Geez, what a site! :eek:
Izzy, I’m quite confident that I can find a statement of yours somewhere on this board that the Internet, “as it was originally written and intended to be understood,” will refute.
Unless (and I concede the good faith of those who believe this) you subscribe to the theory that the Bible was inspired verbatim by God, so that every word in it is there precisely because God intended it to be said in precisely that way, then my sardonic suggestion about the Internet is a precise parallel.
Even on the assumption that the reputed authors of each book are in fact the actual authors (which is questioned by leading scholars), the Bible is the product of:
[ul][li]Moses (Gen 1:1-Deut 34:4, Psalm 90)[/li][li]Joshua (Deut 34:5-Josh 24:28)[/li][li]Phinehas (Josh 24:29-33)[/li][li]Samuel (Judges, I Sam 1:1-24:22; no serious scholar thinks Opal had anything to do with it;))[/li][li]Anonymous author 1, sometimes thought to be Samuel (Ruth) [/li][li]Anonymous author 2 (I Sam 25:1-II Sam 24:25)[/li][li]Jeremiah (I -II Kings, Jeremiah, Lamentations)[/li][li]Ezra (I-II Chronicles, Ezra, Neh 7:6-12:26, 12:44-13:3)[/li][li]Nehemiah (Neh 1:1-7:5, 12:27-43, 13:4-31[/li][li]Anonymous author 3 (Esther)[/li][li]Anonymous author 4, perhaps Job or Elihu (Job)[/li][li]Anonymous author 5 (Psalm 1)[/li][li]Anonymous author 6 (Psalm 2)[/li][li]David (Psalms 3-9, 11-32, 34-41, 51-65, 68-70, 86, 101, 103, 108-110, 122, 124, 131-133, 138-145[/li][li]Anonymous author 7 (Psalm 10)[/li][li]Anonymous author 8 (Psalm 33)[/li][li]Sons of Korah (Psalms 42, 44-49, 84-85, 87)[/li][li]Anonymous author 9 (Psalm 43)[/li][li]Asaph (Psalms 50, 73-83[/li][li]Anonymous author 10 (Psalm 66)[/li][li]Anonymous author 11 (Psalm 67)[/li][li]Anonymous author 12 (Psalm 70)[/li][li]Anonymous author 13 (Psalm 71)[/li][li]Solomon (Psalms 72, 127, Proverbs 1:1-22:16, 25-29, Eccl., Song of Songs)[/li][li]Heman the Ezrahite (Psalm 88)[/li][li]Ethan the Ezrahite (Psalm 89)[/li][li]Anonymous author 14 (Psalm 91)[/li][li]Anonymous author 15 (Psalm 92)[/li][li]Anonymous author 16 (Psalm 93)[/li][li]Anonymous author 17 (Psalm 94)[/li][li]Anonymous author 18 (Psalm 95)[/li][li]Anonymous author 19 (Psalm 96)[/li][li]Anonymous author 20 (Psalm 97)[/li][li]Anonymous author 21 (Psalm 98)[/li][li]Anonymous author 22 (Psalm 99)[/li][li]Anonymous author 23 (Psalm 100)[/li][li]Anonymous author 24 (Psalm 102)[/li][li]Anonymous author 25 (Psalm 104)[/li][li]Anonymous author 26 (Psalm 105)[/li][li]Anonymous author 27 (Psalm 106)[/li][li]Anonymous author 28 (Psalm 107)[/li][li]Anonymous author 29 (Psalm 111)[/li][li]Anonymous author 30 (Psalm 112)[/li][li]Anonymous author 31 (Psalm 113)[/li][li]Anonymous author 32 (Psalm 114)[/li][li]Anonymous author 33 (Psalm 115)[/li][li]Anonymous author 34 (Psalm 116)[/li][li]Anonymous author 35 (Psalm 117)[/li][li]Anonymous author 36 (Psalm 118)[/li][li]Anonymous author 37 (Psalm 119)[/li][li]Anonymous author 38 (Psalm 120)[/li][li]Anonymous author 39 (Psalm 121)[/li][li]Anonymous author 40 (Psalm 123)[/li][li]Anonymous author 41 (Psalm 125)[/li][li]Anonymous author 42 (Psalm 126)[/li][li]Anonymous author 43 (Psalm 128)[/li][li]Anonymous author 44 (Psalm 129)[/li][li]Anonymous author 45 (Psalm 130)[/li][li]Anonymous author 46 (Psalm 134)[/li][li]Anonymous author 47 (Psalm 135)[/li][li]Anonymous author 48 (Psalm 136)[/li][li]Anonymous author 50 (Psalm 146)[/li][li]Anonymous author 51 (Psalm 147)[/li][li]Anonymous author 52 (Psalm 148)[/li][li]Anonymous author 53 (Psalm 149)[/li][li]Anonymous author 54 (Psalm 150)[/li][li]“The wise” (Proverbs 22:17-24:34)[/li][li]Agur son of Jakeh (Proverbs 30)[/li][li]King Lemuel (Proverbs 31)[/li][li]Isaiah (Isaiah)[/li][li]Ezekiel (Ezekiel)[/li][li]Daniel (Daniel)[/li][li]Hosea (Hosea)[/li][li]Joel (Joel)[/li][li]Amos (Amos)[/li][li]Obadiah (Obadiah)[/li][li]Jonah or anonymous author (Jonah)[/li][li]Micah (Micah)[/li][li]Nahum (Nahum)[/li][li]Habakkuk (Habakkuk)[/li][li]Zephaniah (Zephaniah)[/li][li]Haggai (Haggai)[/li][li]Zechariah (Zechariah)[/li][li]Malachi (Malachi)[/li][/ul]
To this number modern scholars would add the Jahvist, or two Jahvist sources, the Elohist, the Priestly writer, the Deuteronomist, the anti-monarchic and pro-monarchic Samuel sources, the Chronicler, Second and Third Isaiah, Second Zechariah, and a host of others.
In the New Testament, we find:
[ul][li]Matthew (Matthew)[/li][li]John Mark (Mark)[/li][li]Luke (Luke, Acts)[/li][li]John (John, I-III John, Revelation)[/li][li]Paul (Romans-Philemon)[/li][li]Anonymous author 54, perhaps Paul (Hebrews)[/li][li]James bar Joseph (James)[/li][li]Simon Peter (I-II Peter)[/li][li]Jude (Jude)[/ul][/li]Again, modern scholarship would dispute the authorship of many of these books, attributing them to anonymous authors adopting the early leaders as pseudonyms.
One can easily find examples of literal eyewitness historical accounts (cf. Acts 27:2-8), personal opinion (I Corinthians 7:12-13), fable (Judges 9:8-15), poetic exaggeration (Psalm 97:3-6), symbolic vision (Ezek 37:1-10), and a wide variety of other literary styles.
Common sense, if nothing else, tells one that a variety of authors writing in a variety of styles will produce a compilation that cannot
be taken as a unitary source of identical accuracy and inspiration.
All I am doing is saying that I read a given passage of Scripture as what I perceive it to be, and that I find my touchstone in learning about God from its contents in the elements common to the four portraits of Jesus in the Gospels – the message from Him that comes through past the individual authors’ personal focuses.
Anything is possible. 
But the important point here is that if indeed you do so, it will merely mean that my statement has been refuted. It will NOT mean that my statement is not to be taken literally. Huge difference.
OK. But again, what this means is that you are rejecting part of the Biblical message - in this case, that which you’ve decided is part of the author’s personal focus. This is not the same thing as saying that the correct interpretation of the message is in complete accordance with your own. Something to bear in mind, as I believe this tends to get blurred, in other debates.
This is such a badly flawed argument I hardly know where to begin. I didn’t conflate anything - the theology of hell is based on many things, not the least of which is the concept of gehenna.
You actually did get the Jewish history right, except that you called it Jewish. If we are going to be nitpicky here you need to properly refer to them as Israel, because, when read in proper literary and historical context, you will find that not all Israelites are Jews. Jew was a name applied only to the descendants of Judah and Benjamin and their Levites. IOW, the Southern Kingdom of Israel. The other ten tribes, the Northern Kingdom, were also Israel, but never referred to as Jews.
Now, about the rest of what you posted. Are you trying to say that because Jesus didn’t use our English word “hell” that somehow it doesn’t exist? Gehenna and paradeisos as facets of Sheol were very real; the example of Lazarus and the rich man is generally interpreted to be an example of both. If you don’t believe the scriptures that say the rich man was in torment over there in Gehenna I’m not sure what else will convince you.
And, the fact that our christian concept of Hell was not a Jewish concept does not in any way disprove its existence. I’m sure it wasn’t a Babylonian concept, or a Hindu concept, either. That’s not anywhere near the point. The point we are discussing is whether it is a New Testament concept. The fact that you don’t consider it a Jewish concept is utterly irrelevant.
I guess when Jesus mentioned the place where the worm never sleeps and the fire is never quenched, nobody knew what he was talking about? Or are you saying it was only a literal place and never a spiritual one? Jesus made it a spiritual one with the example of the rich man and Lazarus. He used their garbage-dump as a name for it, and said it was a place where the body and soul were destroyed. He referred to it as a place where God sends people who don’t listen to Him. Did they think he meant God puts them in the rubbish dump?
And, the Lake of Fire in Revelation is part of the revelation given to John in 95 or 96 A.D. - revelation (apokalypsis) means unveiling, and I’m quite sure this was new to pretty much everyone in the church at the time. But that’s why it’s called ‘revelation.’
It’s strange, I see you as someone very intelligent but unable to let go of your presupposed ideas of what God is like. You really can’t imagine him punishing anyone? You can’t imagine that God would presume to judge man?
Like I said, if you don’t believe it, that’s fine, just don’t try to redefine christianity for your purposes. I’d rather you just said you didn’t believe it than do that. Christianity and the bible do not support your conclusions.
MG
Sorry about that wink thing, it’s a typo, not sarcasm.
Polycarp:
1. What commands of Jesus you see me failing to follow? How do you arrive at the conclusions I am not? (It may be that you do actually see me as failing to do so, and I’m just either falling short of what I strive to do, or being incompetent at communicating what I’m doing, so don’t take this as hostile – you’ve made an assertion; I’m asking for clarification or specifics, so we can discuss it, that’s all.)
Just to clarify, I didn’t say follow but rather “follow or agree with.” That gives me a little more material.
For starters there is that whole don’t get angry thing, but I’ll grant you that it’s something your falling short of, and doing a better job than in the last thread. But hell, I’m just a guys with a keyboard, I’m not killing babies.
There is Jesus endorsement of all the old testament stuff in Matthew 5:18-19:
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Getting into the specifics of all that would be quite lengthy but I think you get the idea.
Then a favorite would have to be Matthew 5:42: “Give to him that asketh thee…” or Luke 6:30: “Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.”
I recall asking you to send a check but I don’t think we determined an amount yet. How much you got?
On divorce I don’t know anything about your personal situation but on a recent thread you said that it was alright for His4ever to get one from her first husband for reasons of abuse while Jesus said in Matthew 5:32 said fornication was the only legitimate reason for divorce. In other areas he doesn’t give any good reason.
Again I don’t know about your personal situation but since your morals seem pretty humanistic I don’t think you would be against saving for retirement or a rainy day, while Jesus supposedly said in Matthew 6:19-21
“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”
and Matthew 6:25-26:
“Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?”
Then there is the mean Jesus stuff.
Matthew 10:34
“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.”
Luke 14: 26
“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 19:27
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
I don’t think you agree with the mean stuff. Thus making your morality (according to todays views) superior to that of Jesus rather than following that of Jesus.
And finally as a believer shouldn’t their be signs following you such as a lot of healed formerly sick people? Mark 16:18. We won’t mention the poison this time:).
Is it your contention that because Sir Isaac Newton failed to take relativitistic effects into account, the Principia Mathematica and his works on physics are useless?
Of course not, however if Newton’s writings and formulas were so flawed that his message was uninelligiable without erasing better than half of his stuff and substituting our own then he probably wouldn’t be giving him near so much credit.
Or that one can get nothing out of Shakespeare because of his reference to the sea coast of Bohemia?
If you want to classify the bible as fiction with a moral (we can debate the attributes of the moral later) then I’ll agree with you. But if you think heaven or the christian god is anything more than part of that fiction, then I think the bible should be held to a higher standard than Shakespeare.
What I’m hearing you saying here is that for you, as for some of our fundy. friends, the Bible is an all-or-nothing, black-or-white proposition – that it might contain both truth and falsehood, and that there might be a way to determine which is which, is foreign to your view.
Your wording hear is a little unclear but I think I get what you are saying and it is a fair charactacture of my view. The bible has so much contradition in both old and new testaments that it is impossble to tell what is true and what isn’t, regarding both facts and the moral message on how to live one’s life. If you have an objective method, free of self serving bias I’m all ears.
Separate debate, sir. Nowhere in the gospels is Jesus described as the god of hellfire; I assume you’re being metaphorical – but by doing so you’re buying into an evangelical paradigm on what Jesus’s teachings on the afterlife were.
I’ll let Meangirl’s post stand as my justification of Jesus being god of hellfire. You are free to call that an analogy, metaphor or whatever, but you are being inconsistent when you think heaven as a nice place is literal.
.
Diogenes the Cynic:
Jesus was making a statement about utter annihilation, not eternal punishment.
Matthew 25:46
“And these shall go away into EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT: but the righteous into life eternal.”
Kempis:
I think badchad is presenting good arguments, though he also has been a little sassy. Polycarp has been more dignified, but others opposed to badchad have been far more mouthy… and he has been mellow about it. I thought he needed some defending on this.
Hey, thanks:)
ya wrote:
Ok, so, my q to you is ‘what does “till all be fulfilled” mean?’
My understanding is that this is a contextual link with Christ saying ‘it is finished.’ In other words, at the cross, all was fulfilled.
I could be wrong in this, but I find it odd that you would hold christians to the Law when we are saved by a better covenant - that of Grace.
MG
Mean Girl:
quote:
There is Jesus endorsement of all the old testament stuff in Matthew 5:18-19:
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Ok, so, my q to you is ‘what does “till all be fulfilled” mean?’
Heck if I know.
My understanding is that this is a contextual link with Christ saying ‘it is finished.’ In other words, at the cross, all was fulfilled.
I may not know when “all be fulfilled” is but I do think I can know when “heaven and earth pass away” or at least till earth passes away, which it seems isn’t yet. So biblically I would guess the end times.
I could be wrong in this, but I find it odd that you would hold christians to the Law when we are saved by a better covenant - that of Grace.
I would only hold them to the law because Jesus in the above mentioned verse (and a couple other places IIRC) was holding them to the law. Sure one can make mistakes and be forgiven, but I think they should at least make the effort. Maybe they gave up on the law when some Christian decided bacon tastes good.
BTW, love your handle.
I said “Jews” as a matter of convenience. It was immaterial to the argument since they all had the same views on the afterlife.
Sheol was not a place of eternal punishment, it was an underworld akin to Hades (really it was pretty much the same). Sheol was where everybody went, not just bad people. Paradise was not “Heaven.” The Jews believed that they would have eternal life in a restored Eden on Earth. The Lazarus parable refers to Hades not Gehenna. Luke was a Greek, though and probably just substituted his underworld for what he thought Gehenna was. Gehenna did have a metaphorical meaning in that it was considered to be an unholy place and it was where the bodies of criminals were destroyed. It was also within sight of the future “Paradise” of Jerusalem. This was a poetic image intended to illustrate the the contrast on the day of judgement when the dead would be resurrected (from Sheol). The good would go to etrnal life and the bad would be destroyed by fire. The Valley of Gehenna was literally where they imagined that the wicked would be cast.
It’s not a NT concept either, as I have shown, but the Jewish part is relevant because Jesus was a Jew who was speaking to other Jews about Jewish concepts.
They knew exactly what he was talking about, he was talking about the very real Valley of Gehenna.
Precisely.
As I said, the Lazarus parable references Hades, not Gehenna. Gehenna was a little more than just a garbage dump, though. It was specifically the site which was used to destroy the bodies and souls of the wicked. It was literally a God-forsaken, stench-ridden fiery pit. Nobody wanted to be cast into it, even after death.
Apocalyptic literature was highly symbolic and coded. Revelation was about God’s punishment for the Romans and the restoration of Israel. The lake of fire thing was an allegorical way of illustrating God’s punishment for Rome, the emperor, and the enemies of Israel in general.
I don’t beieve in a formal deity at all, but speaking rhetorically:
I think that God would have to be at least as merciful as I am. If I would not consign people to eternal punishment, then neither would God. If God tortures Hindu children for being Hindu, or gay people for being gay, or atheists for being atheists, then God is not good and he will get no respect or recognition from me. I will have a God of love or no God at all, and if that means Hell for me, then Hell is the only righteous choice.
I don’t claim to be a Christian at all, so I have no need of “redefinition,” (redefined from what, btw? Who decided Christianity has been conclusively “defined?”) but I’ll reserve the right, thank you very much, to study and think and draw wht ever conclusions I find most satisfying to my own mind and heart.
I’m not sure which “conclusions” you’re referring to in your last statement, but I would say that the ethos I take from Christianity can be taken from two quotations from Jesus and one from the first letter of John:
**Matthew 22:36-40
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Matthew 25:40
The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
I John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.**
These three verses comprise a complete and satisfying philosophical system for me, and I feel perfectly comfortable in jettisoning the rest as just commentary.
The phrase “Eternal punishment” in its original Greek is [symbol]kolasin aiwnion[/symbol] (kolasin aionion). “Kolasis” means punishment, penalty, correction. It does not mean torment or torture. The penalty was permanent annihilation. I would also point out that “aionios” which literally means “without end” also has a variety of idiomatic nuances. It is often used, for instance, to simply mean a lifetime, or as a generic term for a “long time.” Since eternal torture was not a concept Matthew would have been familiar with, and since all of the other gehenna references in Matthew pertain to destruction by fire rather than Dante’s Hell, i would imagine that this one does too. (unless you think that Matthew had psychic powers and knew that hell would become a Christian concept)
I know, weird title, but let me explain the relevance.
I’m in my 606 Arch. course and we’re going over old archaeological classification systems. The Midwestern was used in the middle part of the 20th century when lots of data was coming in from WPA projects and archaeologists needs some way of handling the data. From this, the Midwestern Taxonomic system was developed. The problem with the Midwestern System is that it gave equal weight (or relevance) to all the artifacts.
I haven’t been following on the details of this thread, but it seems that BadChad is saying that all parts of the Bible have equal importance and relevance as the others. The Decalogue carries as much divine import as the fact that on the first Palm Sunday, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. And by ignoring the detail of what Jesus was riding on that day is like breaking all 10 Commandments.
I’m not trying to put words into BadChad’s mouth, but that’s what I’m reading from him.
I appreciate the thoughtful answer, Chad (and your courtesy in this thread – we got off on a bad start, and I’m very pleased at the tone of the debate we’re having – thank you for being patient with me!), and as it happens, I don’t have time at the moment to give it the full reply it deserves. I’ll try to take time later, but let me address this much:
One of the things scholars bring to Biblical exegesis is the concept of “Semitic dichotomy” – the phrasing of such a statement as follows in Hebrew/Aramaic styling would be not “It’s a matter of common taste that all good men should prefer Brie over Roquefort when eating cheeses” but “You should love Brie but hate Roquefort.” Things like “He who does not hate father and mother for My sake…” are to be read in that context, not as literal absolutes but as relativistic points. In a related Pit thread, Joe Cool is not saying that he’s prepared to leave Jersey Diamond if she differs from him on some minute theological point, but rather that in choosing between accepting her view and what he believes God to be saying to him, he would have to pick the latter. (And Jersey would, I know, back him on that.)
Jesus also omits what we’d say in Modern English quite often: “Insofar as it’s possible for you…” This is to be assumed when He paints ideals. He does, occasionally, make a point to say that “all men are not called to this, but only those to whom it’s directed” – i.e., those whom the Holy Spirit convicts of failing to do the particular thing he says. For Francis of Assisi, obeying the Evangelical Counsels meant a radical disowning of all personal property and the claims of anything secular on him; but he recognized that not all people were called to this, and himself founded the Third Order for those called to follow Christ after Francis’s example but not convicted to a literal following of the Evangelical Counsels.
I believe that it is possible to get a precise picture of what living out the life counseled/commanded by Christ is supposed to involve from a reading of Scripture that is informed by scholarly study of how the various parts of it came into being and what literary genres they represent. You’ve several times made a comment on the Bible as though it were a unitary entity – for me, as I think for most people, it is not, but a collection of works written by those whose lives God had touched, and “inspired” by Him in a sense I don’t wish to pin down right here and now, but which requires to be taken in a sense that excludes verbatim dictation of the words used. Rather, it might be understood more in the sense that a Constitutional scholar might attempt to decipher what the Constitution “means,” being guided by writings of the Founding Fathers, past precedent, his sense of the ideals being enshrined in the phrases used, etc.
That’s a start on a response; I’ll do better as I have time later.
One thing I noticed with Polycarp’s list of books is the lack of Deuterocanonical books.
As it relates to taking the Bible literally (or considering the Bible inspired), it seems to me that the religious tradition of the reader comes majorly into play here… Catholic, Protestant, Coptic, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. I’d like to hear how fundies and not-so-fundies answer this problem for themselves.
So, some of the debate here being about Gehenna or whatever seems silly to me that people are basing their arguments on their own version of the Bible as an authority straight from God, as opposed to a collection of books sanctioned by a committee of people. One of my favorite things about Christianity has been it’s lack of undeniably holy scripture, unlike the Mormons or Moslems.
-k
Kempis, I come from a Protestant tradition originally myself, and was addressing my comments to a gentleman whom I believe is of Jewish ethnicity and heritage, from his statements in various threads (that’s an assumption, on which I’m very willing to be corrected). In any case, I stuck to the Tanakh and the canonical New Testament in my list – I’m well aware of Jesus ben Sirach and the Song of the Three Holy Children, but had no interest in muddying the waters further with them.
Yeah. It’s one of the big problems with any discussion of this type that everyone seems to work with the evangelical conception as default paradigm – even if only to use it to disprove God, the Bible, and for all I know the existence of Babelfish! The longstanding tradition of Biblical scholarship and the beliefs of knowledgeable devout people that the Bible is a collection of works by human authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit in one way or another but not high-definition ultra-high-fidelity reproducers of His words and quite capable of human error when they weren’t listening to His proddings closely enough, is something that has to be painstakingly set forth every time. And verily, ofttimes it pisseth me off!
Two things:
First Polycarp- Is that “Babelfish” a reference to Douglas Adam’s Hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy? (I just started to listen to it on tape at work, and I got to the part about the babelfish before leaving the office today, so I’m curious).
Second- Regarding this:
Are there any books that compare the different Christian beliefs (as in all of the “popular” divisions)?
(BTW, Poly, I’m still in the process of ordering the other Christian books you recommended to me, so if any of the previously recommended books mention the differences let me know).
Diogenes, I love ya, but again, a post full of a lotta words with very little substance. I understand you don’t believe in christian concepts, and that’s cool with me.
Bad - Thanks. And be nice to Poly! He’s awesome.
Ok, you wrote:
Have you read what Romans and Galatians have to say about the Law? Jesus quoted the Law because when He was alive Israel was still under the Old Covenant. The New Covenant of grace didn’t take effect until His resurrection. The Old Covenant is not binding on the New Covenant christian. First, because as Gentiles we were never given the Law in the first place, and second, because Christ has fulfilled the Law on our behalf.
Be careful with this, because Paul did write that if you attempt to attain righteousness through the Law, you will be judged by it. So if you’ve ever mixed wool and cotton, failed to tithe a tenth of all your possessions, missed offering a sacrifice when you made a deal with someone, or gone more than 30ft from your house on the Sabbath (which is Saturday), then you’d better not be trying to keep the Law, because you are already guilty of breaking all of it.
Peace, dude.
Generally.
I think a lot of people have different understandings on what literalism means. To me, literalism does not mean that Jesus’ exact words are quoted verbatim in scripture. It does mean, that whatever words are used, be it king James English, Greek, Latin, Chinese, whatever…the truth of God is in those words.
However it managed to be recorded, the truth we need is in there. I don’t know if everyone spoke the exact words recorded, but I have no doubt that God is capable of communicating His truth perfectly using fallen human messengers. To me, the point is not the fallenness of the messenger; it’s the power of God.
MG
Mean Girl, I have no problem with your last two paragraphs as you understand them – they resemble what our beloved Duck Duck Goose over here said about the original “Fundamentalists” before the name was purloined by the extremists whom people around here love to dump on.
The problem with what you said is in how some people apply it – for example, because the ninth chapter of Zechariah condemns those who live in Gaza (the Philistines, in context and in his time), therefore the Palestinians who now live there are under his judgment too. Because a law is set forth in Leviticus and not explicitly removed by God’s act in the New Testament, therefore it is proper for a Christian majority to force all people to live by a human law echoing it.
You’ve seen the picture before, and you and I are agreed that it’s not a matter of law but of grace. But I insist on reading the Bible in a manner such as to avoid even having to go to that principle – laws given to the Children of Israel as a local and tribal legal code are not the laws He necessarily wants Christians living under the Law of Love proclaimed in the New Testament to abide by.
I need to have a long talk with you, MG in private, to clear up what happened and try to make clear how I felt and feel. Expect a PM sometime soon. You’re pretty awesome, too!!
Meatros, there are such books, but it’s very much a case of comparing apples not with oranges but with champagne, Shakespeare, and The Two Towers – the focuses of different groups’ beliefs vary so strongly, and the emphases are so strongly felt, that it gets really tough to structure a categorization. For example, how do you feel about Arminianism? (Probably three-quarters of the Christians on this board, to say nothing of agnostics, neopagans, and miscellaneous unclassifiable folk, will say “Whazzat?” – but your typical Reformed scholar will wax eloquent on the falsehoods of Arminian doctrine.) On the other hand, the Blessed Theotokos is important in Orthodox thought, but why she is important doesn’t fit into the Catholic/Protestant line of thinking at all. It’s that sort of take-a-doctrine-and-run-with-it thinking that makes things so abysmally hard to compare. Might be interesting to start a thread asking how different Christian groups see specific issues, if you like – I can field Episcopalian and Liberal Christian, and sometimes can explain the Catholic or mainline Protestant view. We’ve got scholarly Catholics, one or two Evangelicals, a Calvinist or three, and I can chase down a committed Orthodox convert of my virtual acquaintance and invite him to field a question if something comes up on Eastern Orthodoxy.
Mean Girl:
Bad - Thanks. And be nice to Poly! He’s awesome.
I’ll try, but I’m sarcastic by nature:). For what it’s worth, my free time is very limited and the only reason I am responding to him at such length, is I think he has the tools to get what I’m saying.
I would only hold them to the law because Jesus in the above mentioned verse (and a couple other places IIRC) was holding them to the law. Sure one can make mistakes and be forgiven, but I think they should at least make the effort. Maybe they gave up on the law when some Christian decided bacon tastes good.
Have you read what Romans and Galatians have to say about the Law? Jesus quoted the Law because when He was alive Israel was still under the Old Covenant. The New Covenant of grace didn’t take effect until His resurrection. The Old Covenant is not binding on the New Covenant christian. First, because as Gentiles we were never given the Law in the first place, and second, because Christ has fulfilled the Law on our behalf.
Yeah, I’ve read them. The reason I have been trying to quote Christ as much as possible is because if I start quoting Paul, someone can, will and frequenty does say that for whatever reason he doesn’t count because he’s not Jesus.
I have to remember my audience and my arguement on this thread is not with the literalists of the bible but with those who take everything with a grain of salt, water down the scripture but are still 100% sure that Jesus said what they want him to say and didn’t say what they don’t want him to say, even though the bible says he did.
Be careful with this, because Paul did write that if you attempt to attain righteousness through the Law, you will be judged by it.
Without looking it up I’ll take your word for it as it sounds correct but state that Paul contradicts himself and gave a pretty big list of don’ts as well, that if you don’t follow you still end up in hell.
Galatians 5:18-23
“But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.”
I’ll save for another debate that if you let Paul in then you can kiss free will, and free will as a reason for the problem of evil goodbye. Though for this particular debate, I know that the liberal interpreting christians will say that part doesn’t count.
Also if you accept Paul I’d have to ask, "who let this woman into a public debate on religious matters anyway?
However it managed to be recorded, the truth we need is in there. I don’t know if everyone spoke the exact words recorded, but I have no doubt that God is capable of communicating His truth perfectly using fallen human messengers. To me, the point is not the fallenness of the messenger; it’s the power of God.
I agree with you. If god of the bible really exists and he really cares, then I think he would have no trouble inspiring a clear and coherent message, and this debate would not be happening. Nonfiction writers do it all the time without divine inspiration. Now if god didn’t really exist and a bunch of guys were just writing down their superstitious thoughts, based on their current environment and what superstitions were handed down to them form their ancestors, then I think things would be, well, just like they are.