What they (she) think about us (Christians).

[Smellin Coffee]

Much along the same lines, here is a documentary that I found quite interesting. Part of the interview was asking people about how people view Christians and how they view Jesus. More interesting is how uninformed Christians and conservatives are concerning "worldly" and liberal views in comparison to what they understand about Christianity. (Fast forward to the 2 minute 40 second mark: Lord Save Us From Your Followers Part 6 )

Movie:

http://www.lordsaveusthemovie.com/

If you have Netflix, you can watch the documentary there.

Or you can watch it in segments here on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScorpioJJ420

Compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing when it comes to political issues. Can the same thing be said of compromising Christian values.

For example. There isn't one single liberal in this video who compromise if I said that Jesus Christ is the only means to receive eternal life. Should we then compromise that truth to gain acceptance?

This is what has happened to men like Rob Bell. He took this very same issue and has fallen into total apostasy.

Don't know anything about Bell so please don't think I am an apologist for his belief system. I haven't a clue what he does or doesn't believe.

Regardless, your statement is about "Christian values". That statement alone makes it a (sub)cultural agenda. And there are varying degrees of interpretation. For example, the idea of speaking in tongues might be a "Christian value" to the Charismatic crowd or the Holy Eucharist is deemed a "Christian value" to the Catholic.

So yes, I do believe that "Christian values" should be subject to compromise. Reason? Because not all "Christian values" are "Christ's values". And even "Christ's values" are viewed in the nature of the human subjectivity.

Thanks.

I gave a specific example. Should we comprise the message that Christ alone is the means for salvation?

Depends on whether one believes Jesus exemplified and preached the Gospel or whether He was the Gospel.

What about if He is both?

He said the only way to God is through Himself. God has made Him a judge of mankind so we have to determine if the "through Christ" is about faith alone in His death, burial and resurrection or if it is about obedience to His teaching with Him being the determinative factor as to entrance into eternal life. Jesus never taught salvation by grace through faith alone in His death, burial and resurrection. He never said that His righteousness would be imputed to those who "believe". So if He didn't teach those things, which Gospel did He preach?

The same one John taught .."He came to His own but His own did not receive Him...but to as many as received Him to them He gave the right to be the children of God...to those who believed on His Name." John 1, which ties right in with your thoughts recorded in John 14:6 and with Paul's testimony of salvation in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4...there is no conflict.  Jesus is salvation and the only way to come to Him is by His grace through faith...what a great gospel taught consistently throughout the NT.

Not being "received" or "accepted" had nothing to do with Paul's idea of the involvement of resurrection in the Gospel. John says the receiving is that of "logos", the teachings of Christ. He reiterates it in John 14: ""The WORD (logos, singular) you hear is (singular) not my own but of the Father who sent me." And "dwelt" is skeinei meanint "to tabernacle". IOW, God "tabernacled" the "logos" in Christ. The people did not receive that. Adding Paul's definition in I Cor. 15 is simply adding to the Gospel that Jesus taught.

Your understanding of LOGOS while partically correct in not complete...John 1: 1 & 14 make it clear that the LOGOS is more than the words or word of God...the LOGOS is the God who took on flesh and dwelt among us...Jesus.  And the attempt to make it look like Paul taught another Gospel rather than add understanding of how the Gospel (Christ) is received is a conflict created my man that doesn't actually exist in the Scripture. And I believe you are incorrect about Paul's view of receiving ...1 Cor 15: 1&2 makes it pretty clear.."the gospel which I preached and which also you received...by which you are saved...that Christ..."

The word taking flesh is like saying the promise became reality. The logos is clearly abiding in the flesh, the body of Jesus Christ. And Paul's mentioning of the gospel is correct in that it was one the one HE preached that they received. That doesn't make it any more correct than the receiving of the Jesus preached by Jehovah's Witnesses. John does not mention anything about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ nor salvation by grace through faith alone as a part of the Gospel. Paul's gospel if it were true would corroborate Jesus' Gospel message, not add to it. It would be like one saying, "That motorcycle is a Harley-Davidson" and another saying about the same machine, "That motorcycle is made of aluminum foil". The second statement does not conflict with the first statement but it also does not corroborate it.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I hope you realize that what you believe about "LOGOS" affects your view of the Deity of Christ. Its more than an intellectual battle against the teachings of Paul. 

I would agree with that.

Can you unequivocally say that Christ was God in the flesh? Christ more than " tabernacled" the LOGOS. You can not make such a distinction. Christ and LOGOS are inseparable. There is no division. No facets of existence. They are One.

Yet John's context clearly states the logos tabernacled in Jesus. This is reiterated in John 14:

Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words [logos] that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

And again later in the chapter:

Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word [logos] that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.

So should we accept our Christology based on what He says about Himself or should we base it on the teachings of another?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]So should we accept our Christology based on what He says about Himself or should we base it on the teachings of another?[/quote]

Yes.

(And, you are also basing in on the teachings of another, John in this case.)

 

[Smellin Coffee]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]So should we accept our Christology based on what He says about Himself or should we base it on the teachings of another?

Yes.

(And, you are also basing in on the teachings of another, John in this case.)
[/quote]

Kinda true. If you were to say "basing in on the source of another" I would wholeheartedly agree. But is the Gospel of John meant primarily for doctrinal instruction or is it meant as a testimony of historical significance? If it is correct record, then the teachings originated from Jesus and not John himself. Does the "doctrine" found in Gospel of John ADD to what Jesus taught or does it REVEAL what Jesus taught?

FYI, question is rhetorical.

 

[christundivided]

John does not mention anything about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ nor salvation by grace through faith alone as a part of the Gospel.

Does John 20:31 contradict your statement?

Joh 20:31  but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Certainly John wrote of the death burial and resurrection of Christ in the previous verses....

 

[christundivided]

Yet John's context clearly states the logos tabernacled in Jesus. This is reiterated in John 14:

I don't see any such context.

Are you unwilling to commit to belief in the deity of Christ?

So should we accept our Christology based on what He says about Himself or should we base it on the teachings of another?

What about what Jesus said in John 5?

Joh 5:22  The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,
Joh 5:23  that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.
Joh 5:24  Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Joh 5:25  "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
Joh 5:26  For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.

or maybe John 17

Joh 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.

These are all words Christ said of Himself.

In Christendom, this is what we call the Trinity. Co-Equal, Co-Eternal, Co-Powerful.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I don't see any such context.

Are you unwilling to commit to belief in the deity of Christ?[/quote]

I am committed to finding out the truth and put my stake where that lies.

What about what Jesus said in John 5?

Joh 5:22  The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,
Joh 5:23  that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.
Joh 5:24  Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Joh 5:25  "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
Joh 5:26  For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.

or maybe John 17

Joh 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.

These are all words Christ said of Himself.

In Christendom, this is what we call the Trinity. Co-Equal, Co-Eternal, Co-Powerful.

Again, John 5 is the passage I had in mind in an earlier post when I stated...

God has made Him a judge of mankind so we have to determine if the "through Christ" is about faith alone in His death, burial and resurrection or if it is about obedience to His teaching with Him being the determinative factor as to entrance into eternal life.

Concerning John 17, how about the preceding verses?

These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

John 20:17 identifies two distinct beings as Jesus has a God:

“Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.

And they are separate witnesses:

Yea and in your law it is written, that the witness of two men is true. I am he that beareth witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

You may be right but there is a whole lot that seems to contradict the deity of Christ though supports the divinity of Christ. I'm still weeding through it myself.