Why is the Bible ambiguous?

[FireDragon76]

Yes there are, so what?

What matters, is how the historical criticism is carried out. Is it done in an objective way and following the historical method.

"historical method"? Now you are just throwing around pseudo-jargon.

Most postmodern historians have given up on the idea that there can ever be an objective account of history. You are stuck in the past. The kind of scientific accuracy you demand for the subject is now considered naïve.

 

[bhsmte]

"historical method"? Now you are just throwing around pseudo-jargon.

Most postmodern historians have given up on the idea that there can ever be an objective account of history. You are stuck in the past.

Then what have historians been doing all this time?

Historians are in the business of determining; what likely happened in the past and they have a method they have been using for a long time to determine; what likely happened in the past. The greater the evidence, the greater the likelihood they can place on any particular event being credible.

Granted, the conservative Christian historians, play a little loose with the historical method, when it applies to the NT.

 

[quatona]

"historical method"? Now you are just throwing around pseudo-jargon.

Most postmodern historians have given up on the idea that there can ever be an objective account of history. You are stuck in the past. The kind of scientific accuracy you demand for the subject is now considered naïve.

It´s quite refreshing to see a theist appeal to the authority of postmodernism.

 

[FireDragon76]

Then what have historians been doing all this time?

The same thing all humans do: poking ,prodding, and occasionally making a big mess of things. "peer review" doesn't necessarily undo the prejudices of the society that the peer-review process operates within. Our civilization is full of the results of hubris and arrogance towards other viewpoints, what makes you think modernity has undone that just because certain individuals wrap that prejudice in the name of science and technology?

Granted, the conservative Christian historians, play a little loose with the historical method, when it applies to the NT.

Yeah, historians like N.T. Wright are bumpkins that fell off the stupid wagon... not.

If you think the Jesus Seminar's method approaches anything like objectivity, you are kidding yourself. There are so many unquestioned assumptions in their method of approaching the question of the "historical Jesus" that it is obvious what they are really doing. Albert Schweitzer nailed it over a century ago: "historical Jesus" scholars invariably remake Jesus in their own image.

 

[bhsmte]

The same thing all humans do: poking ,prodding, and occasionally making a big mess of things. "peer review" doesn't necessarily undo the prejudices of the society that the peer-review process operates within. Our civilization is full of the results of hubris and arrogance towards other viewpoints, what makes you think modernity has undone that just because certain individuals wrap that prejudice in the name of science and technology?



Yeah, historians like N.T. Wright are bumpkins that fell off the stupid wagon... not.

If you think the Jesus Seminar's method approaches anything like objectivity, you are kidding yourself. There are so many unquestioned assumptions in their method of approaching the question of the "historical Jesus" that it is obvious what they are really doing. Albert Schweitzer nailed it over a century ago: "historical Jesus" scholars invariably remake Jesus in their own image.

When did I bring up the Jesus Seminar, I don't recall doing so?

Most of the historians I have read, disagree with the methods of the Jesus seminar and I try to stay away from either highly conservative historians or those of the liberal variety, who deny Jesus even existed. The best, most objective work, is in the middle of those two.

So, do you think historians applying the historical method to events in the past is useless? Do you have a better method of determining what likely happened in the past?

 

[FireDragon76]

So, do you think historians applying the historical method to events in the past is useless? Do you have a better method of determining what likely happened in the past?

There is no such thing as the "historical method" (It's more like there are historical methods). It's not a hard science. There's a peer-review process, but that peer review process has inherent limitations in how far it can take us to "what actually happened".

 

[bhsmte]

There is no such thing as the "historical method" (It's more like there are historical methods). It's not a hard science. There's a peer-review process, but that peer review process has inherent limitations in how far it can take us to "what actually happened".

I didn't say it was hard science, but there indeed is a historical method that historians apply to determine what likely happened in the past.

Granted, some apply it differently than others, but it does exist.

 

[FireDragon76]

It´s quite refreshing to see a theist appeal to the authority of postmodernism.

I don't think of postmodernism as an authority (sounds like an oxymoron), but it follows since I'm more inclined to experiential or mystical theology.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's just your assertion, and a great many Christians would find it offensive. What exactly is your definition of a "serious Christian"?

A serious Christian knows that the death of Christ fulfilled the Passover as well as other prophecies concerning his death, not 'Easter'.

And it totally misses the point... debating the merits of the holiday of Easter is not the issue bhsmte raised - the historical authenticity of the resurrection is the issue being addressed.

bhsmte didn't reveal what teachings he took issue with.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

And so, haven't you eliminated all possibilities? If the Church were in 100% agreement it would "weird you out" and you would think it a cult. But if the Church isn't in 100% agreement, then it's not the Church.

It makes more sense to me to consider that the Church can work in the world as it is.

The issue isn't that I expect that the Church to be in 100% agreement. I would really just expect agreement on vitally important issues (the Trinity, the means of salvation, the nature of free will, etc.).

That said, that isn't the core of what I'm saying. My main issue is that, even if there were somehow 100% agreement on all issues inside of the Church, it would be impossible to discern with real certainty who composed that body of individuals. As such, you can't really use it as a measuring stick for your own views. If you believe your views on core issues to be correct and believe the Church to be the group of people who shares them, that reasoning rapidly becomes circular.

I think you're still missing my point. Yes, the way one is raised strongly influences you. That is why being raised in a Christian home is important. But whether one is or isn't doesn't determine the outcome. People both convert and deconvert. I happen to be a long way (theologically) from where I was raised despite the influence it had on me.

I'm not suggesting one believes without reason. But this idea of finding objective evidence is just nonsense. There is no such thing for finite, fallible beings such as we are. What I'm saying is that experiencing Christ precedes all else. Knowing the person precedes understanding what that person has done.

The way that I understood what you said earlier was as a suggestion that belief should be a blind leap. Basically, a sort of fideism where a person decides to believe in God with no evidence rather than with any rational reason to do so. I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding there.

If you believe that a person has to have faith to properly understand true theology, I would disagree with you, but I would understand your view. I would question how a person could know that they have the correct faith to develop true theology because of the problems that I've mentioned earlier, but I could still understand and respect that position.

 

[FireDragon76]

A serious Christian knows that the death of Christ fulfilled the Passover as well as other prophecies concerning his death, not 'Easter'.

The Passover is a type for Christ's Passion, that's why it's usually the Old Testament reading for Maundy Thursday in churches that use the common lectionary. But Jesus doesn't fulfill the Passover, the Passover is its own fulfillment, since it pertains to God's covenant with the Hebrew people.

 

[granpa]

are you guys just going to keep messing up your quotes?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The Passover is a type for Christ's Passion, that's why it's usually the Old Testament reading for Maundy Thursday in churches that use the common lectionary. But Jesus doesn't fulfill the Passover, the Passover is its own fulfillment, since it pertains to God's covenant with the Hebrew people.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:" (1 Cor. 5:7)

The "our" is the new testament church, as distinct from the "Jew's Passover" which didn't recognize that Jesus was the true sacrificial lamb of God.

The word Easter, Acts 12:4, is a deliberate mistranslation of the word pascha (Passover). The English translators, having accepted the by now centuries-old Catholic tradition of "Easter", couldn't help themselves when they saw the opportunity to further 'Christianize' what was thought to be a purely Jewish tradition.

 

[FireDragon76]

The word Easter, Acts 12:4, is a deliberate mistranslation of the word pascha (Passover). The English translators, having accepted the by now centuries-old Catholic tradition of "Easter", couldn't help themselves when they saw the opportunity to further 'Christianize' what was thought to be a purely Jewish tradition.

Ok, now you are just quibbling with words... Easter is the commonly accepted term in English for what is called Pasca or Pascha in Latin or Greek in other Christian nations (and yes, it's origins are related to the Hebrew word Pesach, but that doesn't mean the holiday is the same as Passover). The Passover of the Jews is distinct from the Christian holiday.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ok, now you are just quibbling with words... Easter is the commonly accepted term in English for what is called Pasca or Pascha in Latin or Greek in other Christian nations (and yes, it's origins are related to the Hebrew word Pesach, but that doesn't mean the holiday is the same as Passover). The Passover of the Jews is distinct from the Christian holiday.

That's what I've been saying, that Easter and Passover are not the same. Even while Jesus was being killed as the true sacrificial lamb the Jews were going about their traditional Passover rituals of killing a lamb and eating unleavened bread totally unaware of what was actually happening right in front of them. So the true Passover and the Jews Passover aren't the same either.

 

[theophilus777]

Furthermore, if the bible is divinely inspired, why wouldn't God assure the originals were preserved? Instead, we have copies of copies of copies.

This assumption, as well as any notion that everyone should somehow have an identical understanding, completely violates everything we know of who God is. You do realize there are different branches that use different texts?

 

[Albion]

This assumption, as well as any notion that everyone should somehow have an identical understanding, completely violates everything we know of who God is. You do realize there are different branches that use different texts?

It sounds like the assumption was also that there was a complete copy at one time and only one copied from that. In reality there were numerous copies of copies necessitated for several reasons (such as you referred to above), and later translators had to deal with all of them.

 

[bhsmte]

This assumption, as well as any notion that everyone should somehow have an identical understanding, completely violates everything we know of who God is. You do realize there are different branches that use different texts?

Sure, different texts that were copied from copies of copies, over many many years and different interpretations.

So, it would not have been helpful, to have the actual original text available?

 

[Albion]

Sure, different texts that were copied from copies of copies, over many many years and different interpretations.

So, it would not have been helpful, to have the actual original text available?

I get the point, but God has always used the things of the physical world he created in developing his intentions for us.

He could have suspended all natural laws and come to us, whenever needed, via magic, and in an unmistakable way. He could have simply left a copy of the finished Bible on Earth rather than inspiring men to write as he led them to do, just as Jesus used mud to cure and bread and water to convey his sacramental blessings. I think it's because this is the world of which we are a part, and suspending it all the time by a wave of his hand, would be artificial.

 

[bhsmte]

I get the point, but God has always used the things of the physical world he created in developing his intentions for us.

He could have suspended all natural laws and come to us, whenever needed, via magic, and in an unmistakable way. He could have simply left a copy of the finished Bible on Earth rather than inspiring men to write as he led them to do, just as Jesus used mud to cure and bread and water to convey his sacramental blessings. I think it's because this is the world of which we are a part, and suspending it all the time by a wave of his hand, would be artificial.

Well, it just appears to me, that this God likes to confuse people.