote but actually your own take on what he had said.

If it's not a direct quote (and I suspect it isn't) then you are extrapolating on his words and also trying to make it look like he said something that he didn't. Ironic really , considering this is a post about "intellectual honesty".



In any case , what some pastor did or did not say isn't overly important. The concept of intellectual honesty regarding Jesus' words means that we must consider all of what he said , and that includes what he taught about the Holy Spirit.

If Jesus had not directly implied that the Spirit would continue to lead men into truth after he had gone then you might have more of a case - but he did. Therefore what Paul has to say is valid.

I see nothing in Paul to contradict Jesus. Paul did not advocate that men should not do away with sin. He exhorted men to become holy and live righteously before God , as did many of the NT writers.


May the Holy Spirit reveal to you the truth of Jesus , peace ToOne

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Quite frankly, I would have been surprised if you could SEE a difference between what Jesus taught and what Paul and others taught in the NT. What made the acknowledgement by the retired pastor "refreshing" was that he was willing to bring intellectual honesty where most won't.

The words of Jesus are often taken out of context, otherwise distorted out ...[text shortened]... , when Jesus explicitly states that He is speaking of "committing sin" which is absurd.

Where do you see Paul disagreeing with Jesus?
Kelly

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seriously, reread the OP.

It's likely that the pastor's core beliefs are much like yours (I don't know what yours are).

You are the one that started the thread and are you now saying you don't
really know what the Pastors beliefs are and have never read what I have
written about my beliefs? Does the Pastor believe in one God in three persons,
consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as claimed by Jesus?

Originally posted by knightmeister
"essentially [makes] the New Testament/Bible his 'Lord' rather than Jesus".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is this what he actually said or are you quoting what you said about what he said?

Are you quoting him or quoting yourself and un /consciously trying to make it seem as if he a e NT writers.


May the Holy Spirit reveal to you the truth of Jesus , peace ToOne

Evidently some people don't change. Despite the window dressing ("peace ToOne", etc.) it's the same KM underneath. Was it the Holy Spirit that prompted the following unwarranted attack?

KM: Is this what he actually said or are you quoting what you said about what he said?

Are you quoting him or quoting yourself and un /consciously trying to make it seem as if he actually said these words.

The reason I ask is because from your opening post it did not seem that this was a direct quote but actually your own take on what he had said.

If it's not a direct quote (and I suspect it isn't) then you are extrapolating on his words and also trying to make it look like he said something that he didn't. Ironic really , considering this is a post about "intellectual honesty".

For the record, the following is what I wrote in the OP:

ToO: Recently he acknowledged that he reads the words of Jesus through the lens of the writings of Paul and others whereby essentially making the New Testament/Bible his "Lord" rather than Jesus.

So clearly it wasn't a "quote" of the pastor nor meant to be one. Just a statement that he acknowledged what was written in italics above.

But that didn't stop you from making the usual KM accusations, insinuations and snide comments that are completely unfounded.

KM: In any case , what some pastor did or did not say isn't overly important

Actually it's the topic of the thread.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Where do you see Paul disagreeing with Jesus?
Kelly

Did you bother to read and understand the topic of this thread? Did you bother to read and understand my previous post to you within that context? In my previous post, I tried to steer you back on course - evidently to no avail.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are the one that started the thread and are you now saying you don't
really know what the Pastors beliefs are and have never read what I have
written about my beliefs? Does the Pastor believe in one God in three persons,
consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as claimed by Jesus?

RJ, reread my last post to you. Reread your response. Does your post really make any sense?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
RJ, reread my last post to you. Reread your response. Does your post really make any sense?

It might make sense if you would answer the questions. I thought I understood
your orignal post as to what the retired preacher believed and you backed it up
with another post. Now it is unclear what you think the preacher believes now.
The answers to the questions should clarify if my beliefs are like the pastor's or
not. I am also unclear as to what you thought the pastor believed before if
different from now because you are beginning to make no sense to me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It might make sense if you would answer the questions. I thought I understood
your orignal post as to what the retired preacher believed and you backed it up
with another post. Now it is unclear what you think the preacher believes now.
The answers to the questions should clarify if my beliefs are like the pastor's or
not. I am also unclear as to what ...[text shortened]... pastor believed before if
different from now because you are beginning to make no sense to me.

Thus far none of your posts have indicated that you understood the OP.

In fact your suggestion that the pastor read John and Hebrews in order to understand the words of Jesus clearly indicates that you did not understand it.

Maybe if you paraphrase what you think the OP says, I can help you to understand it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Thus far none of your posts have indicated that you understood the OP.

In fact your suggestion that the pastor read John and Hebrews in order to understand the words of Jesus clearly indicates that you did not understand it.

Maybe if you paraphrase what you think the OP says, I can help you to understand it.

This is the way you explained the OP:
However, I do believe that, by and large, the words that were attributed to Him while he walked the Earth are reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within themselves and that many of them fly in the face of the mythology and beliefs that have been created around Him since His death. The retired pastor acknowledged that in order to resolve those conflicts, he revises and/or dismisses the words of Jesus. (Hence his acknowledgement that in doing so, he "essentially [makes] the New Testament/Bible his 'Lord' rather than Jesus." ) From what I can tell, this is what the vast majority of Christians do. This despite the fact that Jesus repeatedly said to follow HIS words, HIS commandments, etc. They should be revising/dismissing the words of the the NT writers around His instead.

I am unclear as to the meaning of the quotation marks. Is that a quote from
the pastor or a quote from you explaining what you think his acknowledgement
means?

You do not say exactly what words of Jesus that the pastor had problems with.
I suspected from your words that it had something to do with His claims of
divinity, which the JW's have trouble understanding. They can not understand
how three persons, the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can exist as one GOD.

Do you actually know what the pastor believed or not? You are becoming very
vague on this. You have to come out with the truth before your OP will make
any sense to the rest of us.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Doesn't seem like you understood the OP. Please try rereading it. If there's anything you don't understand, feel free to ask.

I get you think Paul's writtings have clouded Jesus' meaning, and okay
I again don't buy it. If you can show some difference between the two
where one's words produce this without the other I'd be happy. If you
cannot and the theme are the same I don't buy into what you think is
going on.
Kelly