The Bible and Christianity

leftrightleftrightleft · Jan 17, 2015

aiki said:
You don't if you want to erect your own subjective version of Christianity. If you want something objective, however, something beyond your own personal preferences shaping your understanding of the Big Questions of Life, and you want that something to originate in the Bible, then you are going to have to acknowledge the Bible as authoritative to the matters to which it speaks. Really, if the Bible is just another book, if it doesn't speak with the authority of God, then why give it any special attention? Surely there must be other religious books that cater better to your own particular religious preferences?

Click to expand...

First, why must it be "all-or-nothing" when it comes to truth in the Bible? I don't understand it and the only reason I can find is because that is the doctrine of the church.

No other book needs to be either 100% true or else its worthless. If you have a textbook which is 95% accurate, no one would suddenly say that the textbook is worthless. It simply has some errors and that's perfectly okay and does not detract from the 95% which is true.

I am not "constructing my own subjective Christianity" any more than you are. Your subjective Christianity is subjectively different from other Christians all over the world who come from different places, cultures and upbringings. Furthermore, despite saying that the "Bible is true" in a doctrinal sense, in my experience, most Christians don't actually take that statement to heart. I simply wish more Christians would acknowledge that parts of the Bible are in error. And I wish more Christians would acknowledge that it is okay to say so.

Well, you stand among the majority of human beings in this, which is exactly what the Bible says will always be the case about the response of the World to its truth. But who cares, right? It's just a book claiming to speak truth when it actually doesn't (that's called lying, by the way). Why you would want to give any credence at all to a book you believe is false is a bit of a puzzle to me

Click to expand...

Firstly, I think it is impossible for the Bible to reference itself saying it is true simply because all the separate books of the Bible had been written hundreds of years before "The Bible" even existed.

Secondly, I'm not saying "The Bible" in its entirety and complexity is "false". I'm not painting with those broad brush strokes. I think the Bible is important and contains much wisdom, art, and speaks to the human condition which plagues us all. It is incredible. It is also so vitally important to the culture in which I grew up in and has had an enormous influence on philosophy.

Yes...and no. I make a choice to take the claims of Scripture to divine origin seriously, but having done that, I no longer retain the freedom to pick and choose which parts of the Bible I will accept and which I will reject. If I accept that the Bible really is the Word of God, then I cannot redact it as I like. If it all comes from God, then I can't possibly set aside any of it.

Click to expand...

To each his own, I guess.

Not as Christians, no. It is the Bible that defines the faith. Those who abandon the Bible, the source of Christian doctrine and practice, abandon the faith.

Click to expand...

I thought Christianity was about relationship with God through Jesus. But I guess it is the Bible that defines faith??

Steeno7 · Jan 17, 2015

leftrightleftrightleft said:
Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop
- TIME

https://www.ted.com/talks/tom_honey_on_god_and_the_tsunami?language=en

Just as I thought. Nowhere does he deny the existence of Heaven and Hell. He is merely questioning our understanding of Heaven and Hell.

Vollbracht · Jan 17, 2015

leftrightleftrightleft said:
That is part of my issue. If you don't believe the Bible is true, then there is no reason to believe what the Bible says about the afterlife is true.

Yes, but since you acknowledge that the Bible says the afterlife is true, yet you don't believe the afterlife is true, you face a problem an atheist does not have: being obliged to submit to the truth of the Bible.

I'm not sure.

Ok, thank you for your candor. My concern here is not so much that you don't believe the Bible or an afterlife, but in who you view God to be. A belief in the afterlife should naturally follow from a belief in God, knowing His power (e.g. Mt. 22:29), that He is a God of the living. But how can you believe in an afterlife when there is no evidence, since the dead are silent? Where, then, is faith?

Which brings me to an even greater concern, namely, how is it man can be saved. If there is no afterlife, then Christ died and did not rise, and if Christ is not raised, our faith is truly empty and we are yet in our sins!

aiki · Jan 17, 2015

Really, if the Bible is just another book, if it doesn't speak with the authority of God, then why give it any special attention? Surely there must be other religious books that cater better to your own particular religious preferences?

First, why must it be "all-or-nothing" when it comes to truth in the Bible? I don't understand it and the only reason I can find is because that is the doctrine of the church.

No other book needs to be either 100% true or else its worthless. If you have a textbook which is 95% accurate, no one would suddenly say that the textbook is worthless. It simply has some errors and that's perfectly okay and does not detract from the 95% which is true.

Paul the apostle wrote,

2 Timothy 3:15-17
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

He understood that the Bible was divinely inspired, that it was the Word of God in its entirety. But if it is, I can't see how one can pick and choose their way through what God has to say to us in His Word. If God is saying it all, it is all important - not just the bits I happen to like or that make sense to me.

I am not "constructing my own subjective Christianity" any more than you are.

I disagree. While I may have a different interpretation of Scripture from the next follower of Christ, I don't hold any of Scripture as illegitimate, or unnecessary, or mythological. I accept is all as the authoritative Word of God. In this respect, then, I don't take a subjective approach to my faith. I allow God's Word to define and constrain my thinking and behaviour as a Christian. I don't get to pick and choose which stuff in the Bible is actually from God. As far as I'm concerned, it is all God's Word. You, in contrast, seem wholly subjective about your faith. Rather than God's Word setting the boundaries of your faith for you, you set boundaries on the Word of God and essentially decide for yourself what the character and limits of your faith will be.

I'm like a guy who joins a football team and in doing so agrees to follow the team playbook. When I get on the field to play, the strategies of the team playbook govern all that I do - even if I don't happen to like the strategies. You, on the other hand, would be like a fellow who joins the team but refuses to be constrained by the playbook. Sometimes, if it suits you, you'll go with the tactics laid out in the playbook. But, if you think you know better, if the strategies just don't sit right with you, well, you'll make up your own strategies. Yes, we both make subjective decisions about the playbook, but in my case I choose to set aside my own preferences and ideas and yield to the authority of the playbook while you do not.

Your subjective Christianity is subjectively different from other Christians all over the world who come from different places, cultures and upbringings.

Well, the term "Christian" has become so broad these days as to become almost meaningless. This is why I like the phrase "Christ follower." Yes, there are many who identify as Christian but who would not meet the criteria set out in Scripture defining what a Christian is. Rather than being conformed to the image of Christ, they are culturally "Christian," conformed to the values and philosophies of their particular culture. But such people, are not, I believe, true Christians. Not as far as the Bible is concerned.

Furthermore, despite saying that the "Bible is true" in a doctrinal sense, in my experience, most Christians don't actually take that statement to heart.

Most Christians that you know. How about all the other ones? Most of the followers of Christ that I know do take the statement "the Bible is true" to heart.

I simply wish more Christians would acknowledge that parts of the Bible are in error. And I wish more Christians would acknowledge that it is okay to say so.

Frankly, if you tell me you're a Christian and then tell me you think the Bible is in error, I immediately have serious doubts about your claim to be a Christian.

Selah.

leftrightleftrightleft · Jan 18, 2015

aiki said:
Paul the apostle wrote,

2 Timothy 3:15-17
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

He understood that the Bible was divinely inspired, that it was the Word of God in its entirety.

Put yourself in the mind of Paul for a moment. It is roughly 60 AD. There is no Bible. There are no 66 books which are called "the Word of God" or "scripture". Paul is likely referring to the Old Testament and perhaps, by 60 AD, he may also be referring to some of the Gospels. He may also be referring to his own letters or even certain books which were later removed by the Council of Nicaea and considered heresy! But he can certainly not be referring to the Gospel of John or Revelation since it is quite well evidenced that both of those books were written after 60 AD.

But if it is, I can't see how one can pick and choose their way through what God has to say to us in His Word. If God is saying it all, it is all important - not just the bits I happen to like or that make sense to me.

What is God's "Word"? Most people think it is "the Bible". But in reality, his Word is a poor translation of the Greek word "Logos". The Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the Incarnate Logos.

Nowhere does it say that the entirety of the Bible must be true and without error.

I disagree. While I may have a different interpretation of Scripture from the next follower of Christ, I don't hold any of Scripture as illegitimate, or unnecessary, or mythological. I accept is all as the authoritative Word of God. In this respect, then, I don't take a subjective approach to my faith. I allow God's Word to define and constrain my thinking and behaviour as a Christian. I don't get to pick and choose which stuff in the Bible is actually from God. As far as I'm concerned, it is all God's Word. You, in contrast, seem wholly subjective about your faith. Rather than God's Word setting the boundaries of your faith for you, you set boundaries on the Word of God and essentially decide for yourself what the character and limits of your faith will be.

The Bible can be from God in the same way as everything is from God. It is a description of a people and culture from whom the first major monotheistic religion developed. It highlights many of the pains, struggles and trials encountered by humans in life.

Also, it is only my interpretation which is different from yours. Just like other Christians. Furthermore, one of my issues is that, if a Christian ignores or tries to weasel certain ideas into scripture, then you might as well call it what it is: the whole Bible is not true.

I'm like a guy who joins a football team and in doing so agrees to follow the team playbook. When I get on the field to play, the strategies of the team playbook govern all that I do - even if I don't happen to like the strategies. You, on the other hand, would be like a fellow who joins the team but refuses to be constrained by the playbook. Sometimes, if it suits you, you'll go with the tactics laid out in the playbook. But, if you think you know better, if the strategies just don't sit right with you, well, you'll make up your own strategies. Yes, we both make subjective decisions about the playbook, but in my case I choose to set aside my own preferences and ideas and yield to the authority of the playbook while you do not.

But what if you are reading the playbook and find an error, typo or inaccurate phrase? And what if the playbook had been written in multiple languages over thousands of years through varying cultures? What if you find some inconsistencies within the playbook? One page says a touchdown is worth 6 points while the other says it is only worth 4. Even if the error or typo is incredibly, incredibly minor, why would you try to fit the error into the book rather than acknowledging that this one, teeny, little part of the book is incorrect?

What if 95% of the playbook is accurate but there are 5% of inaccuracies, typos or inconsistencies?

Do you throw the playbook out as useless garbage? Or do you try to figure out which parts are correct and which are incorrect?

Why must it be 100% true in order to be valuable?

Well, the term "Christian" has become so broad these days as to become almost meaningless. This is why I like the phrase "Christ follower." Yes, there are many who identify as Christian but who would not meet the criteria set out in Scripture defining what a Christian is. Rather than being conformed to the image of Christ, they are culturally "Christian," conformed to the values and philosophies of their particular culture. But such people, are not, I believe, true Christians. Not as far as the Bible is concerned.

I agree for the most part. In fact, I find some "non-Christians" to be better "Christ followers" in many regards than some Christians. It really is quite a useless term.

Frankly, if you tell me you're a Christian and then tell me you think the Bible is in error, I immediately have serious doubts about your claim to be a Christian.

You define Christian the way you want to define it. Its subjective.

leftrightleftrightleft · Jan 18, 2015

Vollbracht said:
Yes, but since you acknowledge that the Bible says the afterlife is true, yet you don't believe the afterlife is true, you face a problem an atheist does not have: being obliged to submit to the truth of the Bible.

But that is precisely what I am questioning: Why must we be obliged to believe the entire Bible is true?

Ok, thank you for your candor. My concern here is not so much that you don't believe the Bible or an afterlife, but in who you view God to be. A belief in the afterlife should naturally follow from a belief in God, knowing His power (e.g. Mt. 22:29), that He is a God of the living.

I don't see how God and the afterlife are strongly connected. If I die and that's it, a simple loss of consciousness, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Nor does it mean that the spiritual realm does not exist.

Which brings me to an even greater concern, namely, how is it man can be saved. If there is no afterlife, then Christ died and did not rise, and if Christ is not raised, our faith is truly empty and we are yet in our sins!

Being saved could mean being brought back into relationship with God through repentance and forgiveness. It could mean turning towards the moral and ethic which Christ represented. It could mean finding peace in the knowledge that God has a plan for your life and that there is no need to worry about the future but rather live in the present moment.

None of this has anything to do with the afterlife.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 18, 2015

leftrightleftrightleft said:
Put yourself in the mind of Paul for a moment. It is roughly 60 AD. There is no Bible. There are no 66 books which are called "the Word of God" or "scripture". Paul is likely referring to the Old Testament and perhaps, by 60 AD, he may also be referring to some of the Gospels. He may also be referring to his own letters or even certain books which were later removed by the Council of Nicaea and considered heresy! But he can certainly not be referring to the Gospel of John or Revelation since it is quite well evidenced that both of those books were written after 60 AD.

What is God's "Word"? Most people think it is "the Bible". But in reality, his Word is a poor translation of the Greek word "Logos". The Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the Incarnate Logos.

Nowhere does it say that the entirety of the Bible must be true and without error.

The Bible can be from God in the same way as everything is from God. It is a description of a people and culture from whom the first major monotheistic religion developed. It highlights many of the pains, struggles and trials encountered by humans in life.

Also, it is only my interpretation which is different from yours. Just like other Christians. Furthermore, one of my issues is that, if a Christian ignores or tries to weasel certain ideas into scripture, then you might as well call it what it is: the whole Bible is not true.

But what if you are reading the playbook and find an error, typo or inaccurate phrase? And what if the playbook had been written in multiple languages over thousands of years through varying cultures? What if you find some inconsistencies within the playbook? One page says a touchdown is worth 6 points while the other says it is only worth 4. Even if the error or typo is incredibly, incredibly minor, why would you try to fit the error into the book rather than acknowledging that this one, teeny, little part of the book is incorrect?

What if 95% of the playbook is accurate but there are 5% of inaccuracies, typos or inconsistencies?

Do you throw the playbook out as useless garbage? Or do you try to figure out which parts are correct and which are incorrect?

Why must it be 100% true in order to be valuable?

I agree for the most part. In fact, I find some "non-Christians" to be better "Christ followers" in many regards than some Christians. It really is quite a useless term.

You define Christian the way you want to define it. Its subjective.

Left/Right,

Don't worry, you're not alone in your general approach to the Christianity/Bible/Faith. You right, you don't have to be a Fundamentalist to be a Christian.

Apart from what others here will respond with, I'd say that while we can assess the Bible and perhaps determine that some portions of it have historical and/or literary structures that belong to a bygone age, those structures, nevertheless, still constitute God's Revelation to humanity within the context of the Trinity.

Peace

aiki · Jan 18, 2015

Put yourself in the mind of Paul for a moment. It is roughly 60 AD. There is no Bible. There are no 66 books which are called "the Word of God" or "scripture".

The term "Bible" was not in use in Paul's day, but the idea of scripture certainly was, which is why he speaks of it in the verse I cited from his letter to Timothy. The canon of Scripture was not yet settled when Paul wrote what he did to Timothy, but they both had an understanding that some writings were of God, or were "Scripture" largely in the sense in which we understand the term today.

Paul is likely referring to the Old Testament and perhaps, by 60 AD, he may also be referring to some of the Gospels. He may also be referring to his own letters or even certain books which were later removed by the Council of Nicaea and considered heresy! But he can certainly not be referring to the Gospel of John or Revelation since it is quite well evidenced that both of those books were written after 60 AD.

Yes, and? Paul understood that the body of what was recognized by the Early Church as Scripture was expanding (he was a contributor to that expansion, after all). Along with what you've noted, Paul would've, then, also likely meant Timothy to understand that what he meant by "Scripture" included what was yet to be written. In light of this, I don't feel any compunction in reading Paul's words to Timothy to include all of what I today call the Bible.

What is God's "Word"? Most people think it is "the Bible". But in reality, his Word is a poor translation of the Greek word "Logos". The Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the Incarnate Logos.

Nowhere does it say that the entirety of the Bible must be true and without error.

But this is certainly implied when one claims that it is all obtained by inspiration of God - as Paul does.

The Bible can be from God in the same way as everything is from God.

But this is not what the writers of the Bible claimed about what they wrote. They believed they were communicating something special from God to the rest of us.

It is a description of a people and culture from whom the first major monotheistic religion developed. It highlights many of the pains, struggles and trials encountered by humans in life.

But this is not all that it is.

Also, it is only my interpretation which is different from yours. Just like other Christians.

No, the difference isn't in the realm of interpretation. We don't disagree over the meaning of the contents of the Bible so much as we disagree over the nature of the Bible itself.

Furthermore, one of my issues is that, if a Christian ignores or tries to weasel certain ideas into scripture, then you might as well call it what it is: the whole Bible is not true.

Well, proper hermeneutics go a very long way to constraining what may or may not be read into, or deduced from, any particular part of Scripture. If, however, someone does not employ good hermeneutics to their study of the Bible, it does not follow, therefore, that the Bible is untrue.

But what if you are reading the playbook and find an error, typo or inaccurate phrase? And what if the playbook had been written in multiple languages over thousands of years through varying cultures? What if you find some inconsistencies within the playbook? One page says a touchdown is worth 6 points while the other says it is only worth 4. Even if the error or typo is incredibly, incredibly minor, why would you try to fit the error into the book rather than acknowledging that this one, teeny, little part of the book is incorrect?

What if 95% of the playbook is accurate but there are 5% of inaccuracies, typos or inconsistencies?

Do you throw the playbook out as useless garbage? Or do you try to figure out which parts are correct and which are incorrect?

Why must it be 100% true in order to be valuable?

My analogy was offered only in an attempt to highlight the difference in how we regard the Bible. Pushing the analogy further simply reveals that it cannot usefully bear further parallel. But I never intended that it should.

What is wonderful about the Bible is that there is such an abundance of extant ancient manuscripts of it. The many thousands of still-existent ancient copies of Scripture allow scholars to create a version of the Bible that we can be very confident accurately conveys the original form of it. God has seen to it that His Word has been preserved in a manner that does not leave we modern readers of it at the mercy of copyist errors.

For me, then, I don't think I need to ask the question you do above. I believe the modern versions of the Bible are accurate in their representation of the original form of the Bible. I don't, then, have to decide to give it value in spite of it being a corrupted text.

Frankly, if you tell me you're a Christian and then tell me you think the Bible is in error, I immediately have serious doubts about your claim to be a Christian.

You define Christian the way you want to define it. Its subjective.

No, I use the biblical definition of "Christian."

Selah.

Vollbracht · Jan 18, 2015

leftrightleftrightleft said:
But that is precisely what I am questioning: Why must we be obliged to believe the entire Bible is true?

Because of God.

I don't see how God and the afterlife are strongly connected.

Because of Jesus Christ.

None of this has anything to do with the afterlife.

The resurrection of Jesus from the dead has nothing to do with the afterlife? You must be joking.

Being saved could mean being brought back into relationship with God through repentance and forgiveness.

There is no such thing as forgiveness if death reigns.

It could mean turning towards the moral and ethic which Christ represented.

According to you, what would that be; filling up the afflictions of Christ by crucifying the flesh, or eat and drink, for tomorrow we die?

It could mean finding peace in the knowledge that God has a plan for your life and that there is no need to worry about the future but rather live in the present moment.

Yes, a plan to die, wherein knowledge of God dies with you. And that is what you call peace?

Job8 · Jan 18, 2015

leftrightleftrightleft said:
But that is precisely what I am questioning: Why must we be obliged to believe the entire Bible is true?

Since you have inquired about the afterlife, and the Bible is the only true source for such knowledge, then it is up to you to believe it or disbelieve it. The Bible must be taken as a whole, or rejected as a whole. It is an integrated harmonious presentation of God's dealings with mankind, particularly as they relate to salvation.

I don't see how God and the afterlife are strongly connected. If I die and that's it, a simple loss of consciousness, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Nor does it mean that the spiritual realm does not exist.

You are welcome to hold any belief you choose about the afterlife. It is not a simple loss of consciousness, but if that is how you wish to believe, no one will stop you, not even God.

Being saved could mean being brought back into relationship with God through repentance and forgiveness. It could mean turning towards the moral and ethic which Christ represented. It could mean finding peace in the knowledge that God has a plan for your life and that there is no need to worry about the future but rather live in the present moment.

There are millions who do just that. However, since you are on a Christian forum, it would appear that you have some interest to know Christian truth. The truth is that those who live for the present will have all of eternity to regret it.

None of this has anything to do with the afterlife.

Your relationship to God through the Lord Jesus Christ has everything to do with the afterlife. But no one will compel you to believe it. One either has a hunger for the truth, or one does not.

leftrightleftrightleft · Jan 19, 2015

aiki said:
The term "Bible" was not in use in Paul's day, but the idea of scripture certainly was, which is why he speaks of it in the verse I cited from his letter to Timothy. The canon of Scripture was not yet settled when Paul wrote what he did to Timothy, but they both had an understanding that some writings were of God, or were "Scripture" largely in the sense in which we understand the term today.

When Jesus speaks of "Scripture" in the Gospels, it seems clear he is referring exclusively to the Jewish writings. I see no reason why Paul would be of similar consensus at the time of his writings.

Yes, and? Paul understood that the body of what was recognized by the Early Church as Scripture was expanding (he was a contributor to that expansion, after all).

Did he know he was contributing to it at the time? Were the Gospels considered "Scripture" by 60 AD or was the word "Scripture" still reserved exclusively for the Jewish writings?

Along with what you've noted, Paul would've, then, also likely meant Timothy to understand that what he meant by "Scripture" included what was yet to be written. In light of this, I don't feel any compunction in reading Paul's words to Timothy to include all of what I today call the Bible.

You are making far too many assumptions about what Paul did or did not think. How is there any indication that Paul's use of the word "Scripture" included what was yet to be written?

And if you are of that line of thinking, then what about other writings such as the Book of Mormon? Maybe Paul also indicated that the Book of Mormon was meant to be "Scripture" because he was saying it was yet to be written?

But this is certainly implied when one claims that it is all obtained by inspiration of God - as Paul does.

I disagree.

But this is not what the writers of the Bible claimed about what they wrote. They believed they were communicating something special from God to the rest of us.

Do you have any other quotes which has a writer claiming he is writing the Word of God?

No, the difference isn't in the realm of interpretation. We don't disagree over the meaning of the contents of the Bible so much as we disagree over the nature of the Bible itself.

Well, proper hermeneutics go a very long way to constraining what may or may not be read into, or deduced from, any particular part of Scripture. If, however, someone does not employ good hermeneutics to their study of the Bible, it does not follow, therefore, that the Bible is untrue.

Your assumptions about what Paul intended by the use of the word "Scripture" is poor hermeneutics and does not follow from the historical context in which he wrote.

Is it possible to follow good hermeneutics and conclude that portions of the Bible are untrue? Or are you of the "No True Scotsman" variety?

What is wonderful about the Bible is that there is such an abundance of extant ancient manuscripts of it. The many thousands of still-existent ancient copies of Scripture allow scholars to create a version of the Bible that we can be very confident accurately conveys the original form of it. God has seen to it that His Word has been preserved in a manner that does not leave we modern readers of it at the mercy of copyist errors.

For me, then, I don't think I need to ask the question you do above. I believe the modern versions of the Bible are accurate in their representation of the original form of the Bible. I don't, then, have to decide to give it value in spite of it being a corrupted text.

I suggest you read "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" by Bart Ehrmann. There are so many fragments of parchment which do not agree so clearly there were many, many copyist errors whether deliberate or accidental.

How do you deal with certain translations of the Bible such as "The Message"?

To me, it is not about the inerrancy of the Bible so much as the general themes therein.

No, I use the biblical definition of "Christian."

What definition is that?

leftrightleftrightleft · Jan 19, 2015

Vollbracht said:
Because of God.

I don't follow.

Because of Jesus Christ.

I don't follow.

The resurrection of Jesus from the dead has nothing to do with the afterlife? You must be joking.

Why do you think I'm joking? Firstly, it seems fairly clear when reading the Bible that Jesus did not "rise from the dead" in a literal sense. There was certainly something more going on. He did not return as a man but rather as some sort of spirit-man or vision. He was able to walk through walls (John 20:19), people did not recognize him as Jesus (Luke 24:16-30, John 20:14), he appeared to only pre-selected people rather than everyone (Acts 10:41), he is like a spirit who can appear among them (Luke 24:36-37), he appears in multiple forms (Mark 16:12).

If he rose so that we can be made in relationship with God, this does not seem to have anything to do with the afterlife.

There is no such thing as forgiveness if death reigns.

Death is part of life. Forgiveness is an action whereby you are absolved of your transgression. It is beautiful. But why can God not forgive us if death is natural?

According to you, what would that be; filling up the afflictions of Christ by crucifying the flesh, or eat and drink, for tomorrow we die?

No, it could mean devoting your life to prayer and meditation; to seeking a self-disciplined life; to seeking God's face; to helping and serving the poor; to serve rather than be served; to seek the narrow and difficult path of non-conformity to a culture which glorifies sex, greed and self-styled success; to yearn and hope for an improved world; to love.

Yes, a plan to die, wherein knowledge of God dies with you. And that is what you call peace?

All knowledge escapes us at death. There should be no fear in this notion. God is with us and for us in the world we live in. Death is part of life. It is necessary and normal.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 19, 2015

leftrightleftrightleft said:
When Jesus speaks of "Scripture" in the Gospels, it seems clear he is referring exclusively to the Jewish writings. I see no reason why Paul would be of similar consensus at the time of his writings.

Did he know he was contributing to it at the time? Were the Gospels considered "Scripture" by 60 AD or was the word "Scripture" still reserved exclusively for the Jewish writings?

You are making far too many assumptions about what Paul did or did not think. How is there any indication that Paul's use of the word "Scripture" included what was yet to be written?

And if you are of that line of thinking, then what about other writings such as the Book of Mormon? Maybe Paul also indicated that the Book of Mormon was meant to be "Scripture" because he was saying it was yet to be written?

I disagree.

Do you have any other quotes which has a writer claiming he is writing the Word of God?

Your assumptions about what Paul intended by the use of the word "Scripture" is poor hermeneutics and does not follow from the historical context in which he wrote.

Is it possible to follow good hermeneutics and conclude that portions of the Bible are untrue? Or are you of the "No True Scotsman" variety?

I suggest you read "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" by Bart Ehrmann. There are so many fragments of parchment which do not agree so clearly there were many, many copyist errors whether deliberate or accidental.

How do you deal with certain translations of the Bible such as "The Message"?

To me, it is not about the inerrancy of the Bible so much as the general themes therein.

What definition is that?

Left/Right,

While I take a similar approach as you, just make sure that if you're going to read Skeptical Material like that of Bart Ehrman that you all balance that with various scholarly responses to his claims. Maybe you already do that, but I'm mentioning it because I encounter people (fellow Christians even) all the time who pick up single skeptical book and then run with it and its "insights" all the way to the bank, without doing the necessary research and testing of ideas. Although he may have some very cogent point to make, don't assume that Ehrman is giving it all to you "straight up."

Peace

aiki · Jan 19, 2015

Yes, and? Paul understood that the body of what was recognized by the Early Church as Scripture was expanding (he was a contributor to that expansion, after all).

Did he know he was contributing to it at the time? Were the Gospels considered "Scripture" by 60 AD or was the word "Scripture" still reserved exclusively for the Jewish writings?

I'm not going to get hung up on the specific term "Scripture." Whatever term one wants to use, Paul recognized that his various epistles were issued with apostolic authority and thus were speaking for God:

1 Thessalonians 2:13
13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

1 Corinthians 2:4
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

1 Corinthians 14:37
37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

Galatians 1:11-12
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 4:14
14 And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

Along with what you've noted, Paul would've, then, also likely meant Timothy to understand that what he meant by "Scripture" included what was yet to be written. In light of this, I don't feel any compunction in reading Paul's words to Timothy to include all of what I today call the Bible.

You are making far too many assumptions about what Paul did or did not think. How is there any indication that Paul's use of the word "Scripture" included what was yet to be written?

As you can see above, I am not actually making assumptions about Paul's thinking but base my own thinking in this matter on his own very clear declarations.

And if you are of that line of thinking, then what about other writings such as the Book of Mormon? Maybe Paul also indicated that the Book of Mormon was meant to be "Scripture" because he was saying it was yet to be written?

But this isn't what I was saying about Paul's thinking. Paul understood he was a contributor to Scripture because he had a clear sense of his authority as an apostle and thus as one commissioned and inspired by God to write holy Scripture. I am sure that Paul believed legitimate contributions to Scripture could come only from those properly established as apostles, which is why he takes pains to establish his own apostolic authority in his letter to the Galatians. For obvious reasons, then, Paul would not have included writings like the Book of Mormon in his understanding of what constituted Scripture.

But this is not what the writers of the Bible claimed about what they wrote. They believed they were communicating something special from God to the rest of us.

Do you have any other quotes which has a writer claiming he is writing the Word of God?

Goodness, yes!

2 Samuel 23:2
2 "The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue.

Jeremiah 1:9
9 Then the Lord put forth His hand and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me: "Behold, I have put My words in your mouth.

Isaiah 59:21
21 "As for Me," says the Lord, "this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth...

Hosea 1:2
2 When the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea...

Hebrews 1:1-2
1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

2 Peter 1:21
21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

And so on.

Your assumptions about what Paul intended by the use of the word "Scripture" is poor hermeneutics and does not follow from the historical context in which he wrote.

Not so. See above.

Is it possible to follow good hermeneutics and conclude that portions of the Bible are untrue? Or are you of the "No True Scotsman" variety?

These aren't the only two options.

No, I use the biblical definition of "Christian."

What definition is that?

You don't know? Okay...Well, consider the following:

1 John 3:14
14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death.

Romans 8:14-17
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."
16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
17 and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

1 John 2:3-5
3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him.

Galatians 5:22-24
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

1 John 2:15
15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Selah.

Vollbracht · Jan 19, 2015

leftrightleftrightleft said:
Why do you think I'm joking? Firstly, it seems fairly clear when reading the Bible that Jesus did not "rise from the dead" in a literal sense. There was certainly something more going on. He did not return as a man but rather as some sort of spirit-man or vision. He was able to walk through walls (John 20:19), people did not recognize him as Jesus (Luke 24:16-30, John 20:14), he appeared to only pre-selected people rather than everyone (Acts 10:41), he is like a spirit who can appear among them (Luke 24:36-37), he appears in multiple forms (Mark 16:12).

Why stop at verse 37? Here: Lk. 24:39 "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."

If he rose so that we can be made in relationship with God, this does not seem to have anything to do with the afterlife.

I marvel that you don't believe a resurrection from the dead has anything to do with an afterlife.

Death is part of life. Forgiveness is an action whereby you are absolved of your transgression. It is beautiful. But why can God not forgive us if death is natural?

A better question is why God sent His Only-begotten Son into the world to suffer the death of the Cross for our sake? I do wonder if you implicitly believe salvation IS death.

No, it could mean devoting your life to prayer and meditation; to seeking a self-disciplined life; to seeking God's face; to helping and serving the poor; to serve rather than be served; to seek the narrow and difficult path of non-conformity to a culture which glorifies sex, greed and self-styled success; to yearn and hope for an improved world; to love.

What difference would it make? The one serving the poor and the one exploiting the poor would, in the final analysis, die the same death along with the world itself...no reward, no punishment.

All knowledge escapes us at death. There should be no fear in this notion. God is with us and for us in the world we live in. Death is part of life. It is necessary and normal.

Then love loses and is swallowed up by death. The mother grieving over her murdered children whom she loved more than herself knows more than you: that there is something wrong with death. The only "good news" in this view would be to embrace death, for when she dies, knowledge of her children will die with her.

oi_antz · Jan 19, 2015

Hey there, I like the way you are thinking.

leftrightleftrightleft said:
I tend to believe in things that make sense to me. I believe something if it is logical or if I've had some experience with that thing which makes it compelling. I believe something after it has filtered through all the biases of my culture and my upbringing.

I am actually not able to believe something unless it makes sense to me, or unless it is so trivial that believing it without understanding it is better than not believing it for not understanding it. I think everyone is this way. Even if they want to believe something that doesn't make sense, then they will deceive themselves in order to make sense of it. But this does not logically prove that anything that makes sense should be believed. People who lie go to great extents to form a lie that makes sense.

leftrightleftrightleft said:
I believe in God and I believe in many things in the Christian message. I go to church. I do daily devotions and meditations. I think God is a relatively large part of my life.

But there are some key things about the Christian message that I don't agree with and I find it alienates me from the Christian community.

The first of these is Biblical authority. I don't see why I need to believe what the Bible says is true. I don't find the literal truth of the Bible to be compelling for a variety of reasons. I find that an allegorical or metaphorical reading of the Bible is simply a cop out for those that find the literal reading to be untrue but still feel the need to say that "The Bible is true" as some sort of doctrinal necessity. Why not just admit that some parts of the Bible are (often wildly) untrue while others contain some level of truth? Ultimately, I think the Bible is not your authority, YOU are your authority. You decide what parts of the Bible are "literally true" and which are "allegorical". YOU decide which parts are "important" and others which are "unimportant". And I do the same thing. And you might say that you've done it using "textual analysis" or "literary criticism" but ultimately it is YOU that decided that those tools are a method of garnering truth whereas other Christians did not decide that those tools are necessary.

Fair enough. What is your question though?

leftrightleftrightleft said:
The second is the afterlife. I had a Christian friend the other day say that "if there is no afterlife, then the end of your life when your consciousness simply stops existing seems utterly terrifying and hopeless." I don't relate. At all. I see no philosophical, existential need for the afterlife nor do I see it as a particularly compelling coping mechanism. In fact, the afterlife (whichever flavour you ascribe to) only leads to more philosophical conundrums, paradoxes and makes my life seem utterly pointless. There have been a growing number of prominent theologians (notably from the Church of England) that have questioned the existence of the afterlife. But how can they do this while also saying that the Bible is authoritative and/or true? The New Testament certainly alludes to some sort of existence beyond death throughout.

You have said you believe Jesus lives. Do you also believe that a time will come that God will raise others to the same type of life?

leftrightleftrightleft said:
To break my problem down simpler:

I find that the only way to be a "proper" Christian is to read the Bible literally as much as possible. And I find those that push the boundaries of allegory and metaphor to be simply trying to hide the fact that they don't really believe the Bible is true or authoritative in any sense beyond doctrinally necessary.

I wish more non-literalists would simply fess up to the fact that the Bible isn't their primary authority and that's perfectly okay as Christians to say so.

Well, I take a different approach. I do prefer to read the most obvious way, which may be literally, even if it conflicts with more reliable evidences (eg, Genesis). What I don't though is make a statement that I believe it is factual, since there is no information for me to base an assumption that it wasn't just made up. I think that is the most honest way to view it, and it allows me to read in a literal context, which allows me to read the very meaning that the author has obviously intended his audience to obtain from it. To read it as factual, is an assumption that reveals an unreasonable bias, and to deny that obviously literal statements are literal reveals a discomfort with the statements.

leftrightleftrightleft said:
I thought you received salvation by faith in Jesus, not by belief in the Bible...

Is there proof for this idea? I know of statements of Jesus which say that faith is not necessarily enough, and even that faith is not necessarily required. I suppose my question is, when does it become evident that someone has been saved?

leftrightleftrightleft said:
Why would you believe in salvation but not sell all your possessions as Jesus commanded?

Can you please provide the verse you are referring to?

leftrightleftrightleft · Jan 19, 2015

aiki said:
I'm not going to get hung up on the specific term "Scripture." Whatever term one wants to use, Paul recognized that his various epistles were issued with apostolic authority and thus were speaking for God:

1 Thessalonians 2:13
13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

1 Corinthians 2:4
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

1 Corinthians 14:37
37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

Galatians 1:11-12
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 4:14
14 And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

As you can see above, I am not actually making assumptions about Paul's thinking but base my own thinking in this matter on his own very clear declarations.

Firstly, thanks for the great response. Yes, it seems clear that Paul did in fact believe he was writing as God's messenger and apostle. But it is unfortunate because so did Joseph Smith and the writer of the Gospel of Thomas.

Secondly, if Paul was the messenger of God, why is it necessary that everything he said was true or factual? Why must it be 100% accurate in order to have worth?

If there are errors, inaccuracies or mistranslations, why is that such a bad thing to admit?

Goodness, yes!

2 Samuel 23:2
2 "The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue.

Jeremiah 1:9
9 Then the Lord put forth His hand and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me: "Behold, I have put My words in your mouth.

Isaiah 59:21
21 "As for Me," says the Lord, "this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth...

Hosea 1:2
2 When the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea...

Hebrews 1:1-2
1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

2 Peter 1:21
21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

And so on.

Thanks for the examples even if I don't see how all of them fit.

But, I think we are digressing away from my main point which is why the Bible must be 100% true in order to be valuable?

These aren't the only two options.

What are the other options?

You don't know? Okay...Well, consider the following:

1 John 3:14
14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death.

Romans 8:14-17
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."
16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
17 and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

1 John 2:3-5
3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him.

Galatians 5:22-24
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

1 John 2:15
15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Most of those quotes make it seem utterly impossible to call oneself a Christian. But I'll agree that to be called a Christian is to turn to aim for those benchmarks.

leftrightleftrightleft · Jan 19, 2015

Vollbracht said:
Why stop at verse 37? Here: Lk. 24:39 "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."

So how do you reconcile the two? The fact that several verses seem to indicate the fact that he was some sort of spirit/manifestation and other verses emphasizing his physical nature?

I marvel that you don't believe a resurrection from the dead has anything to do with an afterlife.

Okay.

A better question is why God sent His Only-begotten Son into the world to suffer the death of the Cross for our sake?

I don't think Jesus is literally God's son simply because I don't even know what that really is supposed to mean.

I also don't find the "death on the Cross" to be particularly significant. Lots of people died on crosses. Jesus was executed in a brutal fashion, yes, but it wasn't particularly unique nor was it particularly horrific. Worse things have been done.

God sent Jesus to change the world. To bring forgiveness. To bring salvation.

I do wonder if you implicitly believe salvation IS death.

Salvation is to be set free from sin and inner torment. It has nothing to do with death.

What difference would it make? The one serving the poor and the one exploiting the poor would, in the final analysis, die the same death along with the world itself...no reward, no punishment.

Everyone surely dies. It is the great equalizer. So serve the poor for the poor's sake.

Also, depending on the particular theology, the same argument could be made of Christianity. The Christian serving the poor and the Christian exploiting the poor would, in the final analysis, achieve eternal life because you are saved by faith and not works. So, in the final analysis, the actions did not matter. Death would still be the great equalizer.

Then love loses and is swallowed up by death. The mother grieving over her murdered children whom she loved more than herself knows more than you: that there is something wrong with death. The only "good news" in this view would be to embrace death, for when she dies, knowledge of her children will die with her.

There is nothing wrong with death. It is necessary. But perhaps there is something wrong with the way we sometimes die. It is not death's fault that the mother is grieving. It is the murderer who is to blame. But, as challenging as it may be, we are called to forgive the murderer.

Greater good will come through forgiveness. The mother should grieve, but out of the ashes of that grief, perhaps much good can come. There are countless stories of families losing loved ones to murder, cancer, drunk driving, etc and those families use that force and that grief and turn it into campaigns, personal turn-arounds, fundraisers, and increased awareness. It is those that are embittered and wish for judgement that rarely bring about positive change in the world.

Vollbracht · Jan 19, 2015

leftrightleftrightleft said:
So how do you reconcile the two? The fact that several verses seem to indicate the fact that he was some sort of spirit/manifestation and other verses emphasizing his physical nature?

I urge you to read the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15.

I don't think Jesus is literally God's son simply because I don't even know what that really is supposed to mean.

Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man. I urge you to read Hebrews chapters 1 - 2 and John chapter 1.

Here, also, is the Nicene Creed: "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

I also don't find the "death on the Cross" to be particularly significant. Lots of people died on crosses. Jesus was executed in a brutal fashion, yes, but it wasn't particularly unique nor was it particularly horrific. Worse things have been done.

Since Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, His crucifixion at the hands of men is utterly unique. See Acts 2:22-40 and 3:12-26 and 4:8-12, 24-33 and 5:29-31. Sin is a transgression against a Holy and Just God, the result of which is death, as God warned Adam.

Salvation is to be set free from sin and inner torment. It has nothing to do with death.

Salvation is to pass from the wrath of God to eternal life in Christ Jesus.

George95 · Jan 21, 2015

MOD HAT ON

Moved to General Theology from Exploring Christianity.

MOD HAT OFF

The Bible and Christianity

Well-Known Member

Not I...but Christ

Newbie

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Regular Member

Newbie

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Regular Member

Newbie

Opposed to Untruth.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

CF Tech Master

Similar threads