Blogotional
Personally, what the Bible does say causes me enough problems: I don't need to look for unanswerable questions when I'm struggling to obey the clear statements!
BTW, to impose psychological dynamics from one culture to another that existed 2000 years ago, one that is drastically different from our own, is a bit of eisegetic futility, don't you think?
I see you answered Adrian's question though.
"But on the other hand, I have seen people waste enormous amounts of energy pursuing such questions, often using them as some sort of barrier to allowing the Holy Spirit to do the real work of God in their hearts. "
I didn't spend an enormous amount of time on the question, neither did I respond for entertainment. Do you think I was responding to make a barrier between myself and God?
Maybe I though it was a good opportunity to:
1. Look into the scriptures.
2. Develop an apologetic for anyone else who might ask the question.
3. Give some account of Paul's life and conversion for the non-Christians who regularly read my blog.
I agree Adrian's question was speculative. But I don't think the discussion is trivial or that we shouldn't have it. To be honest John you post some stuff that is for entertainment. I don't think you are unspiritual or making a barrier with God.
John I apologise - I have overreacted in part of my previous comment. I am sorry. I see you also said:
"So, in the end, it is not the question, but what we do with it, that matters."
I agree - and I think giving a little time to looking at scripture and telling the story is profitable.
Apology accepted Catez -- you also need to know that I wrote that post before I read yours, or even knew it existed, my post was no comment on what you wrote at all.
I do tend to agree with Mike -- this stuff is of no real spiritual value, as long as we know that, and keep it in mind, and just allow ourselves to be entertained, then it's fine.
John I'm afraid I completely disagree with you. It is of spiritual value for me and I am not going to relegate it to being purely entertainment. I fnd this a bit patronising:
"this stuff is of no real spiritual value, as long as we know that, and keep it in mind, and just allow ourselves to be entertained, then it's fine."
This is blogging John - a couple of posts and a few comments. No-one is developing a new theology here. However it has been an opportunity - as I explained in my first comment.
Of course I realise Adrian's post was speculative - but it is a good exercise to see what the bible does say.
I'll let God determine what I should consider entertainment - and if it's unclear then my Pastor can help.
In response to Mike - the psychology mentioned is not that culturally relative. Goodness it's basic human nature that is being discussed - the same psychology that the bible is full of examples of. 2,000 years ago people were envious, proud, infuriated, obsessive, compulsive, depressed...
Well, I just wrote a long comment in response to Catez that Blogspot decided to banish to the outer darkness. Here's the gist:
1. What is the profit of such reflection and/or study? Not saying there isn't any, just that I don't get it.
2. Don't take John's style personally. He's a guy and writes like a guy.
3. I like your post on it and pretty much agree with your reasoning and conclusion.
4. You're correct: basic human nature doesn't change, although worldviews do. But Adrian's "psychological" explanation seems pretty lame: I've not met Paul, but I love him; I've not met terrorists or rapists, but I hate them (with a Christian, loving kinda hatred - Ps 31.6, 139.21).
I think that's all. As I said, I really am interested in hearing how it's profitable to consider such things, i.e., how it enables me to know Christ better and to be conformed to His image.
Of course, following the British Open doesn't do much in that regard, either!
I certainly don't mean to patronize....
Nor do I disagree with the opportunities for serious exploration offered in an ancillary sense by the question.
Otherwise, I'll ditto Mike's final question "how it enables me to know Christ better and to be conformed to His image."
I said, "just allow ourselves to be entertained,"
Catez said, "This is blogging John - a couple of posts and a few comments. No-one is developing a new theology here"
My point precisely! Why the heat?
John - I wasn't making the same point. Why the heat from you?
Mike -
1. It isn't a law. Just because I got something from it doesn't mean everyone has to. Convesely, just because you don't get anything from it doesn't mean I don't. What I got from it was that it made me succinctly look at some of Paul's life and what he was centred on pre- and post-conversion. It also made me think about how to answer a speculative question - which is hepful to me since I get those in evangelism all the time. I didn't consider it full on "study" - I think maybe you guys view things from a "study theology" view and I was thinking practical - my non-Christian readers will hear about Paul and Jesus , and what the central message of the gospel is, and it's good practice at handling questions. Those tings are as important to me as formal theology is to you.
2. All guys do not write the same.
3. Thankyou. Glad you liked it.
4. Well yes, I didn't agree with Adrian's psychological explanation.
How to know Christ better and be conformed in His image? Perhaps it assists one in answering speculative questions and leading the answer to the gospel itself. Something Paul and Jesus both did with people. Perhaps in looking at the psychology of some-one in the bible a person sees themselves reflected in some way and takes that to God. Perhaps it was an opportunity to see people have a discussion and to have patience even though one doesn't think it's worthwhile. I say Perhaps because I can't answer for you.
Wow this is fantastic! I dribbled all my coffee reading these comments! I have linked this John at Scotwise in Around The Bilogs!
Oh! This is hot!
GBYAY
I am going to be the fly in the ointment and I am going to agree with Adrian Warnock that it is possible that St. Paul did come across Jesus in Jerusalem.
I cannot think of a single reason why it is necessary for St. Paul to have written that he saw Jesus whilst in Jerusalem.
I have a few reasons for making such a bold statement about St. Paul coming across Jesus:
1. Prior to the conversion on the road to Damascus St. Paul was very hostile to the Christians. To have been so hostile means that he knew of some of the teachings. He did not understand those teachings prior to conversion.
2. St. Paul was the student of Gamaliel and Gamaliel was one of the most respected rabbis in Jerusalem at the time. He taught his students in the temple. If Gamaliel was with his students in the temple in Jerusalem and Jesus was often seen to be preaching in the Temple, then there is a chance that St. Paul was amongst the crowd who listened to Jesus, but did not believe in Him as the Lord.
3. The conversion experience itself is quite remarkable. St Paul asked who was the owner of the voice, and he saw a vision of the risen Lord. If St. Paul had seen Jesus prior to his death and resurrection, and he knew that Jesus had died, would he not also recognize that the one who is speaking to him was therefore the Messiah whom he had seen and ignored?
I am throwing these questions out to see what you think. I disagree with Warnock's publishers because of their too literal stance concerning the Scripture.
Commenting by HaloScan
