A Sunday School teacher of preschoolers was concerned that his students might be a little confused about Jesus Christ because of the Christmas season emphasis on His birth. He wanted to make sure they understood that the birth of Jesus occurred for real. He asked his class, “Where is Jesus today?”
Steven raised his hand and said, “He’s in heaven.” Mary was called on and answered, “He’s in my heart.” Little Johnny, waving his hand furiously, blurted out, “I know, I know! He’s in our bathroom!!!”
The whole class got very quiet, looked at the teacher, and waited for a response. The teacher was completely at a loss for a few very long seconds. Finally, he gathered his wits and asked Little Johnny how he knew this. Little Johnny said, “Well…every morning, my father gets up, bangs on the bathroom door, and yells, “Good Lord, are you still in there?!”
That’s an old joke, but the question is quite valid. Where IS Jesus now? I fear there are some who might be confused in this matter. Scripture tells us exactly where He is now:
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Philippians 2:8-9
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Ephesians 3:9
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Hebrews 1:1-3
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
At this very moment, Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father, His majesty and glory restored, awaiting the command from His Father to come to earth a second time, but as judge, not as Savior – that work was finished at the Cross.
The work of God on Earth and in the life of the believer is in and through the Holy Spirit, whose sanctifying work is ever conforming us into the image of God’s Son. It is the Holy Sprit who brings comfort and peace when we are troubled or weary, but who also brings conviction and guilt when we sin. The love of God ‘shed abroad in our hearts’ is the Holy Spirit at work. The peace that surpasses all understanding is the Holy Spirit at work in our lives. And the list goes on. . .
If Jesus is sitting in majesty and glory at the right hand of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is now working on earth, where did all this “Jesus is my dance partner” mushy romanticism come from? More importantly, where in scripture is such a view of the Lord of the universe presented in scripture? Can anyone out there tell me?
The Battle Cry 
Jesus is at the right hand of God, and has always been with God from the beginning…both God, right God the Father and God the son….God is omnipresent…what exactly would you say that means…my teaching has been that HE is every where at once..HE can because HE is God…the enemy however is not omnipresent…I seem to not understand what you are saying…and am I the only blog that you are reading and pulling apart…really that is fine if you are…but God is much bigger than we allow HIM to be, and it really doesn’t effect HIM at all, but it really leaves us short of all that HE offers us.
LikeLike
John 14(the whole chapter is totally amazing to me..)
16“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
18“I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19“After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also. 20“In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21“He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.” 22Judas (not Iscariot) said* to Him, “Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us and not to the world?” 23Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. 24“He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.
LikeLike
“WE will come to live(abode) with him” I struggled with that verse for years, but I know they are here, and when THEY are not close..its I who has pulled away in disobedience..got to go back to work..but would love to hear your thoughts on this.
LikeLike
Working here also, but will get back later…….the point I am trying to get to concerns the specific roles of God the Son and God the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. We know that, concerning salvation, that the Father planned it, the Son procured it for those who would believe, and the Holy Spirit applied it – that’s the best way I have of describing the three members of the Trinity in salvation.
Those speciic ‘roles’ of the three members of the Godhead run, I think, throughout scripture. And since it is one God and three persons, you could say that Jesus is in a sense ‘with us’. It is the Holy Spirit, however, who is working specifically in the heart of the believer.
I see no basis in scripture to romanticise Jesus, even with the imagrery of the briedgroom and his bride, as well as the marriage supper of the lamb. Where did it all come from?
LikeLike
pardon my keyboard dislexia…..:)
LikeLike
I’ve often wondered if Jesus, in taking human form, forever altered his own existence. That is, that he is now and forever human; no longer, well, whatever he was before he was born as a baby.
“the Son procured it for those who would believe” – my Bible says Jesus died for all:
“For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.” 2Cor. 5:14
Is there really a difference between saying “Jesus lives in my heart” or “God lives in my heart” or “the Holy Spirit lives in my heart”?
Mushy romanticism of Jesus – to what are you referring? The bride/bridegroom seems compelling enough to me, why dismiss this imagery?
LikeLike
I’ve got no good place to put this, but this website made me think of you:
http://www.paracletearmor.com/
Gives a whole new meaning to putting on the full armor of God.
LikeLike
If God didn’t want the imagery why would HE have put it out there…? How about the Song of Songs…pretty romantic stuff there..
LikeLike
“Is there really a difference between saying “Jesus lives in my heart” or “God lives in my heart” or “the Holy Spirit lives in my heart”?”
Not if you’re an aspiring modalist.
LikeLike
Darla, I agree that imagry is in the Song of Songs, and the church is indeed the bride of Christ, but where, in all of the New Testament are we provided of that particular imagry being Jesus is my boyfriend/lover/dance partner? We have been given the Holy Spirit as our comforter. The ‘waltzing with Jesus’ thing is an expression of that imagry made up in human imagination. Of all the imagry in the NT that speaks of the Christian walk and the life of the believer, I see agriculture, warfare, running the race…I never once see the senior prom. So why do we make it up, especially when we are clearly told that the Holy Spirit is our comforter, living inside us.
Good answer, Jason. You hit the nail on the head.
Bad – Read Rev 5:9 and you will find out exactly for whom Christ died – all doesn’t always mean ivery Tom, Dick, Harry and Mary on the planet, not even when we use the word. think about it. And if Jesus really died for every person on the planet, they would all be saved – or Jesus failed.
Read John, chapter 6 and chapter 17. Jesus was sent to procure the salvation for those the Father gives him and he would not lose a single one (John 6). In John 17 we have Jesus praying praying ONLY for those the Father gives Him, and NOT everyone else.
LikeLike
what is a modalist?
LikeLike
Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus’ ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ. Present day groups that hold to forms of this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus, and require baptism for salvation. These modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. This is not what the Trinity is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Highlighted is what would be Bad’s variant.
LikeLike
thanks…i never heard of that before.
LikeLike
You’re welcome Darla. Perhaps the most well known modalist today is T.D. Jakes.
Know that I am not pinging on specific individuals. That is NEVER my intention. That people feel ‘pinged on’ can be called ‘collateral’ damage. Where in the bible is there ever such a teaching? So where did it come from? I am old enough to remember being taught that I have a serious issue with sin (total depravity) and I needed to ‘personally’ believe I had the problem and ‘personally’ believe that Christ died for my sin, in my place.
Somewhere along the line the depravity of man (biblical teaching) went away and Jesus died to ‘bridge the gap’ of separation between us and God and I could receive Jesus as my ‘personal’ savior (not exactly biblical doctrine).
The glory of God being the end of all being gave way for the happiness of man being God’s main goal. These days we seem to talk about the glory of God while focusing on ourselves, and evangelical ‘leaders’ are teaching us how!
Where in the bible does it say that “God hugs us with our sin”, God couldn’t imagine His heaven without us?”, “a long time ago, God accepted you WITH your sin”. Those are direct quotes that defy scripture.
LikeLike
understand..just very new to me..you all use lots of terms I never heard of..and I have a hard time looking them up to find what they mean..sooo if you don’t mind questions, I will not mind asking. 😉
LikeLike
I don’t mind questions at all. Ask away……….
LikeLike
Darla, you’ve never heard of it before because it’s not that terribly common. My son and daughter-in-law are UPCI (United Pentecostal) and they claim that their church does NOT teach modalism. I think the most common theological error concerning the nature of God is actually trying to define the nature of God itself. But that’s my opinion.
Dan, in each of the four gospels there is reference to Jesus’ being the bride – usually Jesus’ using the imagery Himself in the form of parable. Nobody is making this up – unless you are questioning Scripture itself. How can you possibly ignore this, or not grasp its significance, when its in all four Gospels?
The UPCI’s hangup with the doctrine (oh dang, now I’m using that word) of the trinity, I think, is the use of the word persons. They can’t get beyond persons meaning separate distinct beings, which implies three Gods. To hear them define “Trinitarians” – I’ve never met a trinitarian; that is, I don’t know anyone who thinks that Believers are worshipping three Gods.
From where I sit both “sides” have incorrect views of the other “side” based on their own teachings.
So, I think you answered my question by stating that only the Holy Spirit exists within us – and it is technically inaccurate to claim that Jesus lives within us, because He’s not here. Does that mean that you believe Jesus is no longer omnipresent? nor omniscient? If God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – each fully God, and yet each distinct somethings (persons/modes) then is it terribly inaccurate to say God (or any form/person of God) lives within our hearts?
Isn’t the important part that we have a relationship with God – that God lives within us? However it works?
I am reminded of an old hymn, “He Lives” that has a line which states “You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart.” I don’t know the author, or their theological bent – I just like the old hymn.
Rev. 5:9 – I don’t see the exclusivity you suggest in this verse; on the contrary it claims that “all” means people from all over the world (not just Jews).
John 6 – “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent”; “He who comes to me”; “he who believes in me”; “everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life”; “Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me”; “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life”.
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” yet Jesus says repeatedly in the same passage “everyone” who does this or that will be saved.
God knows; we don’t. The opportunity exists for all, otherwise we are not fully human (that is we don’t have a choice). Choice is the essential (and most difficult) element of what makes us human.
Jesus indeed is praying specifically for His people in John 17. He certainly sees an “us” and “them” – but that doesn’t mean that His saving act was and is not available to all. It’s a gift; we either receive it or we don’t. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.
Where is Jesus now? If we believe He is fully God and fully human then he is everywhere and in only one place all at the same time. Pretty neat trick; I wonder how He does it? Maybe it’s more accurate to say he sees everything/everywhere all at the same time – he isn’t actually “here” but he has a good view of “here”.
I suggest you stop reading the writings of others and stick to reading the Bible itself. Trust that God will reveal to you the meaning for which He intends for you to understand.
LikeLike
“I think, is the use of the word persons.”
So what word do they use instead? Is this really crabbing about syntax?
LikeLike
Since you asked nicely, and this is new to many readers, I will respond to your question.
That’s my interpretation of their position. They tend to use words like “aspect” or “form” – not sure if they have an exact syntax. They are adamant that there is only one God, and that “trinitarians” are actually worshipping three Gods; and they physically bristle at the mention of the word “persons” – thus the conclusion I draw.
Like I said, I’ve never met a trinitarian, nor anyone that thought that they were worshipping three Gods in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So far, none of the UPC’ers I’ve met would claim to be modalists – although I have seen that ascribed to their theology.
Personally, I don’t think it’s crabbing about syntax as much as straining at gnats.
Oh, one correction of Dan’s description – they not only believe that you have to be baptized to be saved, you have to be baptized in Jesus’ name (e.g. “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” doesn’t cut it). So we’re all going to Hell (according to them). They derive this doctrine from Acts 2: 38 where salvation is boiled down to a three-step process. These steps can occur in any order, apparently, but must all be present (with speaking in tongues being the one sure sign of the baptism of the Holy Ghost) for salvation to have been received.
They will claim, like all good pentecostals, that receiving the Holy Ghost is evidenced by speaking in tongues; they part ways with other pentecostals over the water baptism in Jesus’ name.
LikeLike
“they claim that their church does NOT teach modalism”
Like saying you eschew obfuscation and then obfuscating every chance you get.
What do they offer in matters of teaching on the great commision, for example, what word to they find that makes them happy?
“Dan, in each of the four gospels there is reference to Jesus’ being the bride”
He calls himself the son of man more than anything. does that mean we should start calling him our son? Follow your own absolutizing illogic.
“From where I sit both “sides” have incorrect views of the other “side” based on their own teachings”
You can’t defend that assertion.
“I am reminded of an old hymn”
who cares?
“Does that mean that you believe Jesus is no longer omnipresent? nor omniscient?”
Now pantheism is your flavor. The bible says something specific about God who baptises and fills us. You are trying to add something extrabiblical and unfounded. What are we missing?
“Rev. 5:9 – I don’t see the exclusivity you suggest in this verse; on the contrary it claims that “all” means people from all over the world”
words on a page…what is the postmodern problem with words on a page. The “all” refers to different people groups, not people. As well, it indicates that these people within the people groups were actually saved by Christ’s blood. Not theoretically saved, not empowered to be saved as long as they properly executed their modernistic impostitions of “choice”, actually saved. tetelestai – paid in full, completed action, done, delievered, redeemed, saved, a fact, a predestined fact (you still haven’t looked at those uses?)
The following is a particular mess:
“God knows; we don’t. The opportunity exists for all, otherwise we are not fully human (that is we don’t have a choice). Choice is the essential (and most difficult) element of what makes us human.
God knows. Just keep saying it to yourself. We don’t is also fine, keep saying it over and over.
So follow your own thinking. God made everything. God knows who will be saved and who will not be saved. ergo, God made everyone who will be saved and everyone who will not be saved and did so knowing all of this. Even if you preach your temporally impotent god, you are still stuck with the fact that God made people he knew would be saved and God made people who he knew wouldn’t be saved.
So then you add choice, indicating that the metaphysical reality of what you have just affirmed hasn’t set in.
Choice is the essential element? Based on what? Where did you read that? Your issue continues to be not with doctrine, but anyone else’s doctrine, yours is sacrosanct.
“It’s a gift; we either receive it or we don’t. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.”
This is absolutely true, and does nothing to change the fact of election.
“I suggest you stop reading the writings of others and stick to reading the Bible itself.”
You still are unable to explain what if anything is wrong with what has been presented. You are doing a book study, right? What is the difference? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle a doctrinaire, Mr. Bad.
“Trust that God will reveal to you the meaning for which He intends for you to understand.”
If your poor discernment and lousy exegesis is any indicant, this is some really Bad advice.
LikeLike
“I suggest you stop reading the writings of others and stick to reading the Bible itself. Trust that God will reveal to you the meaning for which He intends for you to understand.”
The sheer ridiculousness of that sage advice is beyond human comprehension. You have just single-handedly trashed everything the bible has to say about ministry gifts to the church that involve human beings outside of one’s self! That is AMAZING! Did you have a straight face when you typed that? It’s a joke, right?
LikeLike
“Dan, in each of the four gospels there is reference to Jesus’ being the bride – usually Jesus’ using the imagery Himself in the form of parable. Nobody is making this up – unless you are questioning Scripture itself. How can you possibly ignore this, or not grasp its significance, when its in all four Gospels?”
there is a tremendous amount of significance in that! I have NEVER said otherwise! So I am blind because I do not provide the details of a sugary romance novel to it? I’m terribly sorry, but I have a hard time seeing in the bible what is really not there.
LikeLike
Dan, I apologize if this is off topic but:
Bad,
I am responding to some of the things you stated in comment 17:
“God knows; we don’t. The opportunity exists for all, otherwise we are not fully human (that is we don’t have a choice). Choice is the essential (and most difficult) element of what makes us human.” This is messed up…..
I look at Acts 16:14, “And a certain woman named Lydia…..was listening, and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul” She responded to the things spoken by Paul because God opened her heart to do so.
Then there is Romans 8:28-30….and I know that you probably interpret “foreknowledge” in a way that makes the “predestination” that is mentioned in this passage just a response from God that is based on His knowing in advance that the person will choose Christ. I know, because I used to think the same thing. Then I studied it….got past the surface reading, and found out that that interpretation of this passage goes against God’s sovereignty throughout this passage, and does NOT fit very well with the meaning of God’s “knowing” someone in scripture.
I took this from: William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans, Fifth Edition (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), p. 217.
“The meaning of this phrase [i.e., “whom He foreknew,” from the Greek “proegno”] must be determined by the Biblical use of the word “know,” which is very marked and clear: e.g., Psalm 1:6, “The Lord knoweth (“gignoskei”) the way of the righteous;” Psalm 144:3, “Lord, what is man that Thou takest knowledge of him?” … Amos 3:2, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth;” Matthew 7:23, “Then will I profess unto them I never knew you” … In all these places the word means “to take note of,” “to fix the regard upon,” as a preliminary to selection for some especial purpose. The compound “proegno” only throws back this “taking note” from the historic act in time to the eternal counsel which it expresses and executes”
In Romans 9 Paul does some reasoning that God deliberately and publicly rejected Esau from being the child of promise in favor of Isaac, before they had been born, before either had done anything good or bad….why? He wanted to show that His purpose is not dependant on anything that has to do with man, but because of His choosing and calling; the covenant is not in place because of what we do, but because of Him, alone.
Paul goes on to say like Pharaoh in the Exodus, God extends His mercy to those whom He has chosen to enter in and hardens the hearts of the non-elect against coming into the covenant. It’s obvious to me that Paul knows exactly the effect this statement will have on the reader, and even tho he anticipates their response he does not give them an answer to their objections, he only states that any person who offers objection to what God clearly reveals has no right to do so.
Read these: Acts 4:28, Romans 8:29, Romans 8:30, 1 Corinthians 2:7, Ephesians 1:5 and Ephesians 1:11
LikeLike
Apologize? Apologize????!!!!!!!!!!!! You wrote my next blog post and more! WOW!
Using Matthew 7:23 I was going to ask a question about God being onniscient and Jesus saying …”I NEVER knew you”. Is God omniscient? Yes. Did Jesus say “I NEVER knew you?” Yes. If Jesus is God and omniscient, he must be lying, yes? NO! this is a great opportunity to practice hermaneutics – use the clear to interpret the unclear.
God is onmiscient. Jesus is the 2nd person of the trinity and also God. Therefore we must determine in what WAY did Jesus NEVER know someone.
In context, it must mean that those Jesus told to depart never had a personal intimate relationship with Jesus. That is EXACTLY the manner of ‘knowing’ in the context of God’s foreknowledge unto salvation that precedes predestination, calling, justification, and glorification of Romans 8:29-30.
Those chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1)were not chosen because of a decision they would make somewhere along the corridors of time, but God had established an intimate personal relationship with His elect people before any of us were born.
If nothing else does, this establishes beyond the shadow of a doubt that it’s ALL about His grace and not anything we would ever do.
I don’t expect Bad to listen much though – he’ll probably tune you out as soon as he notices you used a source not between your ears.
LikeLike
So Bad,
I guess it’s OK to read other books about God and living the Christian life as long as they don’t deal without scriptural doctrine? I noticed you recommended one of those other books to Michelle. For serious teaching only trust your personal communication with God and whatever you have between your ears. Gotcha
LikeLike
“Dan, in each of the four gospels there is a reference to JESUS BEING THE BRIDE” (my caps)- usually Jesus’ using the imagery Himself in the form of parable. Nobody is making this up – unless you are questioning Scripture itself. How can you possibly ignore this, or not grasp its significance, when its in all four Gospels?”
Bad, would you like to restate that? Someone else pointed that out to me, I missed it. How could I have possibly miss that?
LikeLike
Sorry for the delayed response – it’s been a crazy week.
Deb – Messy, yes. I don’t disagree with what you added in your comment about God knowing. The question is not, and never has been whether God ‘knows’ but that we don’t. Actually I think the real crux of the issue is there is a huge difference between God knows who will choose Him and God chose certain ones to be His and certain ones to not be His. I don’t see choosing to believe in Him as a ‘work’ or any form of act that diminishes the work that Christ performed on the Cross.
Assuming that your position is correct, that some are chosen by God and some are not; then what’s the point of doing anything: good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral – isn’t it all beyond our control? Why evangelize? Why worship? Why be Christ-like? In short, why do anything?
Dan – I’m glad you brought up Matthew 7:23 and agree that the interpretation is that Jesus did not have an intimate relationship with those that he told to depart. Intimate relationship…kinda sounds like a marriage.
As far as reading other books are concerned, with or without scripture references, this is not really my issue. My issue is that ‘doctrine’ is teaching, or someone’s interpretation of the meaning of Scripture, or simply the truth. Because it is always interpretation, it is always subject to debate, and the possibility always exists that the interpretation is wrong.
Interpretation is also subject to our emotions, our experiences, our frame of mind ,our circumstances, our upbringing; in other words it’s subject to change.
We had a hard time agreeing on what were the essentials of the Gospel message – I don’t know why it’s so surprising that we’d continue to disagree; but I’m even more fascinated that there are such vastly alternative interpretations to the teachings of Scripture that I’ve been exposed to over the years.
For example, marriage is a human model of the intimate relationship we are to have with the Savior; we are the bride and He is the bridegroom. Expand the marriage to a family – and again you have a model of intimate relationships – one that I think is somewhat universal – and God references the relationship repeatedly in Scripture.
We are the blushing bride; when we consider how Christ approaches us we should be a little weak-kneed, and even ‘aroused’ in a spiritual sense.
I’m not sure I understand your references to “a sugary romance novel”. Can you give me an example or two?
LikeLike
“Actually I think the real crux of the issue is there is a huge difference between God knows who will choose Him and God chose certain ones to be His and certain ones to not be His. I don’t see choosing to believe in Him as a ‘work’ or any form of act that diminishes the work that Christ performed on the Cross.”
Does anyone understand how these sentences relate? Either way, the difference in your mind between the two does not and cannot mitigate the truth of Ephesians 1:4-6. It doesn’t matter if it bothers you – it’s true. God choses people. Not liking it only makes you opposed to the truth of God.
“Assuming that your position is correct, that some are chosen by God and some are not; then what’s the point of doing anything: good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral – isn’t it all beyond our control? Why evangelize? Why worship? Why be Christ-like? In short, why do anything?”
Because the word says that that is what his chosen do. His chosen don’t ask questions like that because they think God is worthy of all those things. Those who are in rebellion and oppose the truth of God ask questions like that because they don’t really think that he is worthy. They think that their choice to worship him makes them worthy – a very small view of the creator of the universe.
“kinda sounds like a marriage”
Look, marriage is intended to be a mysterious reflection of the trinity. And Christ’s relationship with the church is indeed to reflect a man’s relationship with a woman. There is never been an issue with these analogous relationships, the issue is making Christ your boyfriend in a fashion that completely de-Gods him.
We’re back to you not being able to recall and/or take responsibility for your own words – “As far as reading other books are concerned, with or without scripture references, this is not really my issue”
You had written, “I suggest you stop reading the writings of others and stick to reading the Bible itself.”
What is it about your own words that you find so reprehensible that you ignore them?
“Interpretation is also subject to our emotions, our experiences, our frame of mind ,our circumstances, our upbringing; in other words it’s subject to change.”
That’s just stupid. All you’re saying is that if you get up on the wrong side of the bed you suddenly become unable to comprehend words in order.
hey…maybe THAT’S yer problem…
“but I’m even more fascinated that there are such vastly alternative interpretations to the teachings of Scripture that I’ve been exposed to over the years.”
You keep saying this, too. It doesn’t stop you from being a lousy exegete. Alternate interpretations say nothing about the quality of said interpretations.
Just say what you mean. Is there an egalitarianism of interpretations or not?
“We are the blushing bride; when we consider how Christ approaches us we should be a little weak-kneed, and even ‘aroused’ in a spiritual sense”
This is a perfect example. You’ve taken what has been God’s baby talk, that is God’s choosing to explain things using words and concepts that we can understand, and then attached a ton of worldly garbage. Even if such an analogy could be made exactly, the entire concept carries so much linguistic and social baggage that the unbeliever would presume Christianity to be a fertility cult. It is just irresponsible and childish.
LikeLike
I think Jason pretty much answered your questions, Bad.
LikeLike