Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!gatech!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: "Grail Message" (was Re: Creation) Message-ID: Date: 11 Dec 90 06:14:12 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Princeton University Mathematics Department Lines: 69 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu After starting this thread a few weeks back, I've been too busy to submit any followups. My thanks to all who kept the discussion going. In article sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: >scott@clmqt.marquette.mi.us (Scott Reynolds) writes: >> [quotes Galatians 1 about "another Gospel," then comments:] >> >>All "new" teachings should be tested against Scripture, not the other >>way around. > >I agree. ... >All this really means is to stop believing what *we* would like to be >true, and learning to know that which is really true. > > ... >It is not God's Word that needs correcting, but mankind's lack of recognition >about it. Once again, I can simply refer to John 16:12-13, "I have yet many >things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. ...". Here we have the crux of the disagreement, which I don't believe has been addressed yet. Mark is apparently suggesting that we "mainstream Christians" are ignoring the true meaning of God's word, and instead holding on to our own favorite (mis)understanding of it. (*) Let me be blunt: Mark, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE THINK *YOU* ARE DOING. (**) It is one thing to show that there exists an understanding of the Bible by which is taught, suggested, or at least not explicitly forbidden (as you have been doing with reincarnation, for example). It is quite another to say that such-and-such an understanding is the one that God intended, and that anything else is merely a human misunderstanding. (*) - I realize that you do not like having "words put in your mouth." However, in this case, what I have said seems to be a summary of thoughts you have expressed in quotes such as the ones above. If I am misunderstanding your intentions then please clarify. (**) - By "we" I mean "myself and the others who have responded to Mark's postings." Judging from what I've read of their comments, I hope I can presume to speak for the rest of you. You have frequently quoted John 16:12-13 about the "many things" Jesus wanted to say, but couldn't yet. Given that, which of the different "many things" people will present to us, as being from God, should we accept? Was Jesus referring to the writings of Mohammed, Nostradamus, Joseph Smith, Mr. Russell (the person who started the JW's, sorry I can't remember his first name), Baha-ullah, Mary Baker Eddy, or Sun-Myung Moon? Was he thinking perhaps of future letters of Paul, Peter, John, and James? Was he thinking of new ideas that people _within_ the "Christian tradition" would develop, people such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther? Or was it all a red herring, except for that which agrees with the Grail Message? (+) This is the question you haven't really answered yet, as far as I can see. Why should we consider the Grail Message to be what Jesus was referring to in John 16:12-13, and not something else? (If you say, "because it's true and the others aren't," you haven't answered the question but merely restated it.) Perhaps if you think about the question, phrased in this manner, you will understand what I, and the others who have been responding to your posts, am trying to get across to you. There is a very significant something else that you are turning your back on, something which you seem to think is just our interpretation but which we believe, for good reason, to be the truth that God wants all of us to discover. Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh (+) - Answers, to the best of my knowledge: no, yes, maybe, and no.