CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[Lelliott8]

Thats my whole point...neither of us have access to the facts. We only have access to other people's stories, and people regularly lie, obscure, and mislead to advance their own agenda. I believe that is what happened with the Jesus story...

I don't believe the version of events put forth in the Christian bible, you do. This isn't a matter of proof, it is a matter of faith...I don't have faith that the Bible was not manipulated to suit the agendas of its editors and publishers...you do.

There is no reason to get upset...we are only discussing our viewpoint here, right?

What agenda do you suspect was served? Those that told the story of Christ were ridiculed, persecuted, and killed. Perhaps the agenda was to spread the word that they WITNESSED something incredible, and at great personal risk, were compelled to lead others to believe.

 

[JettaKnight]

The solution to both is good Biblical hermaneutics.

Nope. [STRIKE]Literal[/STRIKE] correct interpretation is necessary.

I eschew the use of the word "literal" now days for a couple of reasons.

1. It's a lightning rod. It sets up a belief that you're a "literalist" and don't think about what you're reading. They might assume you're "KJV only" too.
2. Not everything can be taken literally. Here's an overly simplistic example: Is Satan a lion, a serpent, a wolf, a dragon.... And if he's a lion, and God is a lion...
3. Much of scripture is Hebrew poetry and should be interpreted as such and not interpreted as historical and scientific fact, i.e. the creation story. That's another reason I avoid "literal" - it lumps me in with Young Earthers. In that case, they've misinterpreted text as being a scientific treaties for a race of people that had no scientific knowledge whatsoever.

That's where my defense starts to fall apart. I'm happy to defend religion to the end when it comes to the morals and values it teaches... but if we're starting to say it's literal, I can't really follow the conversation anymore and respond with any authority and knowledge.

This goes the other way and takes passages that are clearly historical records and turns them into allegories and stories. Once you've stripped away any claim of fact, what you're left with are stories to teach you how to live a good life. Then the Bible is nothing but a moral handbook like every other religions... Evil Wins.

If the Bible is nothing more than a moral handbook, then it has lost its immutable and timeless authority. It's truths are relative and not absolute. It's god is just another POV of the divine/creator/gaia. It's claims of sole authority and salvation are mere ploys.

In other words, it's feckless.

I like studying religion as a whole.

That doesn't square up. You can't both study Christianity "as a whole" then shed off the overt claims of sole authority and sovereignty that Christ makes. The Bible's moral and ethical code serves two purposes: (1) to provide morals and values and (2) to show how fallen, depraved and insufficient man real is and his open hope is the grace of God.

If you remove the second, and arguably more important, purpose, then you've condemned man to hell as so clearly described.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

That doesn't square up. You can't both study Christianity "as a whole" then shed off the overt claims of sole authority and sovereignty that Christ makes. The Bible's moral and ethical code serves two purposes: (1) to provide morals and values and (2) to show how fallen, depraved and insufficient man real is and his open hope is the grace of God.

If you remove the second, and arguably more important, purpose, then you've condemned man to hell as so clearly described.

Eh, maybe I didn't say what I meant with that. Again, as a not-really-religious person... I'm fascinated with religious history and studies. I try to educate myself on it, outside of the inherent biases from within it. I'm not really into the team-choosing part of it, and fighting about which one is right and which ones are wrong.

 

[ATM]

...but if you dig any deeper than the surface you will find your claim to be largely baseless.

The grasp you have on your own (dis)belief is so incredibly shallow, it's as if you just adopted it for some reason but never bothered to develop or scrutinize it.

You should dig deeper, past the surface, past the baseless belief you adopted, beyond your religion of mere denial.

 

[hog slayer]

Thats my whole point...neither of us have access to the facts. We only have access to other people's stories, and people regularly lie, obscure, and mislead to advance their own agenda. I believe that is what happened with the Jesus story...

I don't believe the version of events put forth in the Christian bible, you do. This isn't a matter of proof, it is a matter of faith...I don't have faith that the Bible was not manipulated to suit the agendas of its editors and publishers...you do.

There is no reason to get upset...we are only discussing our viewpoint here, right?

I'm totally with you. Let's not get upset.

NewTestament accuracy
Roughly 5,000 copies of the NT exist and13,000 portions. While the originalmanuscripts no longer exist, the NT is the most validated and authoritativedocument of the ancient world. Simplecontrast: Plato has 7 copies, Pliny 7, Thucydides 8, Aristotle 49, and Julius Caesar10.
Whilenot necessary for doctrine, Jesus birth is best calculations are that Jesusbirth took place in late November 5 B.C. (Maier, “The Date of the Nativity andthe Chronology of Jesus Life”). His crucifixionlikely occurred Friday, April 3, A.D. 33. Utilizing this information, Jesus ministry would have lasted less than 4years. Pretty impressive for someonewithout the ability to communicate as we do today.
· Matthew(disciple of Jesus): Wrote the Gospel according to Matthew as an eyewitnessaccount about Jesus and His ministry.
· Mark (follower of Jesus): Wrote theGospel according to Mark as an eyewitness account about Jesus and His ministry.
· Luke (follower of Jesus):Interviewed eyewitnesses and then wrote the Gospel according to Luke aboutJesus and His ministry.
· John (disciple of Jesus): Wrote theGospel according to John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation, all of whichaffirm the existence of Jesus.
· Peter (disciple of Jesus): Wrote twoletters about Jesus and preached about Christ’s death, burial, and Resurrectionjust weeks after the events occurred.
· Paul (opponent converted uponmeeting the risen Lord): Wrote at least 13 books of the New Testament.

If we lean into morals, this won't work out very well. It's going to be an uphill battle to define something that requires an authority.

 

[JettaKnight]

Eh, maybe I didn't say what I meant with that. Again, as a not-really-religious person... I'm fascinated with religious history and studies. I try to educate myself on it, outside of the inherent biases from within it.

I too, love the historical studies of Christianity, and other religions to a lesser extent, but I'm stuck with my own biases.

I'm not really into the team-choosing part of it, and fighting about which one is right and which ones are wrong.

Count yourself among the many - including liberal mainline churches. Unfortunately (from a Biblical perspective), a large part of Jesus' message was, "you got to pick a side."

 

[foszoe]

Like Paul is saying... no one here has the capability to verify the things written down are exactly as stated. But that's where "faith" comes in, I guess? Again, not smart enough to follow this like some of you.

Personally, I live a moral life. It was probably influenced by Christian values. I like to see the Christian teachings as a guideline for living a good life. I simply don't see the significance in reading into it ultra-literally, though.

Reading the Bible literally is a fairly modern phenomenon. It is not the view of the Orthodox or Catholic believer. It originates in the 16th century with Sola Scriptura and its modern day fruits include Sola Scriptura Sola KJV etc.

Ancient Christianity viewed the literal reading as the lowest form of understanding as I have previously posted. That isn't meant as a discounting of a literal reading as much as saying by a literal reading the true meaning is often missed.

The Canon of the NT was "finalized" circa 327 AD by the Church, taking longer than the History of the US. Imagine the US existing that long without the "Constitution"! The Church did. The Church sets up what is important. The Gospels could be edited. The scripture was never meant to be interpreted or studied stand alone as is the method of the Protestants but rather within the worship life of the Church. It is impossible for anyone to approach the scriptures with a completely open mind. This is why understanding the Bible in the context of the Early Church is so important but it is a failure to do so that has resulted in what we see in the Christian landscape of the US.

For example, ask a literalist "Which thief blessed Christ?" In Matthew and Mark both curse Christ. In Luke, the thief on the right blessed Christ. Now this is a discrepancy that must be explained by a literalist. An Orthodox Christian doesn't have to resort to that as the symbolism in the Orthodox Cross answers the question. The footrest of the cross tilts up to paradise on the right.

Another example, how to understand the Mystical (Last) Supper. Sunday Liturgy/worship was occurring long before Scripture. The passages concerning the Mystical Supper and John 6, were already understood in a specific way prior to the Gospels or Epistles being written. The Protestant Church by jettisoning the teaching tradition of the Church had to reexplain these passages in such a way to support their belief system even though that mean a rejection of a view that was much more ancient. It is ironic that they had to be less literal in order to do it than they typically are.

Another example, John 8: The adulterous woman account which exists only in later manuscripts post 400 AD thus added after the canon was closed. This is not a issue that even merits an explanation from a Christian that says my Church wrote your Bible, but it must be explained by a literalist.

A final example, Apocalypse (Revelation) was not accepted in some places until the 9th c, it is never read in Liturgy. This is precisely because the Church deemed the book divisive and questioned its merits. Ultimately it is included. If you want to start up a divisive conversation with Protestants ask what their interpretation of Revelation in mixed Protestant company and then step back!

This is why for the Orthodox or Catholic, authors such as Dan Brown, Bart Erhman or others claim Church manipulated the Text to which we respond "so what?" Our response: Of all of these writings, the Church selects texts that match the rule of faith and were evident in the life of the Church through its worship and interpretation long before the canon was finalized.

Now, I will not say a literalist can't explain away all "contradictions", perhaps they can. I am saying that to the majority of Christians these "contradictions" just don't matter so when an atheist or scholar comes up with a "new" one, its usually been covered by the Church in the 1st 4 centuries. There are no gotchas left in the text. The Bible is a salvation history and it tells us how to obtain salvation and in that it is infallible or inerrant. If the Bible seems to "contradict" itself. So what? The police will tell you that eyewitness testimony that agrees too much is probably fabricated. Well St John Chrysostom said the same thing in the 4th century. It is the minor discrepancies that are evidence for and witness to the veracity of the bible not the other way around and this is a position the literalist will not and can not accept.

It is the way of life for an Orthodox or Catholic Christian and as such the majority of the witness to Christianity across time and geography.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, blarney.

Premature repification of the Orthodox dude.

ETA:
One minor point of clarification - Catholics do have readings from Revelation as part of the liturgy. I'd have to check which cycle, but I'm almost positive I'm right about this.

 

[foszoe]

Well, blarney.

Premature repification of the Orthodox dude.

That one took less than 10 minutes It was an easy one.

 

[2A_Tom]

When the Bible says something happened (virgin birth, angel appearing, the earth opening and swallowing up Korah and company, Elijah calling down fire, Christ walking on water or Him raising the dead) or will happen (the tribulation, second coming or Great White Throne of Judgment) I take that literally.

 

[T.Lex]

When the Bible says something happened (virgin birth, angel appearing, the earth opening and swallowing up Korah and company, Elijah calling down fire, Christ walking on water or Him raising the dead) or will happen (the tribulation, second coming or Great White Throne of Judgment) I take that literally.

Out of curiosity, how do you determine what to take literally and what to maybe not take literally?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

The Church determining how to interpret scripture and having authority over it terrifies me. Must be the Baptist in me.

 

[foszoe]

When the Bible says something happened (virgin birth, angel appearing, the earth opening and swallowing up Korah and company, Elijah calling down fire, Christ walking on water or Him raising the dead) or will happen (the tribulation, second coming or Great White Throne of Judgment) I take that literally.

I am thinking more particularly of questions such as the following:

Did dinosaurs roam the earth with human beings? its related question
How old is the Earth?

And any of several questions to which the answers can be found in Josh McDowell books

 

[JettaKnight]

The Church determining how to interpret scripture and having authority over it terrifies me. Must be the Baptist in me.

Now that the Reformation has occurred, you can read scripture for yourself. But with great power comes great responsibility, therefore you must interpret (i.e. read and learn from it) it wisely.

 

[foszoe]

The Church determining how to interpret scripture and having authority over it terrifies me. Must be the Baptist in me.

What is your religious history/pedigree?

 

[JettaKnight]

What is your religious history/pedigree?

 

[foszoe]

But yet you aren't Lutheran

Why is that? What is your religious pedigree?

I ask not for entrapment but I think we can all agree it's easier to believe in that which you are raised? Anything different will sound foreign, unfamiliar, and at first just simply wrong depending on how deeply it contradicts a deeply held belief.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

What is your religious history/pedigree?

Personally or Baptist heritage?

 

[JettaKnight]

500 years ago Martin Luther had all the traditions and pedigree. Everything was all figured out for him, but he was still racked with guilt at being incapable of working out his salvation and presenting such a putrid offering to God when he came to Him.

It was only when he stripped this away and read God's Word was he able to see what had been hidden under years of corrosion and corruption - God's unmerited grace that is bestowed unto sinners.

 

[foszoe]

Personal

Personally or Baptist heritage?