Throughout his lecture, Bertrand Russell presents quite a few convincing arguments for the reasons he is not a Christian. Watering down of the foundations and expectations of Christianity, rejection of the advances of science, and behavior uncharacteristic of the Christ that Christians claim to emulate are all valid concerns that merit further consideration. While Russell makes many valid points throughout his account that I agree with, I would speculate that Russell based these observations on a broad response to the summary of Christianity, rather than consideration of the individuals involved and how their personally held beliefs might differ from these generalizations. To begin with, Russell’s frustration with the core definition of Christian belief is understandable; having a set of once-vital, basic beliefs viewed more as suggestions for exceptional living proves confusing and misleading. Russell’s observation that the title of Christian “does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning” (Russell, 1) as it once did is such a merited concern that, in recent years, some members of the church itself share this view; this
“Although one should not reason about Moses, as he was a mere executor of things that had been ordered for him by God, nonetheless he should be admired if only for that grace which made him so deserving of speaking with God” (22). In the context of The Prince, this statement proves to be duplicitous because Machiavelli claims that he will not reason about Moses, but then uses the following pages to do precisely that. Furthermore, Machiavelli draws extensively from the actions of Moses and the Old Testament God, although Machiavelli is often regarded as an antagonist of the Church. Machiavelli’s handbook for princes consists of concrete advice for rulers that directly reflect the more abstracted stories in Exodus. For instance, Machiavelli’s description of human nature in The Prince mirrors Moses’ experiences as the leader of the Israelites in Exodus.
The Christian view of their God is very different; theirs is a God of purpose. Christian ideology might have been shaped by years of creeds and confessions as it tried to make sense of this incomprehensible Being, yet the basics of these creeds remain fairly faithful to the portrait given by the Bible. God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4) yet speaks of a second person (Exodus 23:20-21) who is equal with God (Philippians 2:6). The Bible also speaks of a third person (Psalm 33:6) who is also equal with God (Job 33:4). Christianity thus believes in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit who are separate but equal aspects of the same God.
I think, notwithstanding, that an all the more telling feedback can be made by method for the convention issue of shrewdness. Here it can be appeared, not that religious convictions need discerning backing, but rather that they are emphatically unreasonable, that the few sections of the crucial philosophical convention are conflicting with each other, so that the scholar can keep up his position in general just by a significantly more amazing dismissal of reason than in the previous case. He should now be arranged to accept, not simply what can 't be demonstrated, but rather what can be invalidated from different convictions that he additionally holds. The issue of
The mystery of which is so high that human mind cannot comprehend it, and must accept the truth of what Jesus has said while also rejecting the absurdities, which are “unworthy of the heavenly majesty of Christ.” For my own reasoning, I find his argument thorough, although at times I was disappointed by his reliance on logic to explain why Christ cannot be two-fold, such as his discussion in the latter section of Christ’s appearance after the resurrection. It seems that Calvin has a propensity to downplay the miraculous outside of his own understanding of grace, which can come across as merely existential, although I know in fact he does not mean it this way. His reliance on the Spirit and his belief that it is an insult to Holy Spirit to refuse to accept the work that She dos in communicating the body and blood to us, is important to my pneumatological understanding. I agree with Calvin that it is of primary importance what we know how the body of Christ has been given up for us and how we partake of him by
They are keeping the law of Moses and keeping the laws of Judaism as necessary to salvation. Paul teaches that salvation was not bound to the offspring of Abraham, it depends upon God’s mercy, which He extends to whom He pleases [Rom. 9:15-16]; and there is no reason for Jews to be boast in the name of the covenant unless they keep the law of covenant; obey the Word. (McNeil, 2006) They are most considered Jesus to be a man and not God. This teaching minimizes the divinity of Jesus Christ because they believe that Jesus is only human and just a merely man.
For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. One thing we must be aware of is that the early church was constantly considered as a threat to the powers that held sway over them. Christianity began with a Jewish Carpenter from Bethlehem, and therefore it was a religion of the Jews. To be a Jew back then was no more tolerated by the rest of the world than than it is now. Christianity, and the Jews are looked upon as having the same roots, which is true.
In Fred Sanders’ sermon “Theology of the Trinity,” which focuses on 1 John, Sanders explains that John summed up his theology of God in a single statement: “God is light” (Biola University “Fred Sanders”). Although Sanders notes that summarizing is not always helpful, especially when discussing specific, complicated truths, John’s statement is actually sufficient to summarize the entire Gospel because different nuances of light are implied. First, Jesus is the ‘light’ who accurately “…reveals the Father” because “Light is naked truth” (Biola University “Fred Sanders”). Moreover, the idea of light reminds us that God is holy. As Sanders states, “Darkness is absolutely incompatible with the God who is light…[and] we can’t walk in darkness and
Goldberg’s essay Judaism as a Religious System in The Cambridge Guide, p. 301). Goldberg, like most Jewish scholars, omits a discussion of blood and atonement in the sacrificial system. He omits a discussion of the cruelty contained in the above-mentioned genres. This is the subject of this book. As a celebrated commentator Goldberg deserves praise.
Isaiah 53 When studying the bible, you can find that there is not place in all the Old Testament is it so plainly and fully prophesied. That Christ would have to suffer, and then to enter into his glory, as in this chapter. But to this day few discern, or will acknowledge, that Divine power which goes with the word. The authentic and most important report of salvation for sinners, through the Son of God, is disregarded. The low condition he submitted to, and his appearance in the world, were not agreeable to the ideas the Jews had formed of the Messiah.
They coexist and permeate each other. A historical critic might see this narrative as a fictitious fable while a theologian might read it as a testimony to God’s holiness. Each interpretation would be impertinent if we transplanted it to the other’s signifying practices; neither one can lay claim to an authority that transcends the practices within which it arose . But they can learn from each other. They can both contribute to a larger symphonic reading of the biblical narrative.