Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Hebrews 10:7
https://youtu.be/Cu6BnzfU7MQ Christianity- Philosophy
.Do words have meaning?
.Tower of Babel
.Development of the ‘Tradition of the elders’
.Man not made for Sabbath [law] but Sabbath for man [‘s benefit]
.Cop did 8 years in prison for murder
.He was framed- and now free
.Finality of the law theory?
.Hannah Overton case
.It’s not just speaking words
.But a demonstration of truth
NEW- [past teaching below]
Words communicate ideas- truth.
Language is a ‘mystery’ to some thinkers.
In scripture we see man created in the image of God-
He is unique in his ability to communicate through language.
We read of the beginnings of various languages in the account of Babel- where man was on a mission to achieve something- and because he had a common language- he was about to do it.
Yet God confounded them- gave them different languages- and the mission stopped.
In the field of philosophy some have challenged objective truth [is anything actually true].
They have challenged that language- words- actually ‘mean’ anything.
They view words- truth- as being relative.
In order to make this argument- well yes- they use words themselves- and write books about it.
I hope you see the irony here.
In scripture we read that Jesus is ‘The Word’ of God.
He is the Logos.
Yet- he is more than just words- he is the incarnation- the embodiment of all that the prophets spoke under the influence of the Spirit of God.
So believers are not just people of the book- we are also manifestations of the Word of God- we are actually the Body of Christ on the earth.
One of the early church fathers asked ‘have we chased God into a book’?
He saw the danger of the early church losing the reality of God among us- and simply seeing our mission as reading the words- and teaching the words- that the prophets spoke.
But we are to be the 'living epistles’- people who have the nature of God written in us- not with ink and pen- but by the Spirit of God.
The religious thinkers of Jesus day elevated the written law- over the incarnate Word [Jesus].
They challenged him for healing people on the Sabbath- Jesus responded ‘the Sabbath was made for man- not man for the Sabbath’.
Yes- the law of God is good- but man is created in the mage of God- and when you use the law- and elevate it- above the intent- the benefit of man- then you have forgotten the law giver himself.
Jesus challenged their elevating of the words in a book- which could never truly give life.
We do not challenge objective truth—or say that words have no meaning.
No- Jesus challenged the idea that the law- words- should be elevated above the value of men.
I recently saw a case of a man who was wrongfully convicted of a crime.
He appealed while in prison- and during the process it was revealed that another man committed the crime.
The prosecutor in the case found a loophole- she challenged the release of the man from prison- because during his appeal process- he filed something out of order.
But they already knew he was the wrong man.
The judge asked her ‘is it the position of the state- to hold an innocent man in prison- because he failed to file the appeal properly’.
The prosecutor said ‘yes’.
She held the view that the ‘finality of the law’ was more important- then the release of an innocent man.
Meaning- if he initially had a fair trial- and the jurors decided on the evidence they had at the time.
Then the courts should not later rule on new evidence- of his innocence- the courts should only overturn the conviction if it was shown that the initial trial of the man was unfair.
This woman held a view of the law that is not unique-
Some exalt the law- even if it is wrong- because they feel the viability of the system would break down- if the initial ruling is now overturned.
They make the mistake of the Pharisees- who saw their idea of the Sabbath- to be honored over the healing of a man on the Sabbath.
To them- the words written down [the commandments on stone] took priority over humans- over the act of Jesus- the Logos in flesh- healing a man.
And in so doing- fulfilling the intent of the words of the prophets- him being the Logos- the Word made flesh.
As believers we hold to the Word of God- we have the Spirit of God within us- the letter kills- but the Spirt gives life.
It was said of Jesus ‘I come to do thy will O God- in the volume of the book it is written of me’.
Yes- the book had words about Jesus-
When he came- he demonstrated the reality of those words.
He took upon him the sins of man- he went to the Cross- he rose from the dead.
He actually did this- he redeemed us.
We read about this in a book called the bible.
But it was the actual historical event of the Cross- meaning the fact that it happened- that redeems us.
Yes- people can challenge the limitations of words- speech- language.
Truly they are limited.
But the demonstration of what Jesus did- his life- his death- his resurrection.
Those who witnessed of it- and still do- cannot be denied.
The church in the earth today- all the people of God- are a testimony of Jesus Christ.
We too are called upon to carry the Cross- to lay down our lives for others.
To challenge those in society who would prefer a man be executed- or spend his life in prison- because of the ‘finality of the law’.
We are called to defend the defenseless- to not fear retaliation if we speak out against power.
We are to demonstrate the boldness of the early church- and take a stand against injustice in the earth.
Yes- we are the people of God- not just people who read the words about God- in a book.
PAST LINKS [Teaching I did before that relates to today’s post- Christianity- Philosophy]
Talked about Genesis 11- Here’s my study- https://ccoutreach87.com/genesis/
Philosophy too- https://ccoutreach87.com/overview-of-philosophy/
I quoted from these as well- Here are my studies-
(1242) Read a few chapters from Brian McLaren’s ‘everything must change’ thought I’d comment. I like Brian’s writing style, I agree with him on believers needing to be challenged to see things differently, but I disagree on some of his ‘everything’s’. He challenges the idea of objective thinking as defined as foundationalism. He explains well the questioning of modern intellectuals after the world wars and Holocaust of the 20th century. He shows how certain thinkers began looking for answers to the problem of society’s failure as seen in these events. He also shows how some blamed the events on ‘foundationalism’ which is a way of ‘seeing things’ [epistemology] as defined by Rene Descartes. These thinkers diagnosed the problem as society’s acceptance of absolutes, they felt that this led to an ‘overconfidence’ in right and wrong and this in turn allowed for these atrocities to happen. Many modern thinkers would disagree with this conclusion. I find it interesting that Brian makes some statements about Evolution that seem to say he accepts the theory, but yet he fails to see the role that Social Darwinism played as a precursor to the Holocaust. You could make the opposite argument that it was the rejection of absolutes, and the rise of liberal theology from the universities in Germany that led to these events. Many scholars began questioning Gods truth and laid a foundation that said ‘we really can’t trust Gods truth’ [or even know it]. To be honest these debates are a little philosophical and I didn’t think Brian would go down this road, but he does so I will deal with it. Many ‘post moderns’ believe that one of the things that must change is the ‘old’ [what is termed modern] way of thinking. These new thinkers assert that truth itself, as an absolute thing that people can know for sure, is out of mans reach. They question the modern way of thinking that teaches there are certain absolutes [preconceived ways of thinking that everyone accepts]. These new thinkers say this ‘foundationalism’ is the problem. Did the enlightenment invent this mode of objectivism? No. Thinkers from Aristotle to Aquinas to Descartes all approached thinking this way. It was defined more clearly during the enlightenment period. But this is a philosophical debate that goes on in these various camps. You have had very smart people disagree on these things. The great theologian Karl Barth would say you are not truly educated until you can ‘affirm both sides of an argument, accept contradictory definitions of the same thing’ many believe this would lead to lunacy! The two greatest theoretical physicists of the last century also disagreed on this. Neils Bohr would say that you can have two contradictory truths about a subject, and they could both be true, Einstein disagreed. So these things have been around for a while, many of the eastern religions teach the same [Zen]. So I would disagree with Brian on this, but do agree with him on the need for believers to expand their concerns from simple ‘going to heaven when I die’ concerns, to social justice concerns in the nations. He does give some good examples along these lines.
WHAT’S REAL? And HOLY SAVIOR
https://youtu.be/1xlAC-2CHPw What’s real?
https://youtu.be/7RQ85MGE-8I Holy Savior
I made these videos in Texas. Then didn’t have time to write the usual teaching. So I stuck them together and did the best I could.
ON VIDEO’S- note- I mentioned on the video the philosopher who ‘doubted everything’. I wasn’t sure if I got it right. I said ‘maybe Blaise Pascal’- but it was Renee Descartes.
.Bruce Jenner- 2nd thoughts?
.He eats with sinners
.Islam and Christianity
God and Allah
.End times war?
.In defense of cops
.Columbus- Aztecs- Conquistadores
PAST POSTS [verses below]
. REMINDER- This is a commentary I wrote years ago- the videos are new.
.CHAPTER 8- FEW POINTS;
- Did God choose us to believe- or did we choose him?
- When Paul says ‘he makes our bodies alive’ is he only speaking about resurrection?
- Does God use difficulty- or is it to be rebuked?
- Was Paul a ‘hyper- Calvinist’?
[overblog- see the rest here- https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/02/11/christianity-philosophy/ ]