Passages in the New Testament that mention the Word are often premised to refer to the whole Bible, such that the Bible itself raises a truth claim. But I doubt that any of the writers at the time was writing with an awareness of inclusion in God's Word, so I find this quite far-fetched. Didn't they just refer to the Old Testament, and Jesus as the Word manifesting in man?
How come so many so-called Christians do not seem to live differently from the world, in acts of love as the bible says? How is there so much disunity in our churches? Why are there miracles by people like Bruno Gröning who do not focus on Jesus yet still seem to bring people to God?
Interpretation
Today's churches tend to be self-serving: Their main focus is not to spread God's love, but to entertain their own community. One example are healing services, which have no precedent in the bible: We are spiritually blessed but the bible also calls for suffering in this world - the Apostles were not free of sickness either - and are promised redemption in heaven. All healings, maybe even all miracles in the bible occurred (feel free to correct me):
- spontaneously
- among non-Christians
- to affirm preaching of the gospel
This ties in with calling on the Spirit, which has no precedent in the bible: It is always the Spirit moving through somebody, not we, the vehicle, demanding the Spirit to talk to us or perform miracles. Neither is there a teaching about a reception of the Spirit separate from the rebirth in water and spirit with baptism.
On the other hand, many conservatives claim that gifts of the Holy Spirit like healings and speaking in tongues were meant for the early church and faded - I cannot find a confirmation for that either. It is true that these are often misused as mentioned above, but I see no issue with them occurring in their biblical use today.
Living Biblically
1.Joh 3, 6 says that who abides by God does not sin, and who sins does not know him. This article prefers to add words in the translation to "[bring] out John’s meaning clearly", which does not match the original text - unless somebody who knows greek can explain nuances in the original text I might be missing. The matter of fact is that John also says in 1, 8 that claiming sinlessness is deception. Taken together, this would mean that none of us is in God or born of God (5, 18).
Which leads to another question: What does it mean to be in Jesus? The Spirit living in us, calling us to the father, received by the baptism, is clear. But us being in Jesus to me sounds rather unpersonal, like 1. John 1 saying that God is light.
And what about the passages that approve of slavery and corporal punishment? As a sentence for sinning for public humiliation it seems fine, because as a form of repentance the person can then be reintegrated into society, unlike what typically happens to people in prison today. But after reading about prosperous tribal societies like the Pirahan and Yequana, which do not distinguish between kids and adults, where every weaned member of society is equal, carrying full responsibility for their own life, I have a very different view of children. It made me wonder whether discipline became necessary because of our estrangement from natural ways, indicating that the bible's commandments are cultural not holy.
Christian values are supposedly at the heart of the abolitionist movement, but the bible does not support that. It talks of masters treating their servants justly (Col 4, 1), but also of servants submitting to their masters even if they are unjust (1. Peter 2, 18), unless the master maims them (Ex 21, 26f). I am not saying I support slavery, but if we want to live by the bible, we should take its words seriously.
And sometimes I am wondering if I can do that for the bible as a whole.