Literal Interpretation of the Bible

[Meatros]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by badchad *
**Meatros:

The actual “words” of Jesus? AFAIK Jesus didn’t write any of the bible. I don’t think the gospel writers intentionally lied, they might have been mistaken on a few things, I’m not disagreeing with that.

*Originally posted by badchad *
**Your helping to make my point. Nobody I have heard of said Jesus wrote down anything, though his witnesses are suppsed to have been inerrant. I know you don’t believe that but if you don’t go by the supposed actual words of Jesus (the red stuff is supposed to be direct quotes) then you have nothing to go on. Again this is the whole point of my thread. **

So because his witnesses aren’t inerrant, they are wrong on everything?

And please, I realize Jesus asked for more, but back it up, put down the scripture you are referring to.

*Originally posted by badchad *
**Considering it’s your religion I would think you would be well familiar with what he had to say but people just don’t want to read the classics anymore:). **

Go ahead and misconstrue what I said. I was looking to see if you had any idea what you were talking about or if you were parroting a website.

quote:

*Originally posted by badchad
However the figurative christains in my opinion are every bit as unreasonable as the literalists. All they have done is define their beliefs in such a way that it is no longer subject to scientific scrutany.

Tell me how can faith be scientific? I’m not asking you to believe what I believe, nor am I trying to put it down anyone’s throats. God can neither be proved or disproved, unless you have some astonishing new proof.

*Originally posted by badchad *
**I don’t know if faith can be scientific but it can easily be tested within the wording of Jesus. By the way I don’t know who told you god can never be proved but all he as to do is show up and say hi, walk through the forest or send some angels to smite everyone like in the old testament days. All he needs to do is make the effort. **

Nice rhetoric, I think you know what I meant. Of course God could be 100% proven if he showed up, but that would negate faith. Your condescending attitude is very annoying.

*Originally posted by badchad *
**I can easily test the scientifically the literal word of the bible. The bible says ask for anything in the name of the lord and you will get it. I can show up at your place with die, we can both examine, it. You can pick 2 numbers and I’ll take the other 4. We can bet $1000 per roll. I’ll take probability on my side and you can pray in Jesus name. We can agree to 100 trials to eliminate short term chance. If you win you can donate the money to your favorite church so greed won’t be a factor. At that price I’ll cover my own air fair. So far no christian has had enough faith to put their money where their mouth is, and I’ve got a side bet that says you won’t either. **

Using faith in order to gamble? Are you serious? Once again, you seem to be missing something: If God showed up it would negate faith.

Are you actually trying to tell me that it’s wrong to have faith?

*Originally posted by badchad *
**Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. **

Wow. I don’t know how to respond to that.

The bible is not the only source I base my faith on. It’s a useful tool in my opinion, but it’s not the only tool. How is my credibility or Polycarp’s credibility an issue? It seems as though you are saying that Christians can have no credibility what-so-ever.

*Originally posted by badchad *
**[Actually I wasn’t calling your’s and Poly’s credibility into question but rather your source of info. Poly as much as said that the bible is full of untruths, yet that is where he gets much of his theology. Theology based on admitted lies is not very credible. Since you asked however, when christians talk about religious matters I tend not to be very trusting. **

Hey, I don’t expect you to trust me on religious matters. If however you ask for my opinion I will give it (usually).

quote:

Originally posted by badchad
This response is a complete crock and I know it. I’ve read the bible. I know that giving your belongings away to follow him is a fairly recurrent theme, yet he won’t do it.

The best you can do is a “recurrent theme”?

*Originally posted by badchad *
**What more do you want? **

A lot more.

quote:

Originally posted by badchad
I know that hell as eternal punishment was all about Jesus, which if you ask me is by definition unjust and unloving. What’s so god awful bad about disbelief anyway. Yet Jesus talks about hell and who goes there over and over and over in the new testiment.

I think you misunderstood Jesus, if you think that eternal punishment was what Jesus was all about.

*Originally posted by badchad *
**Hell was not used to describe a place of eternal torment until Jesus came along. In the old testiment if you died that was it. Funny as close as Moses was to god, god never mentioned eternal life in heaven or hell to him. **

I think Tomndebb handled this. Also, AFAIK, I could swear there were another few religions out there that had a place similar to hell-maybe not eternal torment though.

My belief in God does not stem from the bible. Also, I’m not using the bible to justify/prove my faith. If the bible was all lies and totally false it wouldn’t effect my belief in God in the slightest, it also wouldn’t effect the way I lived my life.

*Originally posted by badchad *
**I apologize, you are a man of reason:). **

:rolleyes:

Promoting? Watered down? Opposed?? Well aren’t you an expert on everything now.

*Originally posted by badchad *
**Christ does everything have to be spelled out to you. By posting here are you not taking the pro-god stance, and as such promoting his existance? Is your moral code not watered down from what Jesus requested? Is your faith insufficent to move mountains? Am I not opposing what I you have to say? **

Really? That’s interesting. Personally I don’t think Christ does “spell” everything out for me. By posting here I am letting my beliefs known, I certainly am not promoting " I also know that Meatros and Poly aren’t out bashing gays, teaching creationism in school, or crashing jets into buildings, or robbing my parents of ten percent of their income under the euphamism tithe." Which you seem to be saying. If I was promoting any of the above, then why would I argue against it? You are trying to brush with too broad a stroke.

It’s up to you to prove your assertion that my belief makes the above possible. You have made a HUGE slippery slope logical fallacy.

*Originally posted by badchad *
**Lets see what examples did I give, gay bashing, creationism, 9/11, and tithing. The christian god did say gays were an abomination and most of the anti-gay messages here come from christians, creationism certainly isn’t encouraged by atheists, **

Nice strawman. I disagree with your interpetation of the “Christian” God, but you already knew that. I am against all of which you are implying I support. Creationism isn’t only the domain of Christians, BTW, neither are anti-gay messages. Religion has often been an excuse to promote such behaviors, I don’t think it was the underlying cause though.

*Originally posted by badchad *
**most people won’t do a suicide attack unless there is something in it for them (in the case of 9/11 it was heaven) and tithing to the lord, in most circumstances, requires a belief that he exists. While in a true scientific stance you can’t prove anything, but I think the evidence I presented should be plainly apparent. **

The evidence is plainly apparant that religion is often a factor, I never disputed that. I would say that intolerant thinking was a more important factor.

What beliefs do you endorse? What meets with your superior stamp of approval?

*Originally posted by badchad *
**I’m an atheist if that concerns you. For clarification that means that have no belief in a god, not that their couldn’t be one. It’s just that I think the evidence in favor of the god in question is about equal to that for the werewolf question. (I stole the last line but I forget where) **

I am probably wrong, but isn’t that an agnostic?

*Originally posted by badchad *
**And for what it’s worth I really wasn’t looking for your response I wanted to hear what Polycarp would have to say. My questions in this post were rhetorical. **

I understand, but I figured I might as well answer what I thought could also relate to me.

[Polycarp]

I started out reading this exchange with interest, thinking that I might be able to spell out what I think in ways that would satisfy badchad’s criteria. Then as I read more, I have become convinced of his bad faith in argumentation – “if it’s not literally true, it must be an intentional lie” and “[my] faith, watered down as it is” – and I think I’ll just let his own fallacies lie as he’s posted them.

Badchad, Tom~ has caught you in one error, about Hell as eternal torment having been a concept started in Jesus’s time. By your own standards, then, your entire thinking as expressed in your posts must be fallacious and intentional lying. You have also misrepresented my beliefs several times with phrases such as “Poly as much as said that…” Now, a fair person would read that as your understanding of what my beliefs are. But by your standards, that must either be literally true or an intentional lie. So if I say that, e.g., “Poly as much as said that the bible is full of untruths” is a misrepresentation of what I said – are you intentionally lying about me? Or are you saying that you know better than I do what I meant by what I said?

I would have absolutely no problem in discussing calmly and rationally with you the points you seem to have problems with my thinking on – but I will not do it in a context in which you will twist anything I say into a quasi-literalist viewpoint. E.g., I’m confident that Matthew thought he was doing what God wanted him to do in searching out instances in the Tanakh that could be stretched to cover events in Jesus’s life and showing them as prophecies of Him. His4Ever would probably say that they are in fact exactly that, because Matthew was being guided by the Holy Spirit to do just what he did. I’d disagree – but I’m not calling Matthew a liar in doing so. I accept his good faith in doing what he did, for what seemed to him the best of reasons. Yet by your standards, either quoting “I have called my son out of Egypt” was intended by Moses and Hosea as a prophecy of the Messiah, despite context, or Matthew is flat-out lying in saying that it was. If you’re seriously interested in understanding why I believe what I do and how I read Scripture “seriously but not literally,” I’ll be happy to answer – but I’d like the courtesy of your accepting that I at least see my own thinking as reasonable and done with integrity, even if you don’t happen to. In short, disagree with me all you want, but don’t accuse me of “watering down” or “believing what I know are lies.” :mad:

[IzzyR]

Polycarp,

I’ve followed your exchange with badchad and have not seen any indication of him misrepresenting your views or otherwise arguing in bad faith. The way it works here is that you have control over your posts and some latitude with regards to interpretation. You do NOT get leeway over the characterization or implication of your views.

In your example, you appear to be saying that Matthew made up stories to make JC appear to be the Messiah. You’ve outlined reasons for which you do not consider this to be a “lie”. Someone else is entitled to disagree with you, and in asserting that you have said that Matthew lied, is not misrepresenting your position - they are merely arguing over the implication.

Similarly, if someone says that your position is “watered down” it is a characterization of your position, not a misrepresentation. Nothing dishonorable about it. And so on.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

badchad,
A couple of things…
First of all, virtually all of Jesus’ references to “Hell” are references to “Gehenna,” which was a real valley outside of Jerusalem. Gehenna was a garbage dump in Jesus’ time, and fires burned, more or less, perpetually there. Gehenna was also said to have been the site of human sacrifices by ancient Caananites. It was, literally, a God forsaken, unclean valley of fire. Ancient Isrealites had a fear of being consumed by fire because they they it would prevent their resurrection on Judgement day. Being “cast into Gehenna” was symbolic language. It was the worst thing that could happen to someone. It meant to be tossed out and burned like garbage. Jesus was not introducing a new idea of a place of eternal torment, but speaking symbolically about spiritual life and death.

There were pagan precedents to some idea of torment in the underworld. Greek mythology had Tantalus and Sysiphus being tortured in Hades, Zoroastrianism had a more refined notion of Heaven and Hell, but Hell as a place of eternal torment, as opposed to simply a place of annihilation, or sometimes a metaphor for death, did not really take root in Jewish tradition. It became a part of Christian tradition by way of its Greek influences, which also introduced a stronger concept of the immortality of the soul.

Jesus was not a fire and brimstone preacher, he was saying that a failure to live a compassionate life was already equivilent to death. The Aramaic rhetorical strategies of Jesus’ time also used hperbole and extreme contrasts to make its points, ergo, if you live with love and compassion, you are living in God’s domain, or “the Kingdom of Heaven.” If you live without love, you have been “cast into Gehenna.” Jesus was not unique in using this kind of rhetoric, it was fully in keeping with first century rabbinic convention.

As to the intent of Matthew, et al, in their use (or misuse) of Hebrew “prohesies…”
The gospels writers were working with very little factual source material about the their subject. The probaly had some written sayings of Jesus and perhaps a few anecdotal pericopes from oral tradition. In order to learn more about him they consulted the Hebrew scriptures. For instance, since Matthew already believed that Jesus was the Messiah, he conclude that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem. Matthew was not “lying,” he was writing what he believed must have been true. Anything in scripture which he thought was applicable to the Messiah, was, ipso facto, applicable to Jesus. We may conclude that he was mistaken, but he was not dishonest.

Does this mean that the whole book of Matthew should be discarded? Only if its literal historicity is all that matters to you. The parables of Jesus are “true” and reverberant because of what they teach. Their literal truth could not be less relevant.
It is the same with the gospels. I am a skeptical, empirical person by nature (just look at my user name) and I just can’t make that leap of faith to believe in the supernatural, but I can still read the gospels as preserving the wisdom of a great philosopher, even though I may have to view that wisdom through the imperfect and incomplete prism of other human beings.

How do I distinguish what is genuine to Jesus and what is simply authorial editorializing, or redacting, or guessing, or misunderstanding? Well, some of that can be done with textual analysis and common sense, but much of it is purely intuitive. it either strikes me as “true” or it doesn’t. Is this scientific? No, but we’re not talking about science were talking about philosophy (in my case) and faith (in the case of Poly and Meatros). These are not matters which can be subjected to a test, one is either intuitively satisfied or one is not. I don’t have a problem with cherry picking the Bible. Pick what you like and dump what you don’t like. What’s wrong with that?

[Soup_du_jour]

badchad, I just have one question.

Do you consider symbolism, myth, or allegory “lies”? If I say that I am going to wake up at 8:00 tomorrow, and instead I wake up at 8:05, does that make me a liar?

In my opinion, your definition of “lies” is needlessly broad. “Lies” carries with it a malicious connotation with me, and with most, I believe.

Thus, my main question is this. What constitutes a “lie?” Anything that is not literally true? Anything that cannot be scientifically proven?

Lie is the opposite of truth. Fact is the opposite of fiction. Lie is not the opposite of fact.

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by badchad *
However the figurative christains in my opinion are every bit as unreasonable as the literalists. All they have done is define their beliefs in such a way that it is no longer subject to scientific scrutany. As Carl Popper would say, if it can’t be tested, it can’t be disproved and as such it’s worthless. Still they want to hold onto their superstitions. However, what do they base their beliefs on? The bible of course…

No ‘of course’ about it, I’m afraid.

[badchad]

Meatros:

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by badchad
Your helping to make my point. Nobody I have heard of said Jesus wrote down anything, though his witnesses are suppsed to have been inerrant. I know you don’t believe that but if you don’t go by the supposed actual words of Jesus (the red stuff is supposed to be direct quotes) then you have nothing to go on. Again this is the whole point of my thread.

So because his witnesses aren’t inerrant, they are wrong on everything?

Considering the witnesses do contradict on some stories I think it is safe to say they are not 100 percent right (though I know some still will). If the scriptures are mostly correct then liberal christians should probably clean up their lives as they are likely falling far short of Christ’s expectations. If all the supernatural stuff is fabricated feel free to live as you chose because Jesus as no more claim to a deity status than Friedrich Nietzsche. Philosophy wise if the gospels are only 50 percent correct on a good way to live your life then you may as well flip a coin as to how you should act regarding each mentioned topic, regardless whether Jesus was god or not.

This isn’t a big issue I had with you, but rather Polycarp as he made the statements that the gospel writers were fabricating things. Though he uses language that allows him to maintain that these fabrications were still sacred or something like that.

Go ahead and misconstrue what I said. I was looking to see if you had any idea what you were talking about or if you were parroting a website.

Fair enough.

Nice rhetoric, I think you know what I meant. Of course God could be 100% proven if he showed up, but that would negate faith.

I don’t mean to sound condesending with this but I think you have been sold a bill of goods. God used to show up all the time in the bible. Among other things to talk to Moses, part seas, get pissed about a golden calf, do miracles and rise from the dead. None of this was considered against the rules, and was often intended to save people (though only his favorites) and there was not problem with negating his faith. Jesus said (supposidly) to believe in him for the works that he did, indicating that his miracles were supposed to bring people to god. Nowhere is god showing up a negation of faith. The only problem is today god never shows up anymore, and without a nifty slogan like the negation of faith, (others have said it would remove our free will) people might actually start to think this religion stuff is a bunch of bologna, which of course it is:).

Your condescending attitude is very annoying.

I’m sorry, think about how your posts probably come off when you explain evolution to a YEC. Perspective is everything.

Using faith in order to gamble? Are you serious? Once again, you seem to be missing something:

Jesus said (allegedly) that if you asked for “any thing” in his name he would do it for you (John 14:14). He did not say anything but gambling, and I did state that you could give your winnings to charity (I won’t, hehe). So Yes I am serious, and yes I will put my money where my mouth is. Besides the bible doesn’t say anything bad about gambling anyway, and a wager is the surest most objective test of faith that I know of.

*If God showed up it would negate faith.[i/]

If Jesus didn’t want you to ask he shouldn’t have told you to. And think about that statement. If I had strong probability in my favor, and Jesus answered your prayer as such that you broke my bank, don’t you think that would increase your faith and the faith of any onlookers rather than negate it?

---

Originally posted by badchad
I know that hell as eternal punishment was all about Jesus, which if you ask me is by definition unjust and unloving. What’s so god awful bad about disbelief anyway. Yet Jesus talks about hell and who goes there over and over and over in the new testiment.

I think Tomndebb handled this. Also, AFAIK, I could swear there were another few religions out there that had a place similar to hell-maybe not eternal torment though.

I remember seeing in a Cecil question of the day that Christianisty stole the idea from the Zoroastrians. I haven’t read Tomndebb’s sources as they are not in the bible I read (KJV), so I can’t verify or deny what he said, as such I am inclined to believe him. However, regardless I don’t think it takes anything away from the point I was trying to get across, as Jesus repeated spoke of casting people into hellfire, while preaching love, which I think is pretty contradictory. The old testament god just smote ya, which while not loving, is far preferable.

---

Originally posted by badchad
I’m an atheist if that concerns you. For clarification that means that have no belief in a god, not that their couldn’t be one. It’s just that I think the evidence in favor of the god in question is about equal to that for the werewolf question. (I stole the last line but I forget where)

I am probably wrong, but isn’t that an agnostic?

Among atheist literature, the philosophers often overlap thier definitions. Bertrand Russel did a write up on his atheism/agnosticism, which I read but don’t have on hand. The gyst was that if he were among philosophers he would call himself an agnostic as he has no proof that some god does not exist. However he said he had equal evidence that Zeus existed as did the the christian god and did not beleive in either, so to laymen he said he would be more accurately described as an atheist and that is what he calls himself. Most of the ways I have seen atheists self define their term is with: “theism” = belief in one or more gods, while the “a” on front means “without” belief in such gods. I think this definition is accurate, descriptive and is the one I use for myself. As such I can say I don’t believe in gods or leprechauns, without haveing to go the the trouble to prove they don’t exist. We’ll say it’s not that we believe in something, but that we don’t believe in something.

cr

[Polycarp]

This isn’t a big issue I had with you, but rather Polycarp as he made the statements that the gospel writers were fabricating things. Though he uses language that allows him to maintain that these fabrications were still sacred or something like that.

Kindly substantiate this, by demonstrating where I used the word “fabricate.” Or retract it. :mad:

[badchad]

Polycarp:

• I started out reading this exchange with interest, thinking that I might be able to spell out what I think in ways that would satisfy badchad’s criteria. Then as I read more, I have become convinced of his bad faith in argumentation – “if it’s not literally true, it must be an intentional lie” and “[my] faith, watered down as it is” – and I think I’ll just let his own fallacies lie as he’s posted them.*

Polycarp, if my questions are too tough for you how about you just admit it rather than wimping out like this. You know good and well if you had good answers you would love to make me look bad but you also know there is no talking your way out of this one. I think the only reason your not ansering is that you know it will make you face truths that your not ready for. If not show me I’m wrong.

chad, Tom~ has caught you in one error

As much as I’m relying on memory for this thread, I’m surprised it’s only one.

About Hell as eternal torment having been a concept started in Jesus’s time. By your own standards, then, your entire thinking as expressed in your posts must be fallacious and intentional lying.

Unlike the gospel writers I’m here in real time and if you think I lied intentionally on the above topic that’s your privilege but I think you know deep inside that my “thinking” is correct and it has you scared. In this matter I think you are smart enough to know but not hard enough to handle it.

*You have also misrepresented my beliefs several times with phrases such as “Poly as much as said that…”

No I didn’t and I asked you to further clarify your position.

But by your standards, that must either be literally true or an intentional lie.

That’s not my standard.

So if I say that, e.g., “Poly as much as said that the bible is full of untruths” is a misrepresentation of what I said – are you intentionally lying about me? Or are you saying that you know better than I do what I meant by what I said?

A third option is that you are lying or mistaken when you say I misrepresented you. Hard as it may be for you to believe I think in this instance your latter question is correct. Now instead of asking me questions how about you go back to my original responses to you and answer some.

I would have absolutely no problem in discussing calmly and rationally with you the points you seem to have problems with my thinking on – but I will not do it in a context in which you will twist anything I say into a quasi-literalist viewpoint. E.g., I’m confident that Matthew thought he was doing what God wanted him to do in searching out instances in the Tanakh that could be stretched to cover events in Jesus’s life and showing them as prophecies of Him.

Why use the euphamism “stretched,” why not just say he lied a little or a lot? Isn’t that descriptive? For example when Matthew said that Jesus was called Emmanuel, while as far as we know he was always called Jesus, isn’t this a bald faced lie? Whether he thought god wanted him to lie or not is a separate subject.

I’m not calling Matthew a liar in doing so.

Well you should be:).

I accept his good faith in doing what he did, for what seemed to him the best of reasons.

That is fine for you but a lie for good reasons is still a lie. If I say I like your haircult when I don’t. I am lying even if I am doing so for the good reason of saving your feelings. This is grade school english and I think you know it.

If you’re seriously interested in understanding why I believe what I do and how I read Scripture “seriously but not literally,” I’ll be happy to answer – but I’d like the courtesy of your accepting that I at least see my own thinking as reasonable and done with integrity, even if you don’t happen to.

In this case I don’t think you see your thinking as reasonable, I think that is why you are hiding behind euphemisms. I’m just trying to get you to break out of this denial.

In short, disagree with me all you want, but don’t accuse me of “watering down” or “believing what I know are lies.”

You made the comments about Matthew and the weasel and that stuff about walking on water not I. I just want you to own up to your own implications.

So please don’t respond to this post until after you answer the questions I posted earlier.

[badchad]

Soup_du_jour

badchad, I just have one question.
Do you consider symbolism, myth, or allegory “lies”?

I don’t think symbolism or allegory lies if it provided nobody is intending that you take it literally. I think some myth may be based on fact, some on mistakes and some on lies, but after a long enough time it all gets rolled into one.

If I say that I am going to wake up at 8:00 tomorrow, and instead I wake up at 8:05, does that make me a liar?

That’s two questions thus far:). I’d say that unless you did it with the intent to deceive it would not be a lie.

In my opinion, your definition of “lies” is needlessly broad. “Lies” carries with it a malicious connotation with me, and with most, I believe.

White lies have the intent to decieve but are not malicious.

Thus, my main question is this. What constitutes a “lie?” Anything that is not literally true?

For this discussion I’ll go with the first 2 definitions in my dictionary: “a false statement made with deliberate intent to decieve” or "something intended or serving to convey a false impression.

[badchad]

Polycarp:

quote:

This isn’t a big issue I had with you, but rather Polycarp as he made the statements that the gospel writers were fabricating things. Though he uses language that allows him to maintain that these fabrications were still sacred or something like that.

Kindly substantiate this, by demonstrating where I used the word “fabricate.” Or retract it.

The above statement was a paraphrase not a quote. I even said you use different language. The quotes in question:

“Matthew was so hot on the idea of the prophesied Messiah that he would have told a story about Jesus strangling a weasel if somewhere in the Tanakh he had found a note about a king strangling a weasel that he could lift as prophecy of the Messiah, whether it fit or not.”

This is easily paraphrased into: “Matthew was so hot to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophesies, that if he found a note about a king that strangled a weasel he would have fabricated a story about Jesus strangling a weasel.”

Now I don’t give a rats behind about what Matthew’s motivations were. If he made up stories about Jesus that he knew weren’t true then he lied.

“(Mohammed, be it noted, supposedly flew to Heaven from the site of the Temple in Jerusalem; Elijah and Elisha could wave a cloak and part the Jordan, just as Joshua had done before them, and as Moses did to the Red Sea. The story of Jesus walking on the water was one-upsmanship on this; He doesn’t need to part the waters, just walk across!”

It really, really sounds like you are saying that the stories of Jesus walking on water were fabricated.

Please Poly, be a man. Stand up to your implications.

[Polycarp]

Originally posted by badchad
…but rather Polycarp as he made the statements that the gospel writers were fabricating things.

That was a direct attribution to me of words that I did not say. Put up or shut up.

Then tell me what your grade was in English literature, any level you care to pick. It’s possible to get important meaning out of material that is totally fictitious, as well as the fact that objective reportage is an ideal and not a reality. In the cases in point, I attempted to exemplify the story aspect of Scripture. I’m taking it for granted that you are not “playing anti-fundamentalist for kicks,” which is trolling – so precisely what are you trying to say.

To lie is to make an untruthful statement with intent to mislead. Every novelist in America is guilty of lying through his or her teeth under your broad brush indictment. What I have been saying is that, e.g., Matthew believed that Jesus, whom he knew to be the promised Messiah, must have been prophesied, so he went looking for lines in the Tanakh that could be tied to events in Jesus’s life, taking them out of context, and considered them the prophesies that he was looking for. The thing about the weasel was a bit of hyperbole on my part – sorry if you didn’t care for it.

If the custom in First Century Judea was to attribute speeches written by the author in the style of the person to whom attributed to persons who were known to have made speeches and whose style and teachings were known, as was the case in classical times, then for Matthew or Luke to attribute a speech to Jesus was not intentional lying to deceive – it was using a literary custom of the day. If I post “badchad said, ‘Polycarp is in denial about the falsehoods he teaches’” in today’s style, I would be lying, because you said no such thing in those words. But if I said “badchad said that Polycarp was in denial about the falsehoods that he teaches,” that would be clearly understood by everybody as a paraphrase of something you did in fact say, and not a lie. Yet both sentences have same semantic content; one directly attributes a specific statement; the other, an idea with the meaning of the specific statement. Because you did not say those words, the first is a lie, but because you did convey that idea, the second is not. The absence of quotation marks and the “that” makes all the difference in the world.

Now, what I am saying is that the depictions of Jesus in the Gospels are not biographies that would have stood up under a critical editor anxious for verbatim accuracy – because “verbatim accuracy” is an anachronism as applied to writings of the Classical era, including the Gospels. Rather, they are portraits of what each writer understood Jesus to be, in which some freedom is taken with details in order that the basic Man behind them may shine through for the reader in the way that the writer understood Him.

If that is lying, then every figure of speech used by Newton and Darwin in their writing is also an intentional lie. Kekule’s famous Ouroboros metaphor to explain the stability of aromatic chemicals is a lie. Schrodinger’s half-dead metaphorical cat is a lie.

Figures of speech are not lies. Literary conventions are not lies. The Gospels are not literal accounts, but they are not lies.

On the other hand, misrepresenting the words of another poster by misquoting him is a lie, and contrary to the rules under which we use this board.

I expect you to either demonstrate where I said explicitly that the Gospel writers were fabricating things, or retract that statement and apologize to me. I would have no problem with most people having made an erroneous paraphrase of their impression of what I did say, but it is my impression that you seem bent on misrepresenting my position and then proceeding to shoot down that misrepresentation, and I am very much peeved about it. I try never to get angry with other posters, but I find your style and attitude towards me very much contrary to the civil if heated debate that characterizes this forum. I think you’d make a very interesting person to debate against if you’d back off and try to get a handle on what it is I am saying, rather than trying to play this literalist game with my words. I find it offensive when done out of sincerity by Biblical literalists; can you imagine how much more offensive it is coming from someone out to disprove Biblical literalism and attacking my views along with them?

[badchad]

Diogenes the Cynic

A couple of things…
First of all, virtually all of Jesus’ references to “Hell” are references to “Gehenna,” which was a real valley outside of Jerusalem. Gehenna was a garbage dump in Jesus’ time, and fires burned, more or less, perpetually there. Gehenna was also said to have been the site of human sacrifices by ancient Caananites. It was, literally, a God forsaken, unclean valley of fire.

For give me but this sounds a lot like the “eye of the needle” that a camel can easier pass through than a rich man enter heaven not being a real needle but is rather a “narrow passageway” where camels must unload their bagage before passing. I don’t buy either natural explanation.

Jesus was not a fire and brimstone preacher

Matthew 25:41
Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Luke 12:5
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which AFTER he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

Matthew 18:8, 9
Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Matthew 25:46
And these shall go away into EVERLASTING punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Matthew 13:41-42
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I don’t have a problem with cherry picking the Bible. Pick what you like and dump what you don’t like. What’s wrong with that?

You could say the same thing about a tarot card reading.

[tomndebb]

If he made up stories about Jesus that he knew weren’t true then he lied.

Thus badchad, you demonstrate, (in one of multiple examples) the crime of measuring one event totally out of historical context of its occurrence. As noted earlier in the thread, the notion of creating a historical document that had to be verifiable as to historical accuracy was not even a consideration for writers of the period.

Further comments from the Britannica article cited earlier:

the biographer was entitled to treat historical personages in a manner that resembled legend.

History was to be written in a clear but solemn style, akin to fine oratory. The historian was to introduce all manner of literary embellishments but was also to stress the moral lessons of his story. At its worst this type of historiography could lead to serious misrepresentations of the past.

Among the Roman historians, Livy (died AD 17) was an important practitioner of this kind of writing, which was particularly well suited to the patriotic myths that he was trying to immortalize, of a Rome that owed its magnificent destiny to the unique virtues of its citizens and the perfection of its antique institutions. Some outstanding historians, such as Polybius (2nd century BC) and Caesar (died 44 BC), eschewed these rhetorical precepts, but in all the ancient writers an important element of literary artifice was always present. This is one of the reasons why they offend modern standards, which demand absolute accuracy in the presentation of evidence.

The historians of antiquity were much less skillful in dealing with noncontemporary history, for which they relied on older historians. Where none was to be found, they felt lost, as Livy complains in the early portions of his Roman history. The modern recourse to non-narrative sources was alien to the habits of most ancient historians. They were usually incapable of doing this successfully, just as they were ill equipped to discuss critically the sources used by the older writers.

Now, you can quibble all day over how much of what appears in Scripture figurativists should be “allowed” or “required” to interpret, accept, or reject (although your claim that Scripture is the only source for that interpretation is an error based in the literalist/sola scriptura view, and is therefore, irrelevant to the beliefs of the figurativists), however, your repeated assertion that any author who did not stick to journalistic reporting was “lying” is simply a demonstration that you are historically ignorant.

[Jodi]

BADCHAD, you seem to assume that the opposite of “all these statements are literally true” is “all these statements are lies.” Logically, that does not follow.

Take the several parables of Christ, in which he tells short stories in order to illustrate His teachings. There is no indication even within the Bible that these stories were ever intended to be taken literally. When He says "Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed . . . " (Mark 4:03), we are not required to believe there really was an actual farmer, somewhere, who scattered seed upon a path, a rocky place, among thorns, and in good ground. So what does a Bible literalist such as yourself make of the parables? (And that is what you are, asserting the Bible is is literally and entirely “a pack of lies” [an unprovable assumption] makes you as much a Biblical literalist as those who assert it is literally and entirely true.) Are they lies, or are they true? Any intellectually honest answer on your part must acknowledge that they are form of narrative that, while strictly fictional, is intended to (and does) reveal a teaching that is true (and therefore not fictional). And that sends your whole sub-text of absolutism in the matter of “what is the truth and what is a lie” right into the ol’ toilet, doesn’t it?

Obviously you have not read your bible. Try John 14, it’s by faith that you are supposed to have that genie in the bottle.

Obviously you have not read your Bible. John 14:09-14 has Jesus responding directly to Philip, and telling him – not you, Gentle Reader – that he, as one of the apostles, will be able to call upon Jesus after Jesus has left them (been put to death). He also promises that “anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing [and] even greater things than these,” but this requires absolute faith in Jesus – which few if any Christians can claim to have, not even all His disciples (remember Thomas?) – and the desire to do good works in the world in His name. That is a far cry from promising anyone a “genie in a bottle.” Maybe part of your inability to understand the teachings of Christ (literal or not) is your fundamental misunderstanding of them.

John 14: 12-14
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the father may be glorified in the son. If ye ask anything in my name I will do it.”

See above.

John 16: 23-24
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy man be full.”

Oh, let’s be intellectually rigorous enough to quote in the entirety, shall we? Since you appear to prefer King James (myself, I like the NIV), here’s the passage you’re quoting, with the important part not left out:

And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you. And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

Again, He’s talking to them (not you) and here He’s talking about then (His return) not now. Even if the bestowal of such powers is contemporaneous – have you made yourself a disciple of Christ? If not, on what basis do you demand the authority He gave to them?

Matthew 21:22
“And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.”

Again, directed specifically at the disciples (later apostles). Here is the passage in its entirety:

Early in the morning, as He was on His way back to the city, He was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the orad, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then He said to it, “may you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree whithered.
When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did hte fig tree whither so quickly?” they asked.
Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you belief you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

This passage not only requires faith, but also the absence of doubt which, as noted above, not even all the apostles could muster after the crucifiction, even when seeing Jesus with their own eyes, standing before them.

And all these passages have to do with the extension of miraculous powers to the apostles after the death of Christ, in order to spread the Word of God (as given by His Son) with proof of His holiness to be provided by the doing of miracles. How facile does your reading have to be, to take these teachings and transmute them into the promise of a wish-granting genie?

That stuff was written in red in my bible. First you call the gospel writers liars and now Jesus? Or are you just that unfamiliar with his teachings?

Not that this was directed at me, but I’m pretty familiar with the histories of the gospel writers (to the extent they are known to have any) and with Jesus Christ’s teachings. As is POLYCARP. And what I see here is that you have misrepresented them entirely and (one suspects) willfully. If so, then under your own definitions, you a liar.

[Jodi]

For give me but this sounds a lot like the “eye of the needle” that a camel can easier pass through than a rich man enter heaven not being a real needle but is rather a “narrow passageway” where camels must unload their bagage before passing. I don’t buy either natural explanation.

This is fascinating. Have you no grasp of the concept of a metaphor? How about a simile? Figure of speech? Rhetorical device? Any of these ring a bell with you? If I tell you I have a snowball’s chance of hell in winning the lottery, am I talking about a literal snowball? If not, am I a liar?

As a matter of fact, it appears the theory that the “Eye Of The Needle” was a gate through which camels had to squeeze is an apocryphal story. The explanation of this passage is the obvious one – that it is as easy for a literal camel to pass through a literal eye of a needle as it is for a literal rich man to get through the literal gates of Heaven – that is: impossible, without some miracle. So feel free to take the camel, the needle, the rich man, and the gates of heaven as absolute, literal, existing items. That doesn’t change the simile one iota – in fact, it underscores it.

Jesus flat-out tells us that in the Bible He is speaking figuratively – not literally, figuratively. So why do you find His use of figurative language so hard to grasp?

[badchad]

Polycarp:
I expect you to either demonstrate where I said explicitly that the Gospel writers were fabricating things, or retract that statement and apologize to me.

Poly, I paraphrased you. I stated it clearly at the time that I did so. Get over it.

I would have no problem with most people having made an erroneous paraphrase of their impression of what I did say, but it is my impression that you seem bent on misrepresenting my position and then proceeding to shoot down that misrepresentation, and I am very much peeved about it. I try never to get angry…

Haha, what did Jesus say about anger. I made you sin.

I find it offensive when done out of sincerity by Biblical literalists; can you imagine how much more offensive it is coming from someone out to disprove Biblical literalism and attacking my views along with them?

Read what I wrote. I am not attacking biblical literalism I am attacking biblical wishywashyness while still having complete faith that god loves you. I am attacking your views.

Your efforts to side track me on semantics will not work. I’ll repost my response where I made what I think are my most pertinant questions below so you don’t forget.

Polycarp:

Yep. In case it hasn’t come across to you, I’m not afraid of the Big Bad Meanie in the Sky.

Heck no that would be silly wouldn’t it. But of course the big fairy godmother in the sky, that’s perfectly logical (insert sarcasm here).

And I don’t hold with a literal reading of all those miracle stories, any more than I believe in the Bleeding Taco With Jesus’s Face On It.

Do you hold in the literal reading of any of those miracle stories?
If so which ones? How do you distinguish? Why do you doubt?

And if someone came along and convinced me that Jesus died dead and lies buried in an unmarked tomb outside Jerusalem, I’d still live by the rules He gave – because I’ve been on both sides of the fence, and I’m much happier knowing and loving other people, and trying to be as much help to them as I can, just as He commanded.

Do you live by all his rules? What about the unfriendly ones:

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” Matthew 10: 34-36

“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple.” Luke 14: 26

“If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” John 15: 6

You like to follow the nice one’s like below, is that correct?

“Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.” (Luke 6:30)

In fact why don’t you demonstrate how you follow Jesus by sending me a check. How much you got?

Or are these not to be taken literally? If not why do you take the “do unto others” literally?

The Jesus stories are not myth – they’re something quite different: hagiographical, polemic biography – stories about the life of a man told to illustrate a theological point (or, in this case, numerous points).

Is a “hagiographical, polemic biography” another term for a pack of lies?

Matthew was so hot on the idea of the prophesied Messiah that he would have told a story about Jesus strangling a weasel if somewhere in the Tanakh he had found a note about a king strangling a weasel that he could lift as prophecy of the Messiah, whether it fit or not.

Ok, we are in agreement. Lies it is.

All four pictured Him as a wonder-worker; that was standard for religious leaders back then. (Mohammed, be it noted, supposedly flew to Heaven from the site of the Temple in Jerusalem; Elijah and Elisha could wave a cloak and part the Jordan, just as Joshua had done before them, and as Moses did to the Red Sea. The story of Jesus walking on the water was one-upsmanship on this; He doesn’t need to part the waters, just walk across!

Whoa, back off Poly, my end of the argument was doing fine, you didn’t have to switch sides and start helping me out. Another question for you. Since the accounts of Jesus are by your own words so unreliable and why don’t you just worship some modern day humanitarian, like Bertrand Russell? For all you know this Jesus character could have been an asshole.

[badchad]

Jodi:
Not that this was directed at me, but I’m pretty familiar with the histories of the gospel writers (to the extent they are known to have any) and with Jesus Christ’s teachings. As is POLYCARP. And what I see here is that you have misrepresented them entirely and (one suspects) willfully. If so, then under your own definitions, you a liar.

No offence Jodi but as you wrote none of this was directed towards you. This was directed towards Polycarp. I have already spent more time (a lot more) than I have wanted and as such I will try to focus my responses towards him. I have no desire to try hearding 2 groups of cats at once so forgive me if I don’t respond further.

[Jodi]

No offence Jodi but as you wrote none of this was directed towards you. This was directed towards Polycarp. I have already spent more time (a lot more) than I have wanted and as such I will try to focus my responses towards him. I have no desire to try hearding 2 groups of cats at once so forgive me if I don’t respond further.

None taken, but if you want to have a one-to-one discussion in which no one else participates, perhaps you’d do better to take it to e-mail rather than posting your rather interesting views on a message board. As it is, I as a fellow poster reserve the right (and, obviously, exercise the right) to participate in whatever discussions I choose. And if I manage to refute your thesis and my refutation is ignored, do not be surprised if people take your refusal to respond to be an inability to respond. Because that’s what selective replying looks like to a lot of people. Including me.

Toodles.

[Meatros]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Meatros *
** So because his witnesses aren’t inerrant, they are wrong on everything?

*Originally posted by badchad *
**Considering the witnesses do contradict on some stories I think it is safe to say they are not 100 percent right (though I know some still will). If the scriptures are mostly correct then liberal christians should probably clean up their lives as they are likely falling far short of Christ’s expectations. If all the supernatural stuff is fabricated feel free to live as you chose because Jesus as no more claim to a deity status than Friedrich Nietzsche. Philosophy wise if the gospels are only 50 percent correct on a good way to live your life then you may as well flip a coin as to how you should act regarding each mentioned topic, regardless whether Jesus was god or not. **

You seem to be mistaking me for a literalist. I think you see what you want to see in the bible, and hey, that’s fine I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is your insistence that religion is bad (you’ve said that you think it’s wrong to have faith) and misrepresentation of my faith. I said it before and I’ll say it again, you are painting with too broad a brush.

*Originally posted by badchad *
**This isn’t a big issue I had with you, but rather Polycarp as he made the statements that the gospel writers were fabricating things. Though he uses language that allows him to maintain that these fabrications were still sacred or something like that. **

Excuse me, but when did Polycarp say this? I understand your preference for questioning Polycarp, he knows a lot more than me on the issue (heck, a lot of posters who responded here do), but frankly your attitude in discussing things with him is coming through all wrong. I think you are intentionally misrepresenting him and not discussing matters in good faith.

Nice rhetoric, I think you know what I meant. Of course God could be 100% proven if he showed up, but that would negate faith.

*Originally posted by badchad *
I don’t mean to sound condesending with this but I think you have been sold a bill of goods. God used to show up all the time in the bible. Among other things to talk to Moses, part seas, get pissed about a golden calf, do miracles and rise from the dead. None of this was considered against the rules, and was often intended to save people (though only his favorites) and there was not problem with negating his faith. Jesus said (supposidly) to believe in him for the works that he did, indicating that his miracles were supposed to bring people to god. Nowhere is god showing up a negation of faith. The only problem is today god never shows up anymore, and without a nifty slogan like the negation of faith, (others have said it would remove our free will) people might actually start to think this religion stuff is a bunch of bologna, which of course it is:).

That’s entirely your opinion. I find good with faith, you do not. It still seems as though you are painting me with a fundamental-literalist brush.

Your condescending attitude is very annoying.

*Originally posted by badchad *
**I’m sorry, think about how your posts probably come off when you explain evolution to a YEC. Perspective is everything. **

When I explain evolution to YEC I generally (not always unfortunately) try to not insult the other person. I usually try to start with an open mind attitude. I see what you are trying to say though, but I would add that when called upon it, I would make an effort to stop.

Using faith in order to gamble? Are you serious? Once again, you seem to be missing something:

*Originally posted by badchad *
**Jesus said (allegedly) that if you asked for “any thing” in his name he would do it for you (John 14:14). He did not say anything but gambling, and I did state that you could give your winnings to charity (I won’t, hehe). So Yes I am serious, and yes I will put my money where my mouth is. Besides the bible doesn’t say anything bad about gambling anyway, and a wager is the surest most objective test of faith that I know of. **

I think some of my fellow dopers have addressed this issue and done a better job than I could have done (Jodi. A wager would show my faith to you, not to God.

*If God showed up it would negate faith.[i/]

*Originally posted by badchad *
**If Jesus didn’t want you to ask he shouldn’t have told you to. And think about that statement. If I had strong probability in my favor, and Jesus answered your prayer as such that you broke my bank, don’t you think that would increase your faith and the faith of any onlookers rather than negate it? **

Once again this was addressed, but I did want to say this: if everytime I prayed I got exactly what I wanted (assuming that I only prayed for stuff-which I don’t) then yes it would negate faith. I’d have evidence, I would have proof, and faith would be unnecessary.

I think Tomndebb handled this. Also, AFAIK, I could swear there were another few religions out there that had a place similar to hell-maybe not eternal torment though.

*Originally posted by badchad *
**I remember seeing in a Cecil question of the day that Christianisty stole the idea from the Zoroastrians. I haven’t read Tomndebb’s sources as they are not in the bible I read (KJV), so I can’t verify or deny what he said, as such I am inclined to believe him. However, regardless I don’t think it takes anything away from the point I was trying to get across, as Jesus repeated spoke of casting people into hellfire, while preaching love, which I think is pretty contradictory. The old testament god just smote ya, which while not loving, is far preferable. **

I think you enjoy taking things out of context: The bible for one Polycarp for another.