« Beth Moore's Dangerous Bible Twisting | Main | Webinar Refuting Brian McLaren's Claims About Biblical Authority »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54eea6129883301310fac7faa970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference McLaren’s Theory Regarding Elohim & Theos is a Complete Joke:

Comments

Michael

Excellent! Insects flee after being exposed by the lifting of a rock; so too, McLaren's theory runs to the hills when exposed to truth.

Jonathan

Well, McLaren's is just another example of a made-up "God without wrath who brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."

Paul L.

When you said McLaren makes "one of the lamest and flimsiest liberal arguments" you really were not exaggerating! When I read the excerpt from McLaren, I wondered how anyone who has actually read the Bible for himself can believe such drivel. McLaren's argument is not a refutation of the Fall--it's a symptom of it.

The other thing that struck me is that McLaren said the Greco-Roman god hates "story." Wasn't the Greco-Roman religion mostly just mythology, ie. story? I may be mistaken, but I don't think there was ever a systematic theology written for the Greco-Roman religion. It looks like McLaren may be mixing up Greek myths about god and Greek philosophy about god (esp. Plato's), which strike me as being quite different. I'm not expert on these matters, but it would seem to me that the gods of Greek myth are neither perfect or unchanging (and don't hate story!) whereas the god of Platonic philosophy probably wouldn't be hurling thunderbolts to earth.

By the way, the only reason McLaren dumps on the Greco-Roman religion is because it is dead. If practitioners of that "faith tradition" were alive today, McLaren would no doubt be "dialoging" with them and declaring that their path to god is valid.

Sylvia

I didn't realize how much respect I still had for Brian McLaren until I lost the rest of it.

Manager

Actually he is kind of correct. The doctrine most Christians today follow is from Paul, as he developed his OWN doctrine and claimed to have his own visions. The disciples of Jesus and their followers didn't trust Paul and went other ways, including Jesus' family. Paul tried to ride the middle between Judaism, Christianity, and Paganism. The followers of Paul and Peter became Orthodox Christians and even alot of them practiced martyrism because they believed that is what Jesus taught. Paul was questioned by Jerusalem Church twice and the 2nd time got refuge from Rome as a citizen. Later to stop the fighting Rome adopted Paul's doctrine as state religion and it became the RCC....the Bible compiled around it. Peter had already died and alot of his followers followed Paul. Alot of the Gospels used by other Christians were refused and only ones approved at the 3rd Council were used...So the Christians now are just sects from the separation from the RCC later on and changed around some of the doctrine they used.

The other Christians that followed Jesus disagreed with this doctrine. So who was right? Paul who never met Jesus, and had HIS OWN visions that sometimes disagreed with Jesus....or the Christians who wouldn't follow Paul, who followed disciples who actually knew Jesus?

Walker Willis

I also present this passage from Acts 15:

12And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
16 "'After this I will return,and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.'

19Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

James AGREES with Paul and the whole Jerusalem council supports what He was teaching.

Walker Willis

Also I think the "second time" of Paul having a run in with the Jerusalem church is this incident from Acts 21:
27When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, 28crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place."

This is Paul being arrested by Jewish leaders, not the Jewish church (i.e. he was arrested by Jews that did not believe Christ to be Lord and Savior).

This wedge between Jesus and Paul that so many try to fabricate simply does not hold water.

Dorian Jones

Manager.
1)Paul saw Jesus face to face- Acts 9:3-6
2)The disciples trusted Paul,and Paul was a part of the ministry in Jerusalem- Acts 9:26-28
3)The Apostle Peter considered Paul's Letters to be Scriptures and regarded Paul as a beloved brother.-2 Peter 3:15-16
4)The Lord sent the disciple Ananias to Paul,who God said was a Chosen vessel to bear His name to the Gentiles.- Acts 9:11-16

You really should stop reading emergent garbage, and stick to the BIBLE

Joseph A Nagy Jr

I don't see how any of Paul's teachings contradicted (or disagreed) with Jesus. I'd be interested in hearing more from Manager on this subject.

Jim W

Manager-what are you smoking? You didn't say one word that agreed with the Biblical record. Try actually reading the Bible and see if you still believe the hogwash you wrote.

Jonathan

Manager, you seem quite the conspiracy theorist. However, Paul did not hijack the gospel; your theory does not comport with Bible historicity. According to the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, Paul was confirmed in his conversion and in his doctrine, having spent much time with the Apostles and the church in Jerusalem after his conversion.

The writer concludes about Paul's conversion that, "So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied." (Acts 9:31 ESV.) The church didn't have peace because they agreed to disagree with Paul's different gospel; rather, the church now had a real partner in the gospel in Paul, thanks to Christ.

s2kMATTers

oh and manager, if you are going to gratuitously use the wordS "alot", please use them a lot more accurately in the future. Its one thing to reinvent the Bible as you plainly did, its another to fail with the simple language of English.

Ryan Gill

Bravo, Chris!

cynthia curran

According to Church historian Eusebius getting rid of paul's writings is nothing new. The Helkesaites rejected a lot of the bible and all of Paul's writings. McLaren a typical anabapists and blames like most anabapists on the influence of the Roman Empire for anything wrong with christianty. Also, Rick Warren endoresed this guy in an introdution to his book. Another reason to reject Warren as well.

Akira Kurosawa

The saddest thing about McLaren's book is that he has obviously bought the historical revisionist story of the Bible. It reads something like this...

The Bible was written by men who twisted Jesus words of gumdrops, rainbows and unicorns that would save all people. The men who wrote the Bible were just mean and made Christianity mean, so that they could cement their political power.

The problem with this story is that it is not supported by anything anywhere and is mainly based on scholarly (and I use the term loosely) conjecture and misinterpretation of facts. Most modern historians agree with McLaren by ignoring a landslide of evidence that refutes their claims.

But remember, for those guys, it's not about truth, it's about "control what a person thinks about the past, and you can control what they think in the present..."

Ray Hulett

Akira said,

"But remember, for those guys, it's not about truth, it's about 'control what a person thinks about the past, and you can control what they think in the present...'"

It's sadly true and ironic. People think they are being "set free" when they're really being shackled to damning lies.

Their blood will be on McClaren's head and on the heads of those like him should the people they steal from the truth die in their sins.

Lord, have mercy.

-Ray

Rob Willmann

The whole idea that McLaren has of a Greco-Roman "god" is not new. The emergent church has been leveling this accusation at us Christians for a while, but it simply isn't true.

Doug Pagitt has the same problem. He consistently says that biblical Christians are "Platonic dualists."

Actually, I thought Francis Schaeffer addressed this issue years ago when he wrote about the need for a biblical worldview and seeing the "true truth" that exists in God the Son, Jesus Christ.

James

McLaren is on to something.

If the evangelicals' "God" is the actual God, that God cannot be worshiped and cannot be loved, because that God displays the kind of characteristics that we would find nothing short of revolting in another human being.

If someone both (a) claimed to love his or her children, and (b) would willingly condemn his or her children to eternal suffering simply for not knowing that person's proper name, we would find that to be an absurd statement. Love is incompatible with the evangelicals' "God."

If the evangelicals' capricious, petty thug of a "God" is the "God" that's out there, then there is no reason other than abject fear of the alternative consequences to worship that "God," and no reason whatsoever to love that "God." Such a "God" could not be reasonably described as moral, perfect, loving, or holy - just powerful and feckless. I want no part of any "God" that meets that description.

James J. Fire

Extremely good articles here, I am hooked!
I would VERY much like to link this to my blog as posted below under email address, but also my other blog The RED PILL Consortium (www.theredpillconsortium.blogspot.com; there is another web site that I write for, but as I co-author that site with another, I will have to confirm with her before we can post a link there).
Regarding the previous article re: political religion and 'red-ness' its interesting to note that in Germany under their NAtional ZocIalism (NAZI) they had a national, political religion under which all other religions would be absorbed to the point of being unrecognizable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
Today we see an amalgamization of the infamous tripod - globalist poltics, religion and economy. Socialism has NEVER befriended Christianity, the Bible or the Person of Jesus Christ as it DEMANDS to be the Ultimate Authority, bar none! Christians must WAKE UP and prepare spiritually for what's coming. We must regain biblical literacy, and even more so: an intimate, growing, vital relationship on a daily walk, with the LORD Jesus Christ. May God bless, encourage, empower and inspire us all to love Him wholly w/o any reservations~!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

October 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

A Little Leaven

Support This Site

Follow Me on Twitter

  • Twitter

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter