What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2 (1 Viewer)

DO YOU PLACE YOUR FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, BELIEVING THAT HE DIED N ROSE AGAIN AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN?

  • YES

    Votes: 3 8.3%
  • NO

    Votes: 26 72.2%
  • I ALREADY PLACED MY FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST & HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION TO SAVE ME

    Votes: 5 13.9%
  • OTHER

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • Total voters
    36
Church attacked over the weekend. Did anyone hear about this? The short guy in the picture was me. I was in Church Sunday and a man with an automatic weapon tried to kill everyone in the Church.


That must have been extremely scary. Praying for you and your congregation.
 
Church attacked over the weekend. Did anyone hear about this? The short guy in the picture was me. I was in Church Sunday and a man with an automatic weapon tried to kill everyone in the Church.



Oh my gosh. I'm so sorry @Paddington. That's tragic. I'm so sorry you and the folks there are having to go through all that. Incredible. Praying for peace and healing and comfort. 🙏 :heart:
 
Last edited:
Church attacked over the weekend. Did anyone hear about this? The short guy in the picture was me. I was in Church Sunday and a man with an automatic weapon tried to kill everyone in the Church.



Wow - praise God no one from the congregation was seriously hurt. Much respect for the church folks who realized what was going down and ended it well before he got anywhere near the entrance.

(Michiganders do not play)

During VBS (vacation bible school) - I cannot imagine living through this. I say that as a combat veteran with PTSD. Church is one place where we should feel completely safe, surrounded by genuine love.

I grew up in Michigan, all my people are along the lakeshore in various beach towns. Reading about this hit a little too close to home, knowing someone tangentially even more so.

Hoping for the best going forward. Your pastoral staff would be wise to reach out to trauma counselors. It is super important to give folks the resources they need to process what they just went through.

Including you, @Paddington - don't neglect that or think it's NBD, I'll get over it.

Wiil keep y'all in prayer.
 
Church attacked over the weekend. Did anyone hear about this? The short guy in the picture was me. I was in Church Sunday and a man with an automatic weapon tried to kill everyone in the Church.



Wow - praise God no one from the congregation was seriously hurt. Much respect for the church folks who realized what was going down and ended it well before he got anywhere near the entrance.

(Michiganders do not play)

During VBS (vacation bible school) - I cannot imagine living through this. I say that as a combat veteran with PTSD. Church is one place where we should feel completely safe, surrounded by genuine love.

I grew up in Michigan, all my people are along the lakeshore in various beach towns. Reading about this hit a little too close to home, knowing someone tangentially even more so.

Hoping for the best going forward. Your pastoral staff would be wise to reach out to trauma counselors. It is super important to give folks the resources they need to process what they just went through.

Including you, @Paddington - don't neglect that or think it's NBD, I'll get over it.

Wiil keep y'all in prayer.
:heart:
 
Church attacked over the weekend. Did anyone hear about this? The short guy in the picture was me. I was in Church Sunday and a man with an automatic weapon tried to kill everyone in the Church.


Yes.

Sorry that this happened to you. Sympathies for the mother of the shooter. Hope the condition of the security guard is being accurately reported. Hope the children (and adults) are getting the support they need. Hope your choice of links doesn't get this thread shut down.
The man who was shot is a customer of mine. Yes, it is being accurately reported.
 
Church attacked over the weekend. Did anyone hear about this? The short guy in the picture was me. I was in Church Sunday and a man with an automatic weapon tried to kill everyone in the Church.


Yes.

Sorry that this happened to you. Sympathies for the mother of the shooter. Hope the condition of the security guard is being accurately reported. Hope the children (and adults) are getting the support they need. Hope your choice of links doesn't get this thread shut down.
The man who was shot is a customer of mine. Yes, it is being accurately reported.
Not that it is good that he was shot (or that I was doubting this), but thankfully the surgery was successful and, I believe in one article or another it said this was not life threatening. Praying that all of that is and remains true.
 
Church attacked over the weekend. Did anyone hear about this? The short guy in the picture was me. I was in Church Sunday and a man with an automatic weapon tried to kill everyone in the Church.


Wow so sorry to hear about this @Paddington. Thoughts and prayers to you, the injured, and your whole congregation. Pax Christi.
 
I don't want to be part of any club that would have me as a member.

- Groucho Marx

Sorry. Thought this was the one liners thread.

One of our Footballguys forum members was in a group where a person attempted to kill a bunch of people in the group he was in with an automatic weapon.

I'd hope it would go without saying but let's please not make jokes about it.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to be part of any club that would have me as a member.

- Groucho Marx

Sorry. Thought this was the one liners thread.

One of our Footballguys forum members was in a group where a person attempted to kill a bunch of people in the group he was in with an automatic weapon.

I'd hope it would go without saying but let's please not make jokes about it.
Yes, if it hadn't been for the Deacon who ran him over, we would likely been killed. He had an automatic weapon. I was in the service and heard the shots. Then we tried to get out the door and my wife saw the shooter sitting on the ground after he was ran over. He was stunned, but still exchanged gun fire and was shooting into the church. Then they shot him.

This is the guy who shot the killer

 
Church attacked over the weekend. Did anyone hear about this? The short guy in the picture was me. I was in Church Sunday and a man with an automatic weapon tried to kill everyone in the Church.


That had to be incredibly frightening. I'm glad the shooter was taken out and I hope you, the congregation, the pastor, and everyone else affected are able to deal with this and remain a solid congregation.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to be part of any club that would have me as a member.

- Groucho Marx

Sorry. Thought this was the one liners thread.

One of our Footballguys forum members was in a group where a person attempted to kill a bunch of people in the group he was in with an automatic weapon.

I'd hope it would go without saying but let's please not make jokes about it.
This was in no way related to the tragedy. Apologies to those who thought it was.
 
I don't want to be part of any club that would have me as a member.

- Groucho Marx

Sorry. Thought this was the one liners thread.

One of our Footballguys forum members was in a group where a person attempted to kill a bunch of people in the group he was in with an automatic weapon.

I'd hope it would go without saying but let's please not make jokes about it.
This was in no way related to the tragedy. Apologies to those who thought it was.
Thank you.
 
Church attacked over the weekend. Did anyone hear about this? The short guy in the picture was me. I was in Church Sunday and a man with an automatic weapon tried to kill everyone in the Church.


That had to be incredibly frightening. I'm glad the shooter was taken out and I hope you, the congregation, the pastor, and everyone else affected are able to deal with this and remain a solid congregation.

That link you posted is pretty disrespectful to the people involved, using them to push its "war on Christianity" campaign. I found this article which is more local and seems more respectful to everyone involved (except the shooter).


[Pastor] Kelly has been in contact with Browning’s mother, extending his condolences, prayer, and support. “We just let her know not to feel as though we are angry with her, to feel guilty, these weren’t her actions, they were the actions of her son and just to let her know that we’re here to support her and that we love her as well and whatever she needed, to let us know,” Kelly said.

When asked why churches may need security, Kelly talked about the significance of CrossPointe’s mission and purpose of sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ. “We’re called to spread the gospel, and we won’t stop doing that, and that’s gonna be offensive to people, but it’s actually the most loving thing we could ever do to anyone is share the gospel of Jesus Christ, and so churches do need to protect the people.”

Two thoughts.

First, I hope this wasn't intentional, but I'd hope that when one of our members suffers something terrible, we as a forum show just empathy. And hold off on the criticism.

The "hope you are able to deal with this... but" then go on to criticize his choice of links was discouraging.

It seems like expressing a sincere sorry that they almost were murdered and leaving it at that seems a lot more civil and cool. Condolences and expressions of sympathy seem to work best when they stay condolences and expressions of sympathy.

I'm sure he's still hearing the shots ringing in his ears, fearing he and his family and friends were about to be murdered, and then seeing the shooter killed in front of them. That sounds unimaginably horrific. Something I hope none of us ever have to endure. So maybe give the "but..." criticism tacked on a rest.

Second. I personally do not believe a lot of American Christians are persecuted. Clearly, this happens in other parts of the world though.

Although, that's easy for me to say. If I were a few days removed from an armed assailant intent on killing me and my family and friends and everyone in my church shooting it up before being killed in the parking lot, it's hardly a leap to think one's a target. They literally were targets for a guy with an automatic weapon a few days ago. My guess is this was more a case of mental illness but clearly, something had the shooter motivated to kill everyone at a Christian Church. Something was there.

Either way, let's not have the persecution discussion here. I don't see any upside and getting into it will likely result in (hopefully unintentional) minimizing of the trauma @Paddington and his friends and family have faced.

@Paddington , I'm glad you're ok and I'm sorry for the horrific experience you and your family and friends and church have endured. Praying for healing and recovery and forgiveness and wisdom as y'all navigate forward.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to be part of any club that would have me as a member.

- Groucho Marx

Sorry. Thought this was the one liners thread.

One of our Footballguys forum members was in a group where a person attempted to kill a bunch of people in the group he was in with an automatic weapon.

I'd hope it would go without saying but let's please not make jokes about it.
Yes, if it hadn't been for the Deacon who ran him over, we would likely been killed. He had an automatic weapon. I was in the service and heard the shots. Then we tried to get out the door and my wife saw the shooter sitting on the ground after he was ran over. He was stunned, but still exchanged gun fire and was shooting into the church. Then they shot him.

This is the guy who shot the killer

Thanks for that video. He's going to have a lot of stuff to work through.

If you're willing to share from time to time, I'd be interested in hearing how your congregation is dealing with this.
 
Church attacked over the weekend. Did anyone hear about this? The short guy in the picture was me. I was in Church Sunday and a man with an automatic weapon tried to kill everyone in the Church.


That had to be incredibly frightening. I'm glad the shooter was taken out and I hope you, the congregation, the pastor, and everyone else affected are able to deal with this and remain a solid congregation.

That link you posted is pretty disrespectful to the people involved, using them to push its "war on Christianity" campaign. I found this article which is more local and seems more respectful to everyone involved (except the shooter).


[Pastor] Kelly has been in contact with Browning’s mother, extending his condolences, prayer, and support. “We just let her know not to feel as though we are angry with her, to feel guilty, these weren’t her actions, they were the actions of her son and just to let her know that we’re here to support her and that we love her as well and whatever she needed, to let us know,” Kelly said.

When asked why churches may need security, Kelly talked about the significance of CrossPointe’s mission and purpose of sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ. “We’re called to spread the gospel, and we won’t stop doing that, and that’s gonna be offensive to people, but it’s actually the most loving thing we could ever do to anyone is share the gospel of Jesus Christ, and so churches do need to protect the people.”

Two thoughts.

First, I hope this wasn't intentional, but I'd hope that when one of our members suffers something terrible, we as a forum show just empathy. And hold off on the criticism.

The "hope you are able to deal with this... but" then go on to criticize his choice of links was discouraging.

It seems like expressing a sincere sorry that they almost were murdered and leaving it at that seems a lot more civil and cool. Condolences and expressions of sympathy seem to work best when they stay condolences and expressions of sympathy.

I'm sure he's still hearing the shots ringing in his ears, fearing he and his family and friends were about to be murdered, and then seeing the shooter killed in front of them. That sounds unimaginably horrific. Something I hope none of us ever have to endure. So maybe give the "but..." criticism tacked on a rest.

Second. I personally do not believe a lot of American Christians are persecuted. Clearly, this happens in other parts of the world though.

Although, that's easy for me to say. If I were a few days removed from an armed assailant intent on killing me and my family and friends and everyone in my church shooting it up before being killed in the parking lot, it's hardly a leap to think one's a target. They literally were targets for a guy with an automatic weapon a few days ago. My guess is this was more a case of mental illness but clearly, something had the shooter motivated to kill everyone at a Christian Church. Something was there.

Either way, let's not have the persecution discussion here. I don't see any upside and getting into it will likely result in (hopefully unintentional) minimizing of the trauma @Paddington and his friends and family have faced.

@Paddington , I'm glad you're ok and I'm sorry for the horrific experience you and your family and friends and church have endured. Praying for healing and recovery and forgiveness and wisdom as y'all navigate forward.
Thank you. I appreciate your kind words. Church seems such a safe place, we hear about others, but never think it could happen to us. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time my family has face a gunman. The first time was a mass murder that took place at party store. The first murderers mother went to my Chuch, lived 20 miles away and just happened to attack the party store I was about to visit along with my then 3 year old son. Many here do not like my message, but I can say that since my calling my God, I have faced death several times. There is a devil and the Gospel is true. I am doing ok, but my wife and my son's wife are traumatized by this. My calling draws controvery at times, but God has protected me as He did my Grandfather. I fully intend on continuing this discussion with sincere questions or discussions. God bless.
 
I don't want to be part of any club that would have me as a member.

- Groucho Marx

Sorry. Thought this was the one liners thread.

One of our Footballguys forum members was in a group where a person attempted to kill a bunch of people in the group he was in with an automatic weapon.

I'd hope it would go without saying but let's please not make jokes about it.
Yes, if it hadn't been for the Deacon who ran him over, we would likely been killed. He had an automatic weapon. I was in the service and heard the shots. Then we tried to get out the door and my wife saw the shooter sitting on the ground after he was ran over. He was stunned, but still exchanged gun fire and was shooting into the church. Then they shot him.

This is the guy who shot the killer

Thanks for that video. He's going to have a lot of stuff to work through.

If you're willing to share from time to time, I'd be interested in hearing how your congregation is dealing with this.
Believe it or not, I am not a member of that Church, but I lnow many of them. I was just visiting with my son and his family and just happened to be there. We intend to go back though and thank those who saved our lives.
 
There were a few heros that day. This guy was a customer of mine and have known his family for years and was the man who was shot trying to save everyone. They are very good people. Here is his interview:

 
I fully intend on continuing this discussion with sincere questions or discussions. God bless.
Let us know when you are ready as I have a few about the event and I do want to comment about something else.
Sure. What question do you have?
Some of these were formulated in my head before I knew you were visiting and not a member, so I'll still ask but "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable. I don't expect you chase down answers or anything like that. Most are just out of curiosity so not being worth your trouble, or you don't want to go there is also perfectly acceptable. Crickets are understandable. Also, one or two still, at least in my head seem argumentive or to be raising doubts, that is just a failure to articulate in words what I mean. Please believe me that these are just curiosity. I do have a point to make, but not with these questions.

Thanks

1) First is what exactly is on the alter? From the picture it looked like a museum display background. I'm used to rather sparse alters to begin with and the photo plus my bad eyes not being able to make it out peaked my curiosity.

2) Also from the picture, when in relation to the events was it taken? From body positions it looks early, when you and the others are still trying to figure out what to do. But based on the number of people in the picture and the stories saying 150 were there at the time maybe it was later in the events, after most got out? (In any case it looks like you, member or not jumped into a leadership position. Warning - I'll likely ignore you if you try to correct me on this. Though you'll forever be the "short guy" around here In my mind.)

3) How is the guy that was shot doing? Still on the good side, all things considered?

4) How quickly was the shooter identified after it was over? I can imagine this being a second, maybe even bigger traumatic moment for that church community. A random stranger might make it scarier for everyone else, but someone connected to the church, even loosely.

5) After the shooting stop did people immediately leave? Or did they stick around for a while?

6) This is one that may appear argumentative, its not intended that way. When you say you were trying to get out, do you mean out of the building meaning where the shooter actually was?

I can go on. but that is enough. I hope that those you said were OK, including you really are okay. And I hope that those that you said are having some troubles are slowly processing what they need to get better. I hope to get back to being your "public enemy number one" soon. (Okay maybe that is a bit hyperbolic and conceited, but hopefully you get what I am saying.)
 
Also, one or two still, at least in my head seem argumentive or to be raising doubts, that is just a failure to articulate in words what I mean. Please believe me that these are just curiosity. I do have a point to make, but not with these questions.

Can you elaborate?

What seems argumentative?

And what is the point you have to make you mentioned?
 
Also, one or two still, at least in my head seem argumentive or to be raising doubts, that is just a failure to articulate in words what I mean. Please believe me that these are just curiosity. I do have a point to make, but not with these questions.

Can you elaborate?

What seems argumentative?

And what is the point you have to make you mentioned?
Maybe I did a better job articulating than I thought. Some in my mind seemed to be challenging the narrative and/or questioning the "heat of the moment" actions. I didn't want it to feel that way if the questions came off that way.
 
And what is the point you have to make you mentioned?
Have to make? More like want to make. And wanted to wait a bit.

The point has to do with the original link provided as opposed to the other links provided.

Specifically, these links are articles from the literary genre of "journalism"




This link is not. It is political advocacy.


Now the journalism may (and at least one does) contain political themes, especially in the form of quotes but its basic purpose is to tell the who, what, and where of the events. To record the events. The other article will certainly contain factual elements, but its purpose to advocate for a political point of view.

Now I don't want to drag politics into this thread, so I'm not commenting further in that context. This is a religious thread. One where we discuss from various points of views the books of the bible and especially the gospels and the New Testament in general. And literary genres are very relevant to that discussion because how you read something is contextual, it depends on the genre. The gospels are not "journalism" or "biographies" (in a modern sense) but "gospels". They are like the "Christians under attack" link in that the purpose is to advocate a point of view, this time a theological point of view. They contain factual elements, some biographical material, some historical material but they aren't biographies (in a modern sense), they aren't history, and they aren't journalism. They are gospels.

I keep saying in a modern sense because modern biographies generally tell the story of a person at least partially from the perspective of character development. The events that shaped a person into who that person becomes is usually part of the story. And they are focused on the life of the person, not the good news of what happens after their death. Jesus isn't shaped into who he becomes in the gospels, he starts out there for the most part. And while I prefer to focus on what Jesus said and did before the final week, that's me and not so much the new testament.

So, the point is that we should be reading the gospels for what they are, and not as journalism, not as biographies of Jesus, not as early first century history textbooks, etc. Doing so opens up the richer stories that are there. And frees one of trying to pretend that Matthew's and Luke's birth narratives can possibly reconcile. Or that the four gospels' passion stories don't contradict. Because these contradictions are key to reading the story that the writer is presenting. Matthew changed Mark for a reason. Same for Luke. And John isn't interested in the story of the synoptics at all. The gospel writers are each advocating for a particular perspective (Mark - nobody gets it, or is even supposed to get it, Matthew - Jesus is the new Moses, or "super" Moses, Luke - Jesus is a prophet, or the "ultimate" prophet, Acts - by following Jesus Paul's life more or less mirrors Jesus', John - Jesus is God (or on that level) and his here to show it, prove it) . And the literary license needed to tell these various perspectives is to be expected, just like with that political link.
 
From earlier this week:

I don't know if this is the intent, but please, as I asked on Wednesday, let's not take this to a political or persecution angle.

"Either way, let's not have the persecution discussion here. I don't see any upside and getting into it will likely result in (hopefully unintentional) minimizing of the trauma @Paddington and his friends and family have faced."


Two thoughts.

First, I hope this wasn't intentional, but I'd hope that when one of our members suffers something terrible, we as a forum show just empathy. And hold off on the criticism.

The "hope you are able to deal with this... but" then go on to criticize his choice of links was discouraging.

It seems like expressing a sincere sorry that they almost were murdered and leaving it at that seems a lot more civil and cool. Condolences and expressions of sympathy seem to work best when they stay condolences and expressions of sympathy.

I'm sure he's still hearing the shots ringing in his ears, fearing he and his family and friends were about to be murdered, and then seeing the shooter killed in front of them. That sounds unimaginably horrific. Something I hope none of us ever have to endure. So maybe give the "but..." criticism tacked on a rest.

Second. I personally do not believe a lot of American Christians are persecuted. Clearly, this happens in other parts of the world though.

Although, that's easy for me to say. If I were a few days removed from an armed assailant intent on killing me and my family and friends and everyone in my church shooting it up before being killed in the parking lot, it's hardly a leap to think one's a target. They literally were targets for a guy with an automatic weapon a few days ago. My guess is this was more a case of mental illness but clearly, something had the shooter motivated to kill everyone at a Christian Church. Something was there.

Either way, let's not have the persecution discussion here. I don't see any upside and getting into it will likely result in (hopefully unintentional) minimizing of the trauma @Paddington and his friends and family have faced.

@Paddington , I'm glad you're ok and I'm sorry for the horrific experience you and your family and friends and church have endured. Praying for healing and recovery and forgiveness and wisdom as y'all navigate forward.
"
 
And what is the point you have to make you mentioned?
Have to make? More like want to make. And wanted to wait a bit.

The point has to do with the original link provided as opposed to the other links provided.

Specifically, these links are articles from the literary genre of "journalism"




This link is not. It is political advocacy.


Now the journalism may (and at least one does) contain political themes, especially in the form of quotes but its basic purpose is to tell the who, what, and where of the events. To record the events. The other article will certainly contain factual elements, but its purpose to advocate for a political point of view.

Now I don't want to drag politics into this thread, so I'm not commenting further in that context. This is a religious thread. One where we discuss from various points of views the books of the bible and especially the gospels and the New Testament in general. And literary genres are very relevant to that discussion because how you read something is contextual, it depends on the genre. The gospels are not "journalism" or "biographies" (in a modern sense) but "gospels". They are like the "Christians under attack" link in that the purpose is to advocate a point of view, this time a theological point of view. They contain factual elements, some biographical material, some historical material but they aren't biographies (in a modern sense), they aren't history, and they aren't journalism. They are gospels.

I keep saying in a modern sense because modern biographies generally tell the story of a person at least partially from the perspective of character development. The events that shaped a person into who that person becomes is usually part of the story. And they are focused on the life of the person, not the good news of what happens after their death. Jesus isn't shaped into who he becomes in the gospels, he starts out there for the most part. And while I prefer to focus on what Jesus said and did before the final week, that's me and not so much the new testament.

So, the point is that we should be reading the gospels for what they are, and not as journalism, not as biographies of Jesus, not as early first century history textbooks, etc. Doing so opens up the richer stories that are there. And frees one of trying to pretend that Matthew's and Luke's birth narratives can possibly reconcile. Or that the four gospels' passion stories don't contradict. Because these contradictions are key to reading the story that the writer is presenting. Matthew changed Mark for a reason. Same for Luke. And John isn't interested in the story of the synoptics at all. The gospel writers are each advocating for a particular perspective (Mark - nobody gets it, or is even supposed to get it, Matthew - Jesus is the new Moses, or "super" Moses, Luke - Jesus is a prophet, or the "ultimate" prophet, Acts - by following Jesus Paul's life more or less mirrors Jesus', John - Jesus is God (or on that level) and his here to show it, prove it) . And the literary license needed to tell these various perspectives is to be expected, just like with that political link.

The point is you didn't like the original link he included to give details on the story?
I believe his point is that genre and authorial intent matter when reading a text. He’s using the links about the shooting (because the authors of the different links each chose a particular genre that best fit their communicative intentions) as a way to transition into a discussion of Biblical genres and what various Biblical authors intended to communicate.
 
And what is the point you have to make you mentioned?
Have to make? More like want to make. And wanted to wait a bit.

The point has to do with the original link provided as opposed to the other links provided.

Specifically, these links are articles from the literary genre of "journalism"




This link is not. It is political advocacy.


Now the journalism may (and at least one does) contain political themes, especially in the form of quotes but its basic purpose is to tell the who, what, and where of the events. To record the events. The other article will certainly contain factual elements, but its purpose to advocate for a political point of view.

Now I don't want to drag politics into this thread, so I'm not commenting further in that context. This is a religious thread. One where we discuss from various points of views the books of the bible and especially the gospels and the New Testament in general. And literary genres are very relevant to that discussion because how you read something is contextual, it depends on the genre. The gospels are not "journalism" or "biographies" (in a modern sense) but "gospels". They are like the "Christians under attack" link in that the purpose is to advocate a point of view, this time a theological point of view. They contain factual elements, some biographical material, some historical material but they aren't biographies (in a modern sense), they aren't history, and they aren't journalism. They are gospels.

I keep saying in a modern sense because modern biographies generally tell the story of a person at least partially from the perspective of character development. The events that shaped a person into who that person becomes is usually part of the story. And they are focused on the life of the person, not the good news of what happens after their death. Jesus isn't shaped into who he becomes in the gospels, he starts out there for the most part. And while I prefer to focus on what Jesus said and did before the final week, that's me and not so much the new testament.

So, the point is that we should be reading the gospels for what they are, and not as journalism, not as biographies of Jesus, not as early first century history textbooks, etc. Doing so opens up the richer stories that are there. And frees one of trying to pretend that Matthew's and Luke's birth narratives can possibly reconcile. Or that the four gospels' passion stories don't contradict. Because these contradictions are key to reading the story that the writer is presenting. Matthew changed Mark for a reason. Same for Luke. And John isn't interested in the story of the synoptics at all. The gospel writers are each advocating for a particular perspective (Mark - nobody gets it, or is even supposed to get it, Matthew - Jesus is the new Moses, or "super" Moses, Luke - Jesus is a prophet, or the "ultimate" prophet, Acts - by following Jesus Paul's life more or less mirrors Jesus', John - Jesus is God (or on that level) and his here to show it, prove it) . And the literary license needed to tell these various perspectives is to be expected, just like with that political link.

The point is you didn't like the original link he included to give details on the story?
I believe his point is that genre and authorial intent matter when reading a text. He’s using the links about the shooting (because the authors of the different links each chose a particular genre that best fit their communicative intentions) as a way to transition into a discussion of Biblical genres and what various Biblical authors intended to communicate.

Thanks.

In this instance, I don't think the link mattered at all. I imagine it was a guy still reeling and still hearing the shots ringing grabbing a link to share here what happened.

I read right past any of the persecution stuff to see the details of what happened.

And I was especially discouraged as mentioned above to see the follow up posts to be the the "hope you are able to deal with this... but" then go on to criticize his choice of links.

If there's a point to be made about genre and authorial intent, that can be interesting but maybe lets do that with other examples not connected to this and the "sorry, but..." issue we had.
 
I fully intend on continuing this discussion with sincere questions or discussions. God bless.
Let us know when you are ready as I have a few about the event and I do want to comment about something else.
Sure. What question do you have?
Some of these were formulated in my head before I knew you were visiting and not a member, so I'll still ask but "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable. I don't expect you chase down answers or anything like that. Most are just out of curiosity so not being worth your trouble, or you don't want to go there is also perfectly acceptable. Crickets are understandable. Also, one or two still, at least in my head seem argumentive or to be raising doubts, that is just a failure to articulate in words what I mean. Please believe me that these are just curiosity. I do have a point to make, but not with these questions.

Thanks

1) First is what exactly is on the alter? From the picture it looked like a museum display background. I'm used to rather sparse alters to begin with and the photo plus my bad eyes not being able to make it out peaked my curiosity.

2) Also from the picture, when in relation to the events was it taken? From body positions it looks early, when you and the others are still trying to figure out what to do. But based on the number of people in the picture and the stories saying 150 were there at the time maybe it was later in the events, after most got out? (In any case it looks like you, member or not jumped into a leadership position. Warning - I'll likely ignore you if you try to correct me on this. Though you'll forever be the "short guy" around here In my mind.)

3) How is the guy that was shot doing? Still on the good side, all things considered?

4) How quickly was the shooter identified after it was over? I can imagine this being a second, maybe even bigger traumatic moment for that church community. A random stranger might make it scarier for everyone else, but someone connected to the church, even loosely.

5) After the shooting stop did people immediately leave? Or did they stick around for a while?

6) This is one that may appear argumentative, its not intended that way. When you say you were trying to get out, do you mean out of the building meaning where the shooter actually was?

I can go on. but that is enough. I hope that those you said were OK, including you really are okay. And I hope that those that you said are having some troubles are slowly processing what they need to get better. I hope to get back to being your "public enemy number one" soon. (Okay maybe that is a bit hyperbolic and conceited, but hopefully you get what I am saying.)
1) An altar is a place where people sacrifice things to God. Under the Mosaic law, they were required to sacrifice animals to God has payment for their sins. They had to shut the blood of an innocent animal. This was a symbol of Christ's perfect sacrifice for our sins that would come when he would die on the cross and Rise Again from the dead. Yes for thousands of years before Christ God had this all planned out.

2) if it's the picture I am thinking of it was when we were trying to leave the building. We believed at the time that the shooter was inside of the building. We had no way of knowing that he had been ran over by a car at that point. But he was still sitting on the ground with the machine gun in his hand and trying to shoot into the building.

3) the man who was trying to kill us was shot and killed by Church security.

4) within a few hours I had heard who he was and given websites and things. I went to his Facebook page and saw who he was.

5) I left the building as soon as possible along with almost everybody there. I took off to a field and through the woods and ended up at a house.

6) I was trying to get out of the building but there was a crowd of people blocking the door. They were not moving. I think they were afraid that the shooter was outside and they didn't know where he was.

I am actually doing okay with this. My wife is pretty upset about it and having somewhat of a hard time.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Zow
Condolences for all that's happened @Paddington. As a fellow Michigan man i know we're made of tough stuff and hopefully all involved process everything and find a way to make a positive (hard to do I'm sure, but often tragedy can bring positive growth) out of such an awful tragic event. I hope time and reflection help heal your wife.
 
I fully intend on continuing this discussion with sincere questions or discussions. God bless.
Let us know when you are ready as I have a few about the event and I do want to comment about something else.
Sure. What question do you have?
Some of these were formulated in my head before I knew you were visiting and not a member, so I'll still ask but "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable. I don't expect you chase down answers or anything like that. Most are just out of curiosity so not being worth your trouble, or you don't want to go there is also perfectly acceptable. Crickets are understandable. Also, one or two still, at least in my head seem argumentive or to be raising doubts, that is just a failure to articulate in words what I mean. Please believe me that these are just curiosity. I do have a point to make, but not with these questions.

Thanks

1) First is what exactly is on the alter? From the picture it looked like a museum display background. I'm used to rather sparse alters to begin with and the photo plus my bad eyes not being able to make it out peaked my curiosity.

2) Also from the picture, when in relation to the events was it taken? From body positions it looks early, when you and the others are still trying to figure out what to do. But based on the number of people in the picture and the stories saying 150 were there at the time maybe it was later in the events, after most got out? (In any case it looks like you, member or not jumped into a leadership position. Warning - I'll likely ignore you if you try to correct me on this. Though you'll forever be the "short guy" around here In my mind.)

3) How is the guy that was shot doing? Still on the good side, all things considered?

4) How quickly was the shooter identified after it was over? I can imagine this being a second, maybe even bigger traumatic moment for that church community. A random stranger might make it scarier for everyone else, but someone connected to the church, even loosely.

5) After the shooting stop did people immediately leave? Or did they stick around for a while?

6) This is one that may appear argumentative, its not intended that way. When you say you were trying to get out, do you mean out of the building meaning where the shooter actually was?

I can go on. but that is enough. I hope that those you said were OK, including you really are okay. And I hope that those that you said are having some troubles are slowly processing what they need to get better. I hope to get back to being your "public enemy number one" soon. (Okay maybe that is a bit hyperbolic and conceited, but hopefully you get what I am saying.)
1) An altar is a place where people sacrifice things to God. Under the Mosaic law, they were required to sacrifice animals to God has payment for their sins. They had to shut the blood of an innocent animal. This was a symbol of Christ's perfect sacrifice for our sins that would come when he would die on the cross and Rise Again from the dead. Yes for thousands of years before Christ God had this all planned out.

2) if it's the picture I am thinking of it was when we were trying to leave the building. We believed at the time that the shooter was inside of the building. We had no way of knowing that he had been ran over by a car at that point. But he was still sitting on the ground with the machine gun in his hand and trying to shoot into the building.

3) the man who was trying to kill us was shot and killed by Church security.

4) within a few hours I had heard who he was and given websites and things. I went to his Facebook page and saw who he was.

5) I left the building as soon as possible along with almost everybody there. I took off to a field and through the woods and ended up at a house.

6) I was trying to get out of the building but there was a crowd of people blocking the door. They were not moving. I think they were afraid that the shooter was outside and they didn't know where he was.

I am actually doing okay with this. My wife is pretty upset about it and having somewhat of a hard time.
Just to be clear, no matter how badly I say something I am not second guessing your actions in the moment. You answered one perfectly in that I was confused by trying to get outside when the shooter was outside. I was wondering a bunch of possibilities including just that it appeared in the moment it was from inside. My church is a bit of a maze to the sanctuary so I don't think that would happen there, but I have been to churches where inside and outside noises would be tough to distinguish. Thanks for answering this as it answered a bunch of questions.

For question #3, I meant the security guy, your customer that was shot. Actually question #5's answer (when you left) kind of answered question #4.

As for the altar, I'm just saying I have been to lots of churches in lots of different places and almost all of them fall into three buckets as to what is behind them. A plain white or beige wall with a cross, a few banners, and maybe a speaker or two. Or stained-glass windows with maybe brick or block and a cross. Finally, I have been to a few churches where there are clear windows looking out on nature. This background was just different to me. And because it was different I was trying to make out what it was. Maybe if I knew I would say "wow that sounds cool", but then again maybe "wow that is weird".

I just want to repeat something I have posted before. I believe that you post what you post out of love for God, love for Jesus, and ultimately you just want to share this out of love for others. And I have great respect for that. It is no secret that you and I disagree on a great deal of details, that we can butt heads and will likely butt heads again and again, but that doesn't change anything. I am very happy that you are doing well. I pray that whatever your wife needs to have less of a hard time finds her.

You were kind of busy last Sunday, but while you were catching your breath I was pointing out that those of us on the three-year liturgy schedule has a good chunk of Galatians 5 as this Third Sunday after Pentecost's epistle. That is more or less the first week of me.

Anyway, I'll sneak a prayer or two in for you and your wife. Hope it is all getting better every day.
 
Very sad to hear news about the attack but glad that no one was killed by the attacker.

It is so depressing that we have such acts of hate in places of worship.
 
I fully intend on continuing this discussion with sincere questions or discussions. God bless.
Let us know when you are ready as I have a few about the event and I do want to comment about something else.
Sure. What question do you have?
Some of these were formulated in my head before I knew you were visiting and not a member, so I'll still ask but "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable. I don't expect you chase down answers or anything like that. Most are just out of curiosity so not being worth your trouble, or you don't want to go there is also perfectly acceptable. Crickets are understandable. Also, one or two still, at least in my head seem argumentive or to be raising doubts, that is just a failure to articulate in words what I mean. Please believe me that these are just curiosity. I do have a point to make, but not with these questions.

Thanks

1) First is what exactly is on the alter? From the picture it looked like a museum display background. I'm used to rather sparse alters to begin with and the photo plus my bad eyes not being able to make it out peaked my curiosity.

2) Also from the picture, when in relation to the events was it taken? From body positions it looks early, when you and the others are still trying to figure out what to do. But based on the number of people in the picture and the stories saying 150 were there at the time maybe it was later in the events, after most got out? (In any case it looks like you, member or not jumped into a leadership position. Warning - I'll likely ignore you if you try to correct me on this. Though you'll forever be the "short guy" around here In my mind.)

3) How is the guy that was shot doing? Still on the good side, all things considered?

4) How quickly was the shooter identified after it was over? I can imagine this being a second, maybe even bigger traumatic moment for that church community. A random stranger might make it scarier for everyone else, but someone connected to the church, even loosely.

5) After the shooting stop did people immediately leave? Or did they stick around for a while?

6) This is one that may appear argumentative, its not intended that way. When you say you were trying to get out, do you mean out of the building meaning where the shooter actually was?

I can go on. but that is enough. I hope that those you said were OK, including you really are okay. And I hope that those that you said are having some troubles are slowly processing what they need to get better. I hope to get back to being your "public enemy number one" soon. (Okay maybe that is a bit hyperbolic and conceited, but hopefully you get what I am saying.)
1) An altar is a place where people sacrifice things to God. Under the Mosaic law, they were required to sacrifice animals to God has payment for their sins. They had to shut the blood of an innocent animal. This was a symbol of Christ's perfect sacrifice for our sins that would come when he would die on the cross and Rise Again from the dead. Yes for thousands of years before Christ God had this all planned out.

2) if it's the picture I am thinking of it was when we were trying to leave the building. We believed at the time that the shooter was inside of the building. We had no way of knowing that he had been ran over by a car at that point. But he was still sitting on the ground with the machine gun in his hand and trying to shoot into the building.

3) the man who was trying to kill us was shot and killed by Church security.

4) within a few hours I had heard who he was and given websites and things. I went to his Facebook page and saw who he was.

5) I left the building as soon as possible along with almost everybody there. I took off to a field and through the woods and ended up at a house.

6) I was trying to get out of the building but there was a crowd of people blocking the door. They were not moving. I think they were afraid that the shooter was outside and they didn't know where he was.

I am actually doing okay with this. My wife is pretty upset about it and having somewhat of a hard time.
Just to be clear, no matter how badly I say something I am not second guessing your actions in the moment. You answered one perfectly in that I was confused by trying to get outside when the shooter was outside. I was wondering a bunch of possibilities including just that it appeared in the moment it was from inside. My church is a bit of a maze to the sanctuary so I don't think that would happen there, but I have been to churches where inside and outside noises would be tough to distinguish. Thanks for answering this as it answered a bunch of questions.

For question #3, I meant the security guy, your customer that was shot. Actually question #5's answer (when you left) kind of answered question #4.

As for the altar, I'm just saying I have been to lots of churches in lots of different places and almost all of them fall into three buckets as to what is behind them. A plain white or beige wall with a cross, a few banners, and maybe a speaker or two. Or stained-glass windows with maybe brick or block and a cross. Finally, I have been to a few churches where there are clear windows looking out on nature. This background was just different to me. And because it was different I was trying to make out what it was. Maybe if I knew I would say "wow that sounds cool", but then again maybe "wow that is weird".

I just want to repeat something I have posted before. I believe that you post what you post out of love for God, love for Jesus, and ultimately you just want to share this out of love for others. And I have great respect for that. It is no secret that you and I disagree on a great deal of details, that we can butt heads and will likely butt heads again and again, but that doesn't change anything. I am very happy that you are doing well. I pray that whatever your wife needs to have less of a hard time finds her.

You were kind of busy last Sunday, but while you were catching your breath I was pointing out that those of us on the three-year liturgy schedule has a good chunk of Galatians 5 as this Third Sunday after Pentecost's epistle. That is more or less the first week of me.

Anyway, I'll sneak a prayer or two in for you and your wife. Hope it is all getting better every day.
Well thank you very much for your kind words. We actually went back to that church today. We thanked The Men Who Saved Our Lives. It was a very emotional service. The man who ran over the shooter had lost his car. His brand new truck I mean. Everyone pitched in and he is going to be getting a new truck. I am not sure if insurance covers something like that or not. It doesn't matter. He saved our lives and we want to show our gratitude.

As far as my view, I believe in Sola scriptura which means that everything that you believe about God, heaven and the spiritual Realm needs to be backed up and lined up with what the Bible says. The Bible is the ultimate Authority over mankind. If someone else doesn't hold this view then we are not going to be agreeing on a lot of things. Because I go back to what the Bible says regarding these things.

Thanks again for your kind words I really appreciate it.
 
Condolences for all that's happened @Paddington. As a fellow Michigan man i know we're made of tough stuff and hopefully all involved process everything and find a way to make a positive (hard to do I'm sure, but often tragedy can bring positive growth) out of such an awful tragic event. I hope time and reflection help heal your wife.
Interestingly, I went back to that church today and that's exactly what the pastor preached on. That we are not supposed to be the same, after something like this happens.
 
Here are some links I shared on Facebook regarding the incident. I hope they work here:







 
As far as my view, I believe in Sola scriptura which means that everything that you believe about God, heaven and the spiritual Realm needs to be backed up and lined up with what the Bible says. The Bible is the ultimate Authority over mankind. If someone else doesn't hold this view then we are not going to be agreeing on a lot of things. Because I go back to what the Bible says regarding these things.
As I mentioned in another thread I have recently been addicted to Bart Ehrman's blog. It hasn't really changed my views about anything, but it has improved my vocabulary. I've been slowly working my way from the beginning of the blog and up to February 2015. One of the posts from that month is one where he kind of goes off when one of his debate partners posts abouts him. The result is as much of venom going the other way. I'd assume hostile towards you. (link)

I'm not going here to use this as an argument against fundamentalists beliefs, or "tag team" with that hostility, but pull out a sentence in the midst of the defensiveness which I think applies directly to sola scriptura. He writes "The idea that someone doesn’t much care which side you take so long as you are more thoughtful about it ..." and I think that is, what in practice the point of pointing to the bible as the source of information about faith and how to live accordingly. The reformists certainly told us what they believed, but rather than substitute their interpretations for the Catholic ones they countered, they translated the scripture such that ordinary people could come to their own conclusions. As long as it was based in scripture it had at least some validity. Maybe it was an incomplete understanding. Maybe it had an unorthodox emphasis, but it was still valid.

Almost 50 years ago my pastor at the time pretty much told me the same thing. But he put it along the lines of it ultimately being my fate so I should make sure I put my faith into how I read scripture and not how others read it. I guess a hole in his statement is that I could very well consider things other than 39 OT and 27 NT books he considered scripture , but ignoring that little detail I believe that the Luthers and Calvins of the reformation believe that giving the people access would have the "strength of their arguments" prevailing as opposed to the strength of the traditions. I'd say they were ultimately wrong about this based on how worked out as new traditions just partially replaced older ones.

But the concept is one I embrace. The only thing about faith and theology and scripture and God and Jesus is that I am absolutely sure of is that I have things wrong. I just have faith that I have enough right to determine how to live day to day and if there is heaven and hell that I at least don't end up in hell.

Everyone pitched in and he is going to be getting a new truck.
That seems awfully generous. Not awful as in terrible, but as in awesome. Awesome that the congregation (and guests) had the means and desire to do such a thing.
 
As far as my view, I believe in Sola scriptura which means that everything that you believe about God, heaven and the spiritual Realm needs to be backed up and lined up with what the Bible says. The Bible is the ultimate Authority over mankind. If someone else doesn't hold this view then we are not going to be agreeing on a lot of things. Because I go back to what the Bible says regarding these things.
As I mentioned in another thread I have recently been addicted to Bart Ehrman's blog. It hasn't really changed my views about anything, but it has improved my vocabulary. I've been slowly working my way from the beginning of the blog and up to February 2015. One of the posts from that month is one where he kind of goes off when one of his debate partners posts abouts him. The result is as much of venom going the other way. I'd assume hostile towards you. (link)

I'm not going here to use this as an argument against fundamentalists beliefs, or "tag team" with that hostility, but pull out a sentence in the midst of the defensiveness which I think applies directly to sola scriptura. He writes "The idea that someone doesn’t much care which side you take so long as you are more thoughtful about it ..." and I think that is, what in practice the point of pointing to the bible as the source of information about faith and how to live accordingly. The reformists certainly told us what they believed, but rather than substitute their interpretations for the Catholic ones they countered, they translated the scripture such that ordinary people could come to their own conclusions. As long as it was based in scripture it had at least some validity. Maybe it was an incomplete understanding. Maybe it had an unorthodox emphasis, but it was still valid.

Almost 50 years ago my pastor at the time pretty much told me the same thing. But he put it along the lines of it ultimately being my fate so I should make sure I put my faith into how I read scripture and not how others read it. I guess a hole in his statement is that I could very well consider things other than 39 OT and 27 NT books he considered scripture , but ignoring that little detail I believe that the Luthers and Calvins of the reformation believe that giving the people access would have the "strength of their arguments" prevailing as opposed to the strength of the traditions. I'd say they were ultimately wrong about this based on how worked out as new traditions just partially replaced older ones.

But the concept is one I embrace. The only thing about faith and theology and scripture and God and Jesus is that I am absolutely sure of is that I have things wrong. I just have faith that I have enough right to determine how to live day to day and if there is heaven and hell that I at least don't end up in hell.

Everyone pitched in and he is going to be getting a new truck.
That seems awfully generous. Not awful as in terrible, but as in awesome. Awesome that the congregation (and guests) had the means and desire to do such a thing.
In response to your comments about the reformers, yes, I agree the after opposing Catholic doctrines on certain issues they went ahead and went along with them later on. That makes no sense to me. I am not part of the Reformed Theology Movement. I am a Dispensationalist. We are at odds about many things. Specifically, I am a Mid Acts Dispensationalist. I believe that the Grace Age Church began with Paul and that Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles. It’s his writings that are specifically instructions for the Church today. The other writings are still 100% the Word of God in my view, but they were specific instructions for Israel who was under the Law. Much of what Jesus Christ taught, was actually instructions for those in the Kingdom Age, which is yet future. It's deep Theology and takes a long time to fully understand because there is a lot to it. But the Scriptures prove themselves as God's Word of you study it properly. My opinion.
Biblically, it isn't our good works that get us to heaven, its our Faith in Jesus Christ, believing that He died and rose again, shedding His blood as a Sacrifice for our sins.
 
Last edited:
As far as my view, I believe in Sola scriptura which means that everything that you believe about God, heaven and the spiritual Realm needs to be backed up and lined up with what the Bible says. The Bible is the ultimate Authority over mankind. If someone else doesn't hold this view then we are not going to be agreeing on a lot of things. Because I go back to what the Bible says regarding these things.
As I mentioned in another thread I have recently been addicted to Bart Ehrman's blog. It hasn't really changed my views about anything, but it has improved my vocabulary. I've been slowly working my way from the beginning of the blog and up to February 2015. One of the posts from that month is one where he kind of goes off when one of his debate partners posts abouts him. The result is as much of venom going the other way. I'd assume hostile towards you. (link)

I'm not going here to use this as an argument against fundamentalists beliefs, or "tag team" with that hostility, but pull out a sentence in the midst of the defensiveness which I think applies directly to sola scriptura. He writes "The idea that someone doesn’t much care which side you take so long as you are more thoughtful about it ..." and I think that is, what in practice the point of pointing to the bible as the source of information about faith and how to live accordingly. The reformists certainly told us what they believed, but rather than substitute their interpretations for the Catholic ones they countered, they translated the scripture such that ordinary people could come to their own conclusions. As long as it was based in scripture it had at least some validity. Maybe it was an incomplete understanding. Maybe it had an unorthodox emphasis, but it was still valid.

Almost 50 years ago my pastor at the time pretty much told me the same thing. But he put it along the lines of it ultimately being my fate so I should make sure I put my faith into how I read scripture and not how others read it. I guess a hole in his statement is that I could very well consider things other than 39 OT and 27 NT books he considered scripture , but ignoring that little detail I believe that the Luthers and Calvins of the reformation believe that giving the people access would have the "strength of their arguments" prevailing as opposed to the strength of the traditions. I'd say they were ultimately wrong about this based on how worked out as new traditions just partially replaced older ones.

But the concept is one I embrace. The only thing about faith and theology and scripture and God and Jesus is that I am absolutely sure of is that I have things wrong. I just have faith that I have enough right to determine how to live day to day and if there is heaven and hell that I at least don't end up in hell.

Everyone pitched in and he is going to be getting a new truck.
That seems awfully generous. Not awful as in terrible, but as in awesome. Awesome that the congregation (and guests) had the means and desire to do such a thing.
Full disclosure, just hopping in and commenting on a post. Haven't read all the other stuff in here the last week or two. My dad has always instilled in me that my best form of witness to others is my daily life and actions. "Does the world see Christ through your actions?" He has always encouraged theological discussions to start from the personal. "This is what I understand it to be as I learn about it". Humbleness and humility towards the subject matter and relationship with God is the way to go. If we can display what relationship with God looks like (warts and all) people are going to be far more likely to engage with that than with a person talking/preaching at them
 
As far as my view, I believe in Sola scriptura which means that everything that you believe about God, heaven and the spiritual Realm needs to be backed up and lined up with what the Bible says. The Bible is the ultimate Authority over mankind. If someone else doesn't hold this view then we are not going to be agreeing on a lot of things. Because I go back to what the Bible says regarding these things.
As I mentioned in another thread I have recently been addicted to Bart Ehrman's blog. It hasn't really changed my views about anything, but it has improved my vocabulary. I've been slowly working my way from the beginning of the blog and up to February 2015. One of the posts from that month is one where he kind of goes off when one of his debate partners posts abouts him. The result is as much of venom going the other way. I'd assume hostile towards you. (link)

I'm not going here to use this as an argument against fundamentalists beliefs, or "tag team" with that hostility, but pull out a sentence in the midst of the defensiveness which I think applies directly to sola scriptura. He writes "The idea that someone doesn’t much care which side you take so long as you are more thoughtful about it ..." and I think that is, what in practice the point of pointing to the bible as the source of information about faith and how to live accordingly. The reformists certainly told us what they believed, but rather than substitute their interpretations for the Catholic ones they countered, they translated the scripture such that ordinary people could come to their own conclusions. As long as it was based in scripture it had at least some validity. Maybe it was an incomplete understanding. Maybe it had an unorthodox emphasis, but it was still valid.

Almost 50 years ago my pastor at the time pretty much told me the same thing. But he put it along the lines of it ultimately being my fate so I should make sure I put my faith into how I read scripture and not how others read it. I guess a hole in his statement is that I could very well consider things other than 39 OT and 27 NT books he considered scripture , but ignoring that little detail I believe that the Luthers and Calvins of the reformation believe that giving the people access would have the "strength of their arguments" prevailing as opposed to the strength of the traditions. I'd say they were ultimately wrong about this based on how worked out as new traditions just partially replaced older ones.

But the concept is one I embrace. The only thing about faith and theology and scripture and God and Jesus is that I am absolutely sure of is that I have things wrong. I just have faith that I have enough right to determine how to live day to day and if there is heaven and hell that I at least don't end up in hell.

Everyone pitched in and he is going to be getting a new truck.
That seems awfully generous. Not awful as in terrible, but as in awesome. Awesome that the congregation (and guests) had the means and desire to do such a thing.
Full disclosure, just hopping in and commenting on a post. Haven't read all the other stuff in here the last week or two. My dad has always instilled in me that my best form of witness to others is my daily life and actions. "Does the world see Christ through your actions?" He has always encouraged theological discussions to start from the personal. "This is what I understand it to be as I learn about it". Humbleness and humility towards the subject matter and relationship with God is the way to go. If we can display what relationship with God looks like (warts and all) people are going to be far more likely to engage with that than with a person talking/preaching at them
I don't disagree with your father. (And I presume you.)

Early Christians called themselves "the way" and they were mocked as "little Christs" (Christians) because they tried to follow Jesus' moral teachings. They eventually took and owned the slur (Christian) as a source of pride. They created loving communities and outsiders wanted in. They didn't want in, in my opinion at first because of theology but because of how they saw the early Christians living. The theology, or "receiving the holy spirit" came later.

I think that is the way it works best today.
 
Much of what Jesus Christ taught, was actually instructions for those in the Kingdom Age, which is yet future
Interestingly enough, since Sunday I've kind of been tossing around how this week's gospel lesson and how I described it a week or so ago.

Luke 9: 51-62 - This goes to why early Christians thought the Kingdom of God was coming any minute, both Jesus (here) and Paul said as much.

And how my description might violate the below concept. That is how I am reading it "my way" as opposed to how the author of Luke meant it to be understood.

I believe his point is that ... authorial intent matter when reading a text. ... transition into a discussion of ... what various Biblical authors intended to communicate.

First off, if the passage was Luke 9: 57-62 skipping the introduction and the Samaritan Opposition and going straight to the "Cost of Following Jesus" section then my assertion that this is about the coming of the Kingdom of God, here on earth, any time now works perfectly. It fits with Jesus' (and Paul's and John the Baptist's and tons of others) preaching of the coming apocalypse. That was pretty much the theme of the period. The world is controlled by evil forces, but soon, very soon God will intervene and make things right and you best repent (turn)to be ready. Thus the "there is no time wait" to bury the dead, to say goodbyes, etc. are with respect to the coming apocalyptic events. That was, as best as the scant historical evidence can provide what the historical Jesus was all about.

But it is not what Luke is saying. I'm pretty confident that Luke takes a historical account of something that more or less happened as stated and lifts it out of the apocalyptic context evident by verse 62 and repurposes the story into the context of verse 51. There is still no time to wait, but in Luke's context it is because Jesus has begun his march to the cross. In Luke's gospel, in quite a contrast to Mark's gospel, Jesus knows exactly what is ahead of him and is in complete control making it all go according to plan. (In Mark's gospel, the only ones who ever know what is going on is Mark and the reader.) Thus, there is no time to wait because the cross is just ahead and the opportunity to witness and hear Jesus will soon be gone.

Maybe the differences are really subtle. But I think they are there and as a result my characterization of this passage a bit more than a week ago is probably historically accurate, but it is not representative of what Luke was saying.

My bad!
 
Spinning off the post from earlier today and in this case blatantly stealing an idea presumably from that blog, or its comments section, or something linked from it.

First in the previous post about this past week's gospel reading I said that Luke and Mark portrayed things a bit differently. And in other posts I have mentioned things like not being able to get past Genesis 2 without finding irreconcilable differences in the accounts. So, the question is how can I still believe when the "source" is so "flawed"? Well...

Basically a few hundred million Christians on Sunday going to a church using the three-year liturgical calendar heard basically the same Old Testament reading, the same psalm, the same epistle, and the same gospel lesson. Then there were likely a few hundred thousand (or more) different sermons around these readings, some more inspired than others. All of those sermons were different. They approached the same set of readings of various perspectives, emphasized different points, contradicted each other in too many ways to count. Yet most all these sermons would have been valuable to the communities hearing them. I've spoken that it is uncanny just how often a sermon speaks to me at just the right time, and I'm sure this phenomenon happens for most every sermon.

That is how I see the Bible, especially the New Testament. It tells pretty much the same set of stories from different perspectives with different emphasis. For perspective I don't mean that one eyewitness was standing front, left and another rear, center, etc., but from the perspective of what the community the gospel or epistle being written for was experiencing. This the writer than used a literary license to tell the story, sometime lifting a story out of one context to place it another like above, or like John rescheduling the crucifixion to create the "lamb of God" imagery. Taking the license to tell the story that the community needs at that moment. Like so many sermons. I don't see the problem there.

I think I'm done for a while, just wanted to finish flushing out these ideas while I still had them on my mind. Of course, I don't think anyone actually asked for these thoughts, but oh well.
 
Spinning off the post from earlier today and in this case blatantly stealing an idea presumably from that blog, or its comments section, or something linked from it.

First in the previous post about this past week's gospel reading I said that Luke and Mark portrayed things a bit differently. And in other posts I have mentioned things like not being able to get past Genesis 2 without finding irreconcilable differences in the accounts. So, the question is how can I still believe when the "source" is so "flawed"? Well...

Basically a few hundred million Christians on Sunday going to a church using the three-year liturgical calendar heard basically the same Old Testament reading, the same psalm, the same epistle, and the same gospel lesson. Then there were likely a few hundred thousand (or more) different sermons around these readings, some more inspired than others. All of those sermons were different. They approached the same set of readings of various perspectives, emphasized different points, contradicted each other in too many ways to count. Yet most all these sermons would have been valuable to the communities hearing them. I've spoken that it is uncanny just how often a sermon speaks to me at just the right time, and I'm sure this phenomenon happens for most every sermon.

That is how I see the Bible, especially the New Testament. It tells pretty much the same set of stories from different perspectives with different emphasis. For perspective I don't mean that one eyewitness was standing front, left and another rear, center, etc., but from the perspective of what the community the gospel or epistle being written for was experiencing. This the writer than used a literary license to tell the story, sometime lifting a story out of one context to place it another like above, or like John rescheduling the crucifixion to create the "lamb of God" imagery. Taking the license to tell the story that the community needs at that moment. Like so many sermons. I don't see the problem there.

I think I'm done for a while, just wanted to finish flushing out these ideas while I still had them on my mind. Of course, I don't think anyone actually asked for these thoughts, but oh well.
I've been meditating a lot recently on something I read. In Scripture as Communication, Jeannine Brown talks about "meaning" and "contextualization". She says:

Finally, there is a possible assumption about the distinction between meaning and contextualization that requires attention. The assumption goes something like this: Why the need to contextualize meaning for different contexts? Why not simply leave meaning to speak definitively and invariably into new contexts? The problem with this way of formulating meaning is that it presumes that meaning is inherently "uncontextualized" and so able to speak uniformly into all contexts. But as I have proposed in chapter 4, all Scripture is culturally located, signaling that meaning is already contextualized - it originally addressed a particular time and culture. Paul's meaning to the Corinthian church in regard to eating idol meat (1 Cor. 8:1-11:1) initially was offered into the first-century world of pagan temples and new converts to Christianity. We do not identify normative meaning and then do that nonnormative thing called contextualization. Rather, we do our best to identify meaning in its original contextualization, which most certainly was understood as normative. Then we attempt to "recontextualize" the message in our situations. This recontextualization is normative for us by virtue of its connection with normative meaning. Meaning remains contextualized and normative in both moves. So it is more precise, in my view, to speak of recontextualization of meaning rather than its contextualization.

I'm having a hard time putting my finger on what struck me about this. I'd really like to put this into a picture/diagram. What I'm seeing now is that "meaning" (or maybe "message" or "truth") is this box at the top of the diagram. And Scripture is a window into that meaning that was contextualized for its original audience. Our job is to interpret the text to find the "meaning" and then apply that meaning in our context (recontextualization).

And, to your point, I'd break it down even more. Maybe instead of saying Scripture is a window, I can see it as Torah is the original window into the meaning and the Prophets and the Writings and the NT (and even other Second Temple literature and our own literature/sermons of our day) are all recontextualized windows based on that original window (Torah). And maybe to even break it down even more, the early chapters of Genesis are the original window which then the rest of Genesis, and Torah, and other Scripture all recontextualize for their day. It reminds of when a rabbi said, "Everything you need to know about God, I can teach you from the first four chapters of Genesis." He saw the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures as being built off of those truths/meanings. And this gives me a better idea of what some scholars might mean when they describe the NT as either Christian midrash or Torah commentary.

This all reminds me of another quote: "The waning of Christianity as practised in the West is easy to explain. The Christian churches have comprehensively failed in their one central task - to retell their foundation story in a way that might speak to the times."

Thanks for your thoughts and posts today.
 
Basically a few hundred million Christians on Sunday going to a church using the three-year liturgical calendar heard basically the same Old Testament reading, the same psalm, the same epistle, and the same gospel lesson. Then there were likely a few hundred thousand (or more) different sermons around these readings, some more inspired than others. All of those sermons were different. They approached the same set of readings of various perspectives, emphasized different points, contradicted each other in too many ways to count. Yet most all these sermons would have been valuable to the communities hearing them. I've spoken that it is uncanny just how often a sermon speaks to me at just the right time, and I'm sure this phenomenon happens for most every sermon.
I'm trying to stay out of the fray here, especially after the term "sola scriptura" got dropped pretty early on. I'm no apologist, although I truly appreciate apologetics and they have helped me tremendously in my own faith journey.

So on a pastoral and not apologetic or theological level, I do feel moved to comment on this. @Bottomfeeder Sports has mentioned the 3 year liturgical cycle repeatedly in this thread, and I view it as one of the most important aspects of the practice of the faith. As a cradle Catholic who has been exposed to (and appreciative of) various Christian denominations through the years, I have always been surprised to hear people opine that Catholics don't have a deep understanding of the bible. It's absolutely true that Catholics by and large don't spend time studying the bible the way that many other denominations do, but academic study is not the only way to learn or absorb truth.

In fact, even beyond the three year cycle of readings, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of those Christians using that cycle also surround those Sunday (and, for Catholics at least, daily mass) readings with a liturgy which is also steeped in the Bible (details at the link). Which is to say that not only do we have the benefit of the cycle of readings, but our actual communal practice of the faith is deeply connected to the scriptures. Understandably, some may have reservations about the formality and rote-ness of utilizing scriptures in this way, but I would counter that for those who are actively engaged this is a fantastic way to connect with the Word of God - in more ways than one!
 
This all reminds me of another quote: "The waning of Christianity as practised in the West is easy to explain. The Christian churches have comprehensively failed in their one central task - to retell their foundation story in a way that might speak to the times."
Misreading Revelation 22:18-19 (if I googled correctly) to mean a closed cannon is to blame here. I think whether or not there are new "truths" to be revealed is irrelevant as to whether or not there are new ways to express them. But maybe in two thousand years they'll be trying to piece together message board posts like they do Paul's letters to understand the teachings of the ancient electronic testament. (And I didn't say nor suggest that these were my posts.)
 
Specifically, I am a Mid Acts Dispensationalist.
You know, I knew that this meant that "the [current] church" more or less begins when Paul starts his mission somewhere around Acts 9 or Acts 13 (though I also needed to google those exact chapters). But until just this second, the fact that this is just before the mid-point of the book of Acts was lost on me.

I'll also say that I should have guessed this from earlier conversations we had, but I did not. A very, very long time ago around here there was a brief discussion on this which was the first time I had ever heard the concepts. Makes me feel silly asking you about the ten commandments and their relevancy a few months ago.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top