fundamentalists don't read the Bible

[tclouie]

Originally posted by JThunder *
** As for the Sermon on the Mount, entire books have been written about those passages.*

I don’t doubt that there are many Christian books about the Sermon on the Mount. Can you name one that’s written from a fundamentalist viewpoint? For that matter, since you used your own church as an example, is it considered a fundamentalist church?

** “Fundamentalists” teach that you are saved by grace through faith, not by faith itself. **

The difference being…?

** As for these other statements by Jesus, can you provide us with the exact text in question? Let us examine them in their context, as any true scholar should. **

O.K., here’s a bunch of passages showing actions speak louder than words:

(page found at random!)
Matthew 19:21
“Jesus said to him, ‘If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven; then come and follow me.’”

Luke 6:32-36
“If you love only the people who love you, why should you receive a blessing? Even sinners love those who love them! And if you do good only to those who do good to you, why should you receive a blessing? Even sinners do that! And if you lend only to those from whom you hope to get it back, why should you receive a blessing? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount! No! Love your enemies and do good to them; lend and expect nothing back. You will then have a great reward, and you will be children of the Most High God. For he is good to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful just as your Father is merciful.”

Matthew 5:6-7
“Happy are those whose greatest desire is to do what God requires; God will satisfy them fully! Happy are those who are merciful to others; God will be merciful to them!”

Matthew 5:9
“Happy are those who work for peace; God will call them his children!”

And let’s not forget James 2:14-17 (thanks Guinastasia!!!)
“My friends, what good is it for one of you to say that you have faith if your actions do not prove it? Can that faith save you? Suppose there are brothers and sisters who need clothes and don’t have enough to eat. What good is there in your saying to them, ‘God bless you! Keep warm and eat well!’ – if you don’t give them the necessities of life? So it is with faith: if it is alone and includes no actions, it is dead.”

Seems pretty clear to me!

I only know of a few fundamentalists who have given away their wealth to the poor. Actually, when I hear about someone doing that, it’s usually the radical Catholics. Rev. Schuller’s gospel of wealth just doesn’t fit in here. Neither does capitalism or Republicanism.

** …one could simply surmise that the New American translation got it wrong [about the “camel” passage]. **

Ummmm…could have got it wrong??? That means exactly nothing in Great Debates. My New Testament is the “Convoy of Hope” version, published by the American Bible Society (New York, 1992) and translated from the Third Edition of the UBS Greek New Testament (1983). In this edition, wherever there is different wording in the variant Greek texts, or wherever the original Greek can have several different meanings, there is a footnote of explanation.

BUT… there is NO footnote for the “camel” parable! It is still a friggin’ camel! If you have any special information that this translation is inaccurate, or if you know of a more accurate version, please tell me.

** FTR, fundamentalists quote that passage [about the camel] fairly often, so it’s clear to me that you’re levelling a hasty accusation. **

Please cite an example of a fundamentalist quoting that, either in a sermon or a text source.

** Either way, it’s speaks of a difficult act, made possible only through God. **

Yes, the camel can get through the needle IF you take the difficult step of selling your possessions and giving the money to the poor. (And that is very much in context, because the “sell your possessions” command immediately precedes the camel parable.) How many rich fundamentalists do that?

** Other have already addressed your objection [about public prayer] quite well. **

Not in this thread they haven’t. If you know of a good argument, use it.

**The passage does NOT forbing public prayer or displays of piety. That should be immediately obvious. **

sighhhh OK, I’ve already posted this, but I guess I’ll cramp my fingers again…
Matthew 6:6
(snipping criticism of hypocrites publicly praying) “But when you pray, go to your room, close the door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what you do in private, will reward you.”

Now, THAT is immediately obvious!!!

** This is one point on which both Catholics and Protestants agree. **

Of course Catholic and Protestant churches claim that passage doesn’t really say what it says! Their very existence depends on it!!!

*Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone *
** First of all, there is NO indication that Paul and Timothy approved of baptism for the dead. In fact, the text quotes them as asking, “Why are THOSE people being baptized for the dead?” (emphasis mine). **

Man oh man, once again I have to re-type something to point out the obvious…
1 Corinthians 15:29
“Now, what about those people who are baptized for the dead? What do they hope to accomplish? If it is true, as some claim, that the dead are not raised to life, why are those people being baptized for the dead?”

So you truncated the passage to make it appear out of context. Read it again. Paul is making a positive logical relationship between life after death (a basic Christian belief) and baptism for the dead. Therefore, he not only approves of the practice, he uses it as an example to prove his faith!

**Second, even if they did, we all know that baptism is not the same thing as prayer. **

But it is still a Christian sacrament, being performed for the sake of dead people. Why would people do it if the fate of those souls were already decided? My basic point was, the fundamentalists get it wrong with their insistence on the “very last second profession of faith”.

One possible reason for the lack of more overt references to prayer for the dead in both Testaments is that the Apostles simply took the practice for granted. Despite there being only one reference in the OT (2 Maccabees 12:42-45), the Jews definitely DO pray for the dead to this day (minyans). And the Apostles were Jews! It’s possible they didn’t feel the need to make a more detailed teaching about it, since early Christians and Jews did it all the time. They sure as hell didn’t prohibit it, and old Paul was really strict. He referred approvingly to the practice, therefore the dead still have a shot at salvation.

**Third, there is nothing which indicates that Paul and company prayed to Onesiphorous. **

Of course they weren’t praying TO him!!! Jeez.

While Paul did say “May the Lord grant him his mercy on that Day!” that is obviously a far cry from actually praying for him.

Sounds like a prayer to me. If not, then what’s the difference between prayer and simple expression of desire? The difference is this: an Apostle would not take the Lord’s name in vain. It’s a prayer.

Remember, louie, you said that the Bible commands us to pray for the dead.

sigh Nope. Read my OP again. I didn’t say “command,” I said “call for”. And you even bolded the word I didn’t use! If you’re going to split hairs, split them accurately. Don’t misquote me.

**
And yet in the OP, you said that the Bible clearly commands us to pray for the dead, and castigated fundamentalists for not reading this alleged (and hitherto unsunbstantiated) command.**

Second time in two posts that you have misattributed something to me (and, very sure in your error, you bolded it again!).

Either I am winning this debate handily, cites, quotes and all, or I am arguing with Sophists. I keep typing and re-typing the same, plain, clear, nose-on-your-face quotes, and it doesn’t seem to matter.

[Mangetout]

tclouie: I think if we read those excerpts from Matthew 6 in context, it becomes quite clear that Jesus is primarily talking about attitude and motive:

Matthew 6:
1 "Be careful not to do your acts of righteousness' before men, **to be seen by them**. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, **to be honored by men**. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners **to be seen by men**. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 "This, then, is how you should pray: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. [1] ’
14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
16 "When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face,
18 so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

If Jesus was proposing an outright ban on any kind of praying when witnesses are present, then we have a problem with this passage:

John 17:
After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you”.

and a huge problem with this one:

John 11:
41 So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me.
42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”

[kniz]

Originally posted by JThunder *
**
If someone says “We did this,” then the statement is descriptive. If he says “You must do this!” then it becomes prescriptive. The difference is crisp and clear.*

Why does this seem like a description of the old adage "Do as I say, and not as I do."

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by kniz *
**

Why does this seem like a description of the old adage “Do as I say, and not as I do.” **

Not the same thing. Your re-phrasing contains an implicit prohibition against that action, which is nowhere implied by the previous statements.

[Lauralee]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**Um, that would be it then-Maccabees isn’t in the Protestant Bible-or is it?

Polycarp is a mod over at the Pizza Parlor. I think his judgment would be accurate. **

In case the question wasn’t answered before - no it’s not. But it is a good read.

And if it was answered and I missed it - sorry, got caught up in all the off topicness.

[JThunder]

BTW, just in case it wasn’t perfectly clear – a descriptive statement such as “We do this” or “The Apostles did this” does nothing to imply that others should not do likewise. Maybe they should, or maybe they shouldn’t, depending on their circumstances and level of authority. Or maybe the act is morally neutral. Either way, this clearly should not be construed as saying “Do as we say, not as we do.”

[Johanna]

This site brings out the part of the Gospels that the Fundamentalists don’t tell you about:

Liberals like Christ - Where Jesus’s teaching is championed over that of the religious right

[Guinastasia]

May I ask why Macabees isn’t in the Protestant Bible? I knew already that it wasn’t, but still, it is confusing as to WHY it’s not included.

[jayjay]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**May I ask why Macabees isn’t in the Protestant Bible? I knew already that it wasn’t, but still, it is confusing as to WHY it’s not included. **

Brief history of the various Biblical Canons

Basically, St. Jerome used a popularized version of the Hebrew scriptures to prepare the Old Testament of the Latin Vulgate translation. The popularized version contained several “questionable” books which the contemporary official Tanakh did not include. With time, the Catholic councils more or less set Jerome’s translation as the official Canon, with the questionable books included.

When Luther did his thing, he went back to the official Tanakh to translate the Bible into German, cutting out those questionable books. So the Protestant Canon is shorter than the Roman Catholic Canon, which is shorter than the Eastern Orthodox Canon (which includes III and IV Maccabees, apparently).

Thank you, btw, Guin, for asking that…I did not know that the Eastern Orthodox Bible differed from the Roman Catholic before I looked this up. I learn something new every day.

jayjay

[Briny_Deep]

Jumping in here:

*Originally posted by tclouie *
Matthew 19:21
“Jesus said to him, ‘If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven; then come and follow me.’”

I only know of a few fundamentalists who have given away their wealth to the poor. Actually, when I hear about someone doing that, it’s usually the radical Catholics. Rev. Schuller’s gospel of wealth just doesn’t fit in here. Neither does capitalism or Republicanism.

I asked a very similar question, I think in one of the lost threads, and was answered by Polycarp, something like this: Jesus’ instructions were to that particular man, who had asked what he had to do to be saved. Jesus prescribed the correct treatment for that man. He was not necessarily commanding all people to go to that extreme. Jesus prescribed other specific treatments for specific individuals - all the treatments don’t necessarily apply to all of us.

BUT… there is NO footnote for the “camel” parable! It is still a friggin’ camel! If you have any special information that this translation is inaccurate, or if you know of a more accurate version, please tell me.

Please cite an example of a fundamentalist quoting that, either in a sermon or a text source.

Not a cite, but a personal anecdote: my late grandfather, a Church of Christ preacher, preached an entire sermon once about how it was harder for a rich man to go through the eye of a needle, than for a camel to get into heaven. (Rimshot) True story. He never lived it down. But he preached the sermon correctly on many other occasions. I think you’re offbase generally, thinking that a lot of fundamentalists avoid big chunks of the Bible out of hypocricy. Most fundies I know, read the Bible constantly, all of it. But I may not know any more fundamentalists than you do, and neither of us knows anything like most of them.

[Briny_Deep]

There is another interpretation of the camel story, anyway. Would someone who knows it, post it here? It has to do with the “eye of the needle” being a specific passageway, which camels had to stoop down and unload to get through. The reference was generally known to Jesus’ listeners.

[Briny_Deep]

Wait, it’s already been mentioned in this thread, and linked to: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mrichman.html. Sorry.

[JubilationTCornpone]

tclouie previously insisted that so-called fundamentalists never quote from Matthew, Mark or Luke. We are about to see otherwise.

*Originally posted by tclouie *
**I don’t doubt that there are many Christian books about the Sermon on the Mount. Can you name one that’s written from a fundamentalist viewpoint? **

There are quite a number such books. On amazon.com, for example, you can find books by Kay Arthur, J.R.W. Stott, Oswald Chambers, Bill Hybels and Dwight Pentecost, to name just a few . There are also books on classic sermons by Martin Luther and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, both of whom are classic evangelicals. I have also heard radio sermons on this topic from John MacArthur, Chuck Smith and Greg Laurie, among others.

Also, I was in a tiny fundamentalist-run bookstore yesterday, where I counted no less than ten commentaries on Matthew, Mark and/or Luke – and this was in a tiny, small-town store in a small stripmall! That sum doesn’t even cover the number of books there which quoted or otherwise referenced these particular gospels. This clearly demonstrates the foolishness of saying that fundamentalits “never” reference the Synoptic gospels.

There are also numerous fundamentalist references on the WWW which disprove your hasty accusation. Our Daily Bread, for example, is an extremely popular devotional series which frequently references the Synoptic gospels. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship offers several on-line Bible studies on both Matthew and Luke. Campus Crusade For Christ, Stand to Reason, Focus on the Family, Alpha and Omega Ministries and The Berean Call all frequently quote all four gospels – and that’s just off the top of my head!

tclouie, your accusation isn’t just demonstrably false. It is also clearly a reckless extrapolation based on an obviously limited set of experience – and, I suspect, faulty recollections as well. This kind of reckless “scholarship” (if we should dignify it with that term) is patently ridiculous, intellectually dishonest and just plain sloppy. Unfortunately, and with all due respect, this kind of sloppy thinking is evident throughout your postings, as exposed by the various responses to the aforementioned posts.

[JubilationTCornpone]

tclouie previously insisted that so-called fundamentalists never quote from Matthew, Mark or Luke. We are about to see otherwise.

*Originally posted by tclouie *
**I don’t doubt that there are many Christian books about the Sermon on the Mount. Can you name one that’s written from a fundamentalist viewpoint? **

There are quite a number such books. On amazon.com, for example, you can find books by Kay Arthur, J.R.W. Stott, Oswald Chambers, Bill Hybels and Dwight Pentecost, to name just a few . There are also books on classic sermons by Martin Luther and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, both of whom are classic evangelicals. I have also heard radio sermons on this topic from John MacArthur, Chuck Smith and Greg Laurie, among others.

Also, I was in a tiny fundamentalist-run bookstore yesterday, where I counted no less than ten commentaries on Matthew, Mark and/or Luke – and this was in a tiny, small-town store in a small stripmall! That sum doesn’t even cover the number of books there which quoted or otherwise referenced these particular gospels. This clearly demonstrates the foolishness of saying that fundamentalits “never” reference the Synoptic gospels.

There are also numerous fundamentalist references on the WWW which disprove your hasty accusation. Our Daily Bread, for example, is an extremely popular devotional series which frequently references the Synoptic gospels. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship offers several on-line Bible studies on both Matthew and Luke. Campus Crusade For Christ, Stand to Reason, Focus on the Family, Alpha and Omega Ministries and The Berean Call all frequently quote all four gospels – and that’s just off the top of my head!

tclouie, your accusation isn’t just demonstrably false. It is also clearly a reckless extrapolation based on an obviously limited set of experience – and, I suspect, faulty recollections as well. This kind of reckless “scholarship” (if we should dignify it with that term) is patently ridiculous, intellectually dishonest and just plain sloppy. Unfortunately, and with all due respect, this kind of sloppy thinking is evident throughout your postings, as exposed by the various responses to the aforementioned posts.

[JubilationTCornpone]

tclouie previously insisted that so-called fundamentalists never quote from Matthew, Mark or Luke. We are about to see otherwise.

*Originally posted by tclouie *
**I don’t doubt that there are many Christian books about the Sermon on the Mount. Can you name one that’s written from a fundamentalist viewpoint? **

There are quite a number such books. On amazon.com, for example, you can find books by Kay Arthur, J.R.W. Stott, Oswald Chambers, Bill Hybels and Dwight Pentecost, to name just a few . There are also books on classic sermons by Martin Luther and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, both of whom are classic evangelicals. I have also heard radio sermons on this topic from John MacArthur, Chuck Smith and Greg Laurie, among others.

Also, I was in a tiny fundamentalist-run bookstore yesterday, where I counted no less than ten commentaries on Matthew, Mark and/or Luke – and this was in a tiny, small-town store in a small stripmall! That sum doesn’t even cover the number of books there which quoted or otherwise referenced these particular gospels. This clearly demonstrates the foolishness of saying that fundamentalits “never” reference the Synoptic gospels.

There are also numerous fundamentalist references on the WWW which disprove your hasty accusation. Our Daily Bread, for example, is an extremely popular devotional series which frequently references the Synoptic gospels. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship offers several on-line Bible studies on both Matthew and Luke. Campus Crusade For Christ, Stand to Reason, Focus on the Family, Alpha and Omega Ministries and The Berean Call all frequently quote all four gospels – and that’s just off the top of my head!

tclouie, your accusation isn’t just demonstrably false. It is also clearly a reckless extrapolation based on an obviously limited set of experience – and, I suspect, faulty recollections as well. This kind of reckless “scholarship” (if we should dignify it with that term) is patently ridiculous, intellectually dishonest and just plain sloppy. Unfortunately, and with all due respect, this kind of sloppy thinking is evident throughout your postings, as exposed by the various responses to the aforementioned posts.

[JubilationTCornpone]

I’m deeply sorry about the triple-post, folks. This Internet connection of mine has been very flaky as of late.

[tclouie]

*Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone *
** tclouie, your accusation isn’t just demonstrably false. It is also clearly a reckless extrapolation based on an obviously limited set of experience – and, I suspect, faulty recollections as well. This kind of reckless “scholarship” (if we should dignify it with that term) is patently ridiculous, intellectually dishonest and just plain sloppy. Unfortunately, and with all due respect, this kind of sloppy thinking is evident throughout your postings, as exposed by the various responses to the aforementioned posts. **

[sarcasm]Well, at least I didn’t misquote you, or substitute the words “pray to” for “pray for”. [/sarcasm]

OK, OK, you did your homework this time. This post was much better than your first post, which left you wide open for rebuttal.

Since you have proven that fundamentalists do read and talk about the Gospels and the Sermon on the Mount, I wish these fundamentalists would get the word out to the front-line troops who do all the evangelizing to the unbelievers. They are the ones who tell perfect strangers, either orally or in the tracts they hand out, “you’re going to hell if they don’t believe what we believe.” THEY are the ones who most certainly DO quote the letters of Paul instead of the Sermon on the Mount or the Gospels, and they apparently have no use for those authors you mentioned.

My most frequent contact with fundamentalists is with them; in fact, most non-fundamentalists’ experience with fundamentalism is with them. If fundamentalists truly are scholarly and respectful people, then their evangelists are doing them no credit. They give everybody (like me) the impresion that fundamentalism is intolerant, intrusive and hateful. Fundamentalists who are none of these things ought to give these people the slapdown and tell them, “Hey, the ‘fear’ and ‘hell’ stuff isn’t working, you’re making people avoid us.”

Of course, living in Southern California, I only have to deal with fundamentalism occasionally. SDMB members from other parts of the country may be able to post stories about how religious intolerance has permeated their families, their relationships, their work and their daily lives. I have a kind of unspoken “truce” going with my own fundamentalist relatives. They don’t completely forbear from talking about their beliefs, of course, but they try to be polite about it (lately).

You seem to be justifiably offended that I extrapolated from front-line fundamentalists to all fundamentalists. I plead guilty to bias and generalization. My OP comes from years of perusal of the tracts I have been given. (Yes, I often read them before throwing them away.)

Now, about this “grace through faith” business…

[alter]

I think that is referring to the fact that if there is no life after death,
then why is there any reason for us to continue praying like those that have already prayed and died.

In other words, we continue to have the faith that the dead had, and pray “for them” (taking their place while we are alive)

It does’n mean that we pray “for those that have died”.

[alter]

I think Jesus was just getting the point of His story accros to His
apostles.
That it is hard for a man that trust in his riches to get to heaven.
We must be willing to put our trust in God. that’s what He wants.
For safety reasons, the gates to enter the city were closed as night time drew near and would not be opened till the next morning. So if a travler didn’t make it to the city before the main gate was closed, he had to enter a small opening that only one animal could get through at a time. This assured the city that they wouldn’t be over ran by a large number of enemies by entering at the same time. It would give the city time to defend themselves against the intruders.
If the camel was packed with any cargo, the owner had to remove all the excess from the camel so it could hunch down and still verily make it through the small opening.
That’s why the opening was called the “eye of the needle”.

[tomndebb]

As has already been addressed by the Straight Dope© Staff in What’s the meaning of Jesus’ teaching about the camel going through the eye of a needle?, the “needle” was most probably a common sewing needle and the camel was a high-backed critter familiar to the audience as the tallest animal they would likely have seen. No (historically unattested) gates or mistranslated ropes need apply.