Atheists debates - is it worth it?

[BigV]

So, what books on hermeneutics have you studied to arrive at the interpretive conclusions that you currently have?

Which books does God require in order for people to understand what he has written?

 

[BigV]

Maybe I should confess that I'm working on a book of how to study and interpret the Bible. What I find, is that I basically need to keep the following two rules:

Rule 1: If something in the Bible can't be verified, then it's a literally true statement. For example,

a) God created everything. Nobody can verify it, so it's true.
b) God saves people from their sins. Nobody can verify it, so it's true. Rule 1 stands!

Rule 2: If something in the Bible is clearly false, then the original promise must be taken figuratively, allegorically or by any other means that allow one to claim that the statement is true, while not seeing the result.

a) Example - all promises of Jesus to answer prayers!
b) Promise of Jesus to return in the lifetime of his hearers.

You don't need to be a theologian to understand how Christians spin (er...) interpret the Bible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which books does God require in order for people to understand what he has written?

... probably MORE THAN you've been reading. But I'm sure a good grammar book wouldn't be something He'd sneeze at either. I mean, I'm sure God doesn't put a price on sheer ignorance, as if it's 'ok' to be a complete moron or an ignoramus, especially if a person actually has the I.Q. and aptitude to learn to think, interpret and communicate better than he already does.

If you want, I can write out a list of books and--since you seem to be such an authority on how to interpret the Bible--you can tell me which ones are utterly useless. How about that?

 

[BigV]

But I'm sure a good grammar book wouldn't be something He'd sneeze at either.

I would be very surprised if God cared about grammar. Did you know that all original manuscripts were written in all caps, without punctuations and without separation between words?

 

[BigV]

If you want, I can write out a list of books and--since you seem to be such an authority on how to interpret the Bible--you can tell me which ones are utterly useless. How about that?

Are you a Catholic? I find it hilarious that Protestants are running to their substitute for a Pope, in whatever form they can find it. I may not be a grammar genius, but I'm aware that Christians are all over the map when it comes to their Bible interpretation. Catholics (and Orthodox) tend to be a bit more consistent.

And why do I need the books you've studied if we have you here?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would be very surprised if God cared about grammar. Did you know that all original manuscripts were written in all caps, without punctuations and without separation between words?

And how do you "know" all of this? What makes you so sure about each proposition you've just stated?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you a Catholic? I find it hilarious that Protestants are running to their substitute for a Pope, in whatever form they can find it. I may not be a grammar genius, but I'm aware that Christians are all over the map when it comes to their Bible interpretation. Catholics (and Orthodox) tend to be a bit more consistent.

Why, yes........................I am 'Catholic,' just not Roman Catholic.

I'm also Orthodox and just a tad bit Protestant, without joining myself formally to any one of the dozens of creed bearing Protestant denominations. [See? My time among both the Presbyterians and the Southern Baptists, along with the Campbellite Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, wasn't an entire waste of my evangelical time...]

And why do I need the books you've studied if we have you here?

Well, it's one thing if I dropped out of the Sky above and then offered you some tidbits of truth, and it's quite another if I, as a fellow human being, one with a sinful nature such as your own, will readily-----very readily-----admit that just about anything I 'know' I learned by slicing and dicing the various points of view that exist on various subject matter, both theological and philosophical, as well as sociological and scientific. And this means that, similar to Newton, very little of what I have to say is of my own devising. Heck, I've even taken a few pointers from Hugh Hefner along the way (although, something about that statement doesn't sound right).

Let's just say, both the World and the Word have helped to make me who and what I am today.

Little to none of what I've ultimately come to conclude about best practices in interpreting the bible have come by my own power.

 

[BigV]

Little to none of what I've ultimately come to conclude about best practices in interpreting the bible have come by my own power.

Well, congratulations on having other people do the interpreting for you. Good job. Do you have others read the Bible for you also?

Ultimately, what we find, is that Christians themselves have no clue what the Bible is supposed to mean. Jesus was not a fan of taking the Bible literally in the New Testament but was a stickler in the Old Testament times. Who knows what his feelings on the matter are? People that have a 'personal relationship' with him are all over the map on what the Bible means.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, congratulations on having other people do the interpreting for you. Good job. Do you have others read the Bible for you also?

And you interpreted my written words to 'mean' that I allow others to interpret for me? No, there's a whole continuum in the cognitive process that goes into any one person's attempt to interpret any other human communication. Maybe study some Communication Theory, BigV. It's time for you to get better educated, because you show signs of 'need' in this area.

Ultimately, what we find, is that Christians themselves have no clue what the Bible is supposed to mean. Jesus was not a fan of taking the Bible literally in the New Testament but was a stickler in the Old Testament times. Who knows what his feelings on the matter are? People that have a 'personal relationship' with him are all over the map on what the Bible means.

I disagree. What we have, in reality, is a disparate collection of letters and short books from the 1st and 2nd centuries (and before) that, in and of themselves, are theologically non-comprehensive. So at best, we're all trying to do our 'best' to decipher the meaning and any possible implications these writings could have, most of which aren't complete or clear, which is why so many of us have different understandings of what we think the Biblical writers are intending to tell us. Of course, this isn't too much different from the human handling of any other disparate information that we all may try to engage. It's called "life as we try to know it."

So, you think Jesus was a "stickler" on taking the O.T. 'literally'? Oh, do tell, do tell, OH Wise One!

I'm just aching to hear how you 'clearly' and 'accurately' interpret the Bible....without anyone's else's input or assistance. You must be a sheer brainiac; no need for further education here, right?

 

[BigV]

Maybe study some Communication Theory, BigV. It's time for you to get better educated, because you show signs of 'need' in this area.

So, you think Jesus was a "stickler" on taking the O.T. 'literally'?

Is this what I said?

Jesus was not a fan of taking the Bible literally in the New Testament but was a stickler in the Old Testament times

 

[cvanwey]

Well, congratulations on having other people do the interpreting for you. Good job. Do you have others read the Bible for you also?

Ultimately, what we find, is that Christians themselves have no clue what the Bible is supposed to mean. Jesus was not a fan of taking the Bible literally in the New Testament but was a stickler in the Old Testament times. Who knows what his feelings on the matter are? People that have a 'personal relationship' with him are all over the map on what the Bible means.

This goes out to @2PhiloVoid as well. Happy to see you are still kicking around in here..

The story of Jesus, in [my estimation], appears to exhibit products of both agenda and legend.?.? This skeptic suspects that maybe Jesus was a real physical man, but has severe doubt He was a Messiah? I have posted seemingly countless topics, asking for evidence to demonstrate otherwise, to no real avail.... Hence, I'm now presenting a differing position here....

What REALLY happened, prior to the writings of 'Mark?" Remember, even if 'Mark' was written only a few decades after such claimed events, it's likely slightly or largely askew? How much did the original stories get inflated, by the time 'Mark' was first written? Who actually wrote "Mark"? Was this author told what to write? What was the purpose or intent? These all seem unanswerable.

However... We have a paper trail of the following there-after....

- Mark 16:9-20
- The three other Gospels

Here's a video to relay another perspective:

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is this what I said?

No, what you said was, "Jesus was not a fan of taking the Bible literally in the New Testament but was a stickler in the Old Testament times." I'm not sure how to interpret this. Could you help me out here? Maybe tell me what I should do in my practice of attempting to read your writing so I can better understand what meaning you're intending to convey?

 

[BigV]

No, what you said was, "Jesus was not a fan of taking the Bible literally in the New Testament but was a stickler in the Old Testament times." I'm not sure how to interpret this. Could you help me out here?

According to the mainstream Christian position, Jesus was the God of the Old Testament and continues to be the God of the New Testament. Therefore, Jesus agrees with the Old Testament God, when he told people not to do any work on a Saturday and even had the poor stick gathering chap in Numbers 15 killed for breaking this serious rule.

However, when Jesus arrives, in bodily form, he is transformed. He who is without sin is to cast the first stone. That wasn't his rule previously, but now, voila, it's the rule and the right thing to do. So, that's what I meant in my previous post. Sorry, it wasn't clear the first time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

According to the mainstream Christian position, Jesus was the God of the Old Testament and continues to be the God of the New Testament. Therefore, Jesus agrees with the Old Testament God, when he told people not to do any work on a Saturday and even had the poor stick gathering chap in Numbers 15 killed for breaking this serious rule.

However, when Jesus arrives, in bodily form, he is transformed. He who is without sin is to cast the first stone. That wasn't his rule previously, but now, voila, it's the rule and the right thing to do. So, that's what I meant in my previous post. Sorry, it wasn't clear the first time.

Where does Jesus say something about being without sin and casting the first stone?

And don't worry, I'm not going to hold my misunderstanding about what you've said earlier against you. I'm not like that. I just want us to think more deeply (or more academically) about all of this.

 

[BigV]

Where does Jesus say something about being without sin and casting the first stone?

I don't get the question. I mean, I don't believe you don't know how to find the answer.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't get the question. I mean, I don't believe you don't know how to find the answer.

I don't know about all of that. If the whole section involving Jesus' comment about "no one casting the first stone" is known to not have been an original part of the earliest manuscripts of the Gospels, then even though I can say that I very much like the story, I'd have to think twice about assuming that it tells us anything exacting about Jesus and His words. Of course, you knew this already, right?

 

[BigV]

I don't know about all of that. If the whole section involving Jesus' comment about "no one casting the first stone" is known to not have been an original part of the earliest manuscripts of the Gospels, then even though I can say that I very much like the story, I'd have to think twice about assuming that it tells us anything exacting about Jesus and His words. Of course, you knew this already, right?

Good point. John 7:53-8:11 is likely not part of the original. However, I think the passage demonstrates Jesus' attitude on the matters of the Law (of Moses).

How many sinners did Jesus punish by killing them as the Old Testament required? Considering that the answer is ZERO, as far as the Gospels tell us, considering the undisputed texts, then my overall point stands:

Jesus was not a fan of taking the Bible literally in the New Testament but was a stickler in the Old Testament times. Who knows what his feelings on the matter are?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good point. John 7:53-8:11 is likely not part of the original. However, I think the passage demonstrates Jesus' attitude on the matters of the Law (of Moses).

How many sinners did Jesus punish by killing them as the Old Testament required? Considering that the answer is ZERO, as far as the Gospels tell us, considering the undisputed texts, then my overall point stands:

How many sinners did Jesus punish? I'm guessing about 1.1 million people, mainly Jewish, give or take a few, and we might slightly alter that number depending on how accurate we think Josephus is in his reports regarding the Roman siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. You see, whether the eschatological language Jesus used is considered by the Gospel writers to be literal or metaphorical, it was still stated by Jesus and mainly (mainly!) applied to those folks living in Jesus' generation, all of which culminated in the 8th decade of the 1st century.

Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) - Wikipedia

So, even if you think John 7:53-58 represents Jesus (and I think we both think it does), this doesn't erase the rest of the statements and judgements which Jesus made and which extend outward and onward in application from His own Jewish people and out to the Gentiles. All this means when taken together is that Jesus has come to offer humanity Mercy and Peace before Judgement comes. It doesn't mean Jesus has completely done away with Judgement. So, there is no dilemma here for us to get all impaled upon.

 

[Mitty]

... probably MORE THAN you've been reading. But I'm sure a good grammar book wouldn't be something He'd sneeze at either. I mean, I'm sure God doesn't put a price on sheer ignorance, as if it's 'ok' to be a complete moron or an ignoramus, especially if a person actually has the I.Q. and aptitude to learn to think, interpret and communicate better than he already does.

If you want, I can write out a list of books and--since you seem to be such an authority on how to interpret the Bible--you can tell me which ones are utterly useless. How about that?

Why can't the god just drop around and explain it, in the same way that Abraham shared a non kosher meal with a god and had a face to face discussion about the number of righteous children in Gomorrah before the god walked down to count them for itself, since it wasn't an omniscient or omnipresent type of god (Gen 18).

 

[Larniavc]

Most won't take the time to do the research but will hold to whatever their personal opinion is.

Dunno about that. Many atheists (my self included) have read the Bible cover to cover- (yes, even the lineages) and remain unconvinced.