The question of the snake in Genesis.

[CryOfALion]

I agree, however, it is not and should not be presented as such (Canon). It is just as reputable as any resource book used today. It parallels the Bible and other documents and has reliable manuscripts. As with any presented "fact" it is always good to back it up by one two other historical resource texts.

I agree, I use anything I can find as references and learning. But, realistically speaking I think canonical status will allow people to see it as fitting for resource, psychologically.

But, I hear you.

 

[JacksBratt]

I agree, I use anything I can find as references and learning. But, realistically speaking I think canonical status will allow people to see it as fitting for resource, psychologically.

But, I hear you.

Thanks for backing me up here.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You either accept something as true or you do not. I would assume
you are seeking some sort of "God appearing before you" kind of proof
and it has nothing to do with making a choice.

If I told you I achieved 30 kills and 8 deaths on a recent Call of Duty
game, you would make a choice to believe me or not. Even if I presented
two friends who also saw it happen, you would still have to make a
choice to believe me or not. There would be no reason to keep seeking
for that belief or unbelief.

My belief desire is not that specific. It would not shock me if I needed something like that to happen in order to believe, but all I really want is the belief. I would be cool with suddenly starting to believe right now for no logical reason whatsoever.

 

[ChetSinger]

You have no idea what Jesus or his disciples views were or what they thought and neither does anyone else, all we have in the bible are memories of what people were told by other people who may or may not have heard Jesus speak.

Everything Jesus was supposed to have said or done is nothing but hearsay because nothing was written down until at least 60 years after Jesus [if he even existed] was supposed to have died.

I am not trying to say anything other than no one knows the facts about what Jesus is supposed to have said because no one who ever heard him speak ever wrote anything down.. that is simply a fact.

We know as much, or more, about people like Jesus and Paul as we do about any other figure from that era.

Regarding eyewitness testimonies, all four gospels likely include them. Luke's gospel, for example, contains details from Mary's point of view. So her recollections, shared with others, were likely among his sources.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We know as much, or more, about people like Jesus and Paul as we do about any other figure from that era.

Regarding eyewitness testimonies, all four gospels likely include them. Luke's gospel, for example, contains details from Mary's point of view. So her recollections, shared with others, were likely among his sources.

I doubt it, given the differences between the books of the bible that describe the life of Jesus.

 

[Linuxgal]

Regarding eyewitness testimonies, all four gospels likely include them. Luke's gospel, for example, contains details from Mary's point of view. So her recollections, shared with others, were likely among his sources.

The Two Towers contains details from Merry and Pippin's point of view also.

 

[JacksBratt]

I doubt it, given the differences between the books of the bible that describe the life of Jesus.

Just curios as to what differences you are referring to.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just curios as to what differences you are referring to.

Matthew, Luke, and John all have disagreements in regards to the life and teachings of Jesus. Really obvious and blatant ones. Plus, historical records destroy some of the Luke accounts, and Luke is considered to be the only book in the bible even written close enough to when Jesus was alive to have some eyewitness testimony without years and years of "telephone game".

For example, John presents Jesus as claiming that he and god are one. I can't remember exactly what book, but another biblical text says the exact opposite in such a concise and obvious way it makes me wonder why not everyone notices it. But then again, I read pretty fast, so maybe when there is significant time inbetween books you don't notice these things as easily?

 

[Linuxgal]

Matthew, Luke, and John all have disagreements in regards to the life and teachings of Jesus. Really obvious and blatant ones. Plus, historical records destroy some of the Luke accounts, and Luke is considered to be the only book in the bible even written close enough to when Jesus was alive to have some eyewitness testimony without years and years of "telephone game".

Actually, I would say that Mark was the earlier document, it contains an incident, for example, where Jesus couidn't do his magic because the audience didn't have enough "faith". Such embarrassments were glossed over in the later gospels.

 

[ChetSinger]

The Two Towers contains details from Merry and Pippin's point of view also.

That book is in a different genre.

 

[ChetSinger]

...For example, John presents Jesus as claiming that he and god are one. I can't remember exactly what book, but another biblical text says the exact opposite in such a concise and obvious way it makes me wonder why not everyone notices it. But then again, I read pretty fast, so maybe when there is significant time inbetween books you don't notice these things as easily?

The theology around the personage of Jesus derives from elements of the Judaism of the era, including the personhood of the Memra (Word) of the Lord in the Aramaic Targums and the "two powers in heaven" theology of a binitarian YHWH. Such beliefs were widespread and orthodox in 2nd temple Judaism, and then declared heretical in the 2nd century after the rise of Christianity.

It explains why the first believers, who were all Jews, could worship Jesus while still considering themselves followers of orthodox Judaism.

This is a big and fascinating (to me) subject. If you're really interested in it I have some resources I can share.

 

[Linuxgal]

That book is in a different genre.

Not really, together with the Simarillion, etc., there is a creator god (Eru Iluvatar), angelic beings (Valar, Maiar), fallen spirits (Melkor, Sauron, the Balrogs), nephilim-like matings between angelic beings and fleshy ones (Queen Melian wed Elu Thingol), Noah-like disasters (the fall of Numenor, which cast seven ships of the faithful on the shores of Middle-Earth), talking eagles, a wizard who dies and is resurrected in a white robe, on and on. I'd say the Bible is very much in the same genre as the Tolkien corpus.

 

[Linuxgal]

For example, John presents Jesus as claiming that he and god are one. I can't remember exactly what book, but another biblical text says the exact opposite in such a concise and obvious way it makes me wonder why not everyone notices it.?

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

 

[ChetSinger]

Not really,..

Yes, really. The LOTR genre is fiction. The NT genres include biography, history, correspondence, theology, and prophecy.

 

[keith99]

Not really, together with the Simarillion, etc., there is a creator god (Eru Iluvatar), angelic beings (Valar, Maiar), fallen spirits (Melkor, Sauron, the Balrogs), nephilim-like matings between angelic beings and fleshy ones (Queen Melian wed Elu Thingol), Noah-like disasters (the fall of Numenor, which cast seven ships of the faithful on the shores of Middle-Earth), talking eagles, a wizard who dies and is resurrected in a white robe, on and on. I'd say the Bible is very much in the same genre as the Tolkien corpus.

Or at least will be if we suffer a disaster and centuries later a library is excavated.

Depending on just what survives in the Library Tolkeinism may be considered the dominant faith of our time.

 

[Linuxgal]

Yes, really. The LOTR genre is fiction. The NT genres include biography, history, correspondence, theology, and prophecy.

I don't think everyone will agree that a biography which includes a virgin birth, and a history which includes feeding five thousand people with five fish and two loaves of bread will qualify as such.

 

[ChetSinger]

I don't think everyone will agree that a biography which includes a virgin birth, and a history which includes feeding five thousand people with five fish and two loaves of bread will qualify as such.

Here's an example of one scholar, Ben Witherington, classifying the genre of Luke-Acts. And no, it's not LOTR:

Luke-Acts bears some strong resemblances to earlier Greek historiographic works in form and method and general arrangement of material, as well as some similarities to Hellenized Jewish historiography in content and general apologetic aims. Furthermore, the echoes and quotes of the OT in Luke-Acts as well as the stress on fulfillment reveal a vital link to the biblical promises and prophecies of the past. Luke’s work follows no one model, but clearly enough it would not have been seen as a work like Roman historiography, Greek biography, or Greek scientific treatises. It would surely, however, have been seen as some sort of Hellenistic historiography, especially by a Gentile audience.

 

[Linuxgal]

Here's an example of one scholar, Ben Witherington, classifying the genre of Luke-Acts. And no, it's not LOTR:

They have discovered elements of Josephus in the book of Acts, putting it's creation in the 90's CE. Since the book of Acts ends with Paul arriving in Rome, and makes no mention of his death or the fall of Jerusalem, it qualifies as a forgery that is attempting to establish itself as a work of the 50s and 60s CE. Sort of a "Pauline school has the last word" sort of thing.

 

[ChetSinger]

They have discovered elements of Josephus in the book of Acts, putting it's creation in the 90's CE. Since the book of Acts ends with Paul arriving in Rome, and makes no mention of his death or the fall of Jerusalem, it qualifies as a forgery that is attempting to establish itself as a work of the 50s and 60s CE. Sort of a "Pauline school has the last word" sort of thing.

Believe what you wish about the accuracy of the content of Luke-Acts. But its genre is classified by most scholars as ancient historiography, sometimes specifically as Hellenistic historiography.

 

[Linuxgal]

Believe what you wish about the accuracy of the content of Luke-Acts. But its genre is classified by most scholars as ancient historiography, sometimes specifically as Hellenistic historiography.

Pauline scholars place it last in the set of scriptures that can be relied on to learn about the historical Paul. When it conflicts with Galatians, for example (ie. the conversion narrative, the split with Barnabas and Paul's dissent against the Jerusalem apostles), they go with the story that Paul wrote in his own large letters rather than the unknown author of Acts.