I have a lot of irons in the fire right now.. I'm not ignoring the thread or anyone. ..many interesting points, and i have a witty comeback in the works. Unfortunately I have a life.. as pathetic as it is... and i don't have the time, right now. I'll be back, asap. Bombastic prose and over the top hyperbole will soon return.
I can point to threads like this, as examples of the diversity of OPINION that surround the interpretation of biblical texts. Here are some possibilities: 1. All the opinions are wrong, and the meaning intended by the author has been missed by everyone. 2. There is a precise intended meaning by the author, and an historical exegesis to follow, that elucidates that meaning. All other interpretations are distortions, heresies, or mistakes. 3. The author of the particular text had no intended meaning, and wrote it as a joke to confuse people. 4. The text in question was written by someone else, centuries later, to promote a deception. 5. The biblical texts are all allegorical, with no specific intended meaning. They are to be spiritualized, and mean different things to different people, in a spiritual sense, only. As a historian of biblical Christianity, my take is the second one. The author of the text had a specific meaning intended, and the application and interpretation SHOULD be viewed through that intended meaning, or exegesis, as it is called by biblical scholars. Here is a diagram that might help, though i, personally, view it much simpler: Hermeneutics is the study of textual interpretation. This is something very critical to understanding the central message of those who spoke to us in the Name of God. For millennia, biblical scholars have taken this very seriously, and there is a timeline of commentaries, expositions, and volumes of books written on the particular topic. So for the followers of Jesus, there should be no doubt, as to the validity, intent, historicity, and authority of the scriptures, which have been preserved for our instruction, correction, and training. We have centuries of sound biblical scholarship to confirm the reliability of the biblical texts. There is also millennia of heresies, departures, & distortions of the biblical texts, from the Enemy of Truth, who comes to kill and destroy. He is the Father of lies, and deception is his inherent nature. His goal is to muddy the waters of Truth, bringing confusion and doubt as to the validity of the message of redemption. 'Hath God said?' is his favorite line to lead people away from sound, exegetical theology, to the abyss of heresy and false doctrines. So beware! The devil prowls about seeking those he may devour. The gospel is true, historical, and has been preserved, over the centuries. Don't be led astray by old heresies and false teachings. There is One faith.. One God.. and One Way of redemption, through the Divine Person of Jesus. Don't be led astray by Johnny come lately theories and interpretations, which are usually just repackaged heresies, from ancient times.
Simplified Synopsis: God is perfect and made everything everywhere, people are the evil and non-Christians more so. Anything that states otherwise is false and to be ignored.
Good example of my previous post! Why address what is actually said, by the author, when a caricature, straw man, or distortion can be attacked with much more enthusiasm and righteous indignation!
One could use this same methodology on any philosophical treatise. It could be applied to the writings of the classic era Greeks wherein they describe their gods, the interaction between gods and man, the expectations of the gods on man, the afterlife, etc. The same goes for eastern philosophies. The flaw I see is that the methodology leads to an understanding of the specific work - what it meant/means, etc. But, that doesn't mean that what those ancient authors stated concerning the supernatural is actually true. As a side note, in your #5 it seems you are suggesting that allegory is somehow less true in terms of meaning. Isn't it usually the case that the meaning of an allegory is more true than any of the elements of the story? Isn't it true that allegory has been an important communication mechanism throughout known human history? I would suggest that the Eden story is MORE meaningful as allegory, for example. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life are surely more important allegorically than they are as actual trees that DIED(!!!) many thousands of years ago. Don't take suggestions that certain text is allegory as being an assault on the truth.
..not me. I have no trouble accepting that people have different beliefs and opinions, ESPECIALLY regarding the bible! I do not see the flaw you suggest.. just the limitations of historical facts or events, and the words of historical figures. Accuracy of the report, and a clear conveyance of the persons, words, and actions involved is goal enough. Convincing the truth of an historical event or the message of the person is beyond scientific methodology. It cannot be observed or repeated. My goal here was not to convince anyone of the truth of Christianity, but to present it clearly. The many misconceptions , caricatures, and disputes show that even clarity is not completely possible. But i (and many others now and throughout history) take a literal, historical approach, regarding the biblical texts. I believe, from careful study, that they are accurate and reliable, and have a specific meaning.. an exegesis of intent from the author. Whether they describe something in technical detail misses the message, and blinds one's spiritual perceptors to the points made. It is not a textbook, nor a scientific treatise on the material world. I should hear what the writer intended, not what i might extrapolate about details. This is, historical, biblical Christianity. It is alive and well, and still has the power to change the world.. by changing the individual, one at a time.
I would point out that there remain significant questions about the Bible's authorship and what it means, including what it means with respect to our universe. I'm not commenting on the religion here except to say that the various religions should be able to coexist with a scientific understanding of how our universe works. These should not have to be seen as being in opposition.
Selected scripture and quotes from the early Church fathers (I had to do this to straighten out another heretic): John 1:1 John 10:30 John 14:9 John 20:28 Hebrews 1:8,9 "He is Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, "Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness". Barnabas 70-130 AD "Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ whose blood was given for us". - Clement, 96 AD "God Himself was manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life". Ignatius 105 AD "Continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ, our God". Ignatius 105 AD "I pray for your happiness forever in our God, Jesus Christ". Ignatius, 105 AD “Truly God Himself, who is Almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from Heaven, and placed among men, the One who is the Truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word...God did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, angel, or ruler, Rather, He sent the very Creator and fashioner of all things, by whom He made the heavens...As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so God sent him. He sent Him as God.” Letter to Diogenetus, 125-200 AD “Bretheren, it is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God, as the judge of the living and the dead.” 2 Clement, 130 AD “For Christ is king, Priest, God, Lord, Angel, and man.” Justin Martyr, 160 AD “He deserves to be worshipped, as God and as Christ” Justin Martyr “The Son ministered to the will of the Father. Yet, nevertheless, He is God, in that He is the first begotten of all creation.” Justin Martyr 160 AD All of these predate the council of Nicaea. You don't know what you are talking about.
..not so. The authorship of the canon of scripture has had a steady consensus for thousands of years. How can a Johnny come lately critic have any information that would raise any question as to the authorship and credibility of the books in question. 'Higher Criticism' attacks on the books of the bible, popular in the 1800s, have been debunked by modern archaeology. It is only prejudice, not anything evidentiary based, that entertains criticisms of authorship and historicity. "What it means to our universe?" That's a good one! That is a matter of faith for the individual, and perhaps any objective reality that might be contained in the scriptures. Do you think some of the themes or messages in the bible might be true? Why? Why not? ..good luck with that.. what makes you think that is even possible? Humans are more loyal to their religious beliefs, rather than empirical facts. One only needs look at the claims of global warming or universal common descent. Science takes a backseat to the agenda.
I don't care what you believe, but you claimed this: "Most of Christianity did not accept the Trinity for the first roughly 300 years. It was generally agreed that Jesus was divine to some degree but the nature of this divinity was a hotly debated topic." "Most of Christianity" is not a few heretics. There's more where that came from, by the way.
"The books in question"? The "books in question" are those in the Bible - Genesis, for example. New discoveries and analysis of extant texts can (and have) led to different lines of authorship. Of COURSE "some of the themes or messages in the bible might be true". Who the heck would doubt that? Certainly it has interesting descriptions of an early society and history. Our interpretation of the Bible does change over time in various ways when it comes to issues other than God. We learn that slavery isn't acceptable. We learn about the equality of men and women in society. We don't accept terrorism even though the Old Testament has those who believe in the Biblical God using that technique and being supported by God in doing so. We learned the fallacy of Leviticus law. We are moving toward an understanding that the death penalty is not a legitimate power of the state. Also, we've found evidence that suggests the Noah story and the creation story, are allegory. In fact, these and other elements of the Bible are more powerful as allegory than would they be if they were merely a recitation of events. I agree change in religion is hard. There isn't any mechanism in religion that provides for change like there is in science.
The books of the bible were obviously the ones in question. What 'new discoveries!?' Examples? This sounds like the common phony narrative about the biblical manuscripts. People can and do believe a great many things about this collection of books. Some may even be true. Everyone has to do their own believing and their own dying.
I was thinking of the Samaritan Pentateuch, the fragments of Genesis from Qumran, the Septuagint, the Masoretic text. As I understand it, the Septuagent was the earliest translation from the original and is seen as the version that the apostle Paul referenced in his writing. On the other hand, I thin the Masoretic text is seen as the most important version. I do not use this as a method for attacking the Bible in any way, though being absolutely sure of the meaning of some of the content surely must be a challenging task for humans. !
Posting a bunch of myopic gibberish which lacks understanding of the subject matter does not your case make. For example - the early Church fathers referring to Jesus as "divine/God" - does not mean they believed that Jesus and God "the Father" were one in the same. The debate over the nature of the divinity Christ - a debate which waged not only prior to Constantine/ Nicene Council and for centuries after - is not some big secret. You completely fail to address the numerous examples of Jesus referring to God (The Father ) as someone other than himself. The fact of the matter is that in Matt/Mark - Jesus is not depicted as God (God the Father). In John the divinity of Jesus has been elevated however not to the status of YHWH.
Ah.. you mean other books and/or ancient manuscripts, not those included in the canon of scripture. I have not studied extensively those books left out of the canon, but i understand the canonization process, and how and why we have the bible as it is, now. The Septuagint is just a greek translation of the old testament books.. it is not a different or apocryphal manuscript. And the texts you refer to are either fragments or collections of the various manuscripts included in the canon. They are part of the history of the bible, and provide validation for it. Some extant manuscripts were considered fraudulent, or of dubious origin, or were obvious heretical departures from the full counsel of scripture, and were omitted or categorized as apocryphal. Sound scholarship and textual criticism has been the standard in Christianity for over 2 thousand years. One may doubt the truth of the messages of the bible, but their historic validity and evidentiary standards are above reproach. There are also thousands of years of hermeneutics and biblical exegesis to draw from. Not all commentators have a homogeneous interpretation of all scriptural themes, but there is enough of a consensus on the Major Themes, like the ones i have in the OP. IOW, it is not as confusing as some like to present it. A clear understanding of the message of the bible, and especially the new testament, is there for those who are curious. A reading of any of the nt gospels, for example, will communicate the gist of the Christian message.
I was referring to those works because they overlap in the book of Genesis. Those works include differences - they aren't all identical in terms of their contribution to specific passages of Genesis. Plus, there are the questions concerning who wrote Genesis - even the question of how many authors there were and what these various authors actually wrote. In fact, these early portions most likely developed before writing was available. If I have a concern there it is that those who assembled the Bible absolutely DID have an agenda. They wanted one clear, unquestioned statement - a statement that wasn't up for debate, where the questions were answered definitively. I'm really curious about the creation allegories. Unfortunately, I've never found a reasonable description of the elements of those stories. In general, such meaning can get lost due to cultures fading away across the centuries. And, allegorical meaning is clearly one aspect that could be rigorously omitted by those early assemblers of the Bible. For instance, they could have decided that it isn't allegory and could have been selective on those grounds. My understanding is that Judaism hasn't been of one mind on the creation story (link). Also, Paul presents a portion of Genesis as allegory in Galations 4:21 -. Christian theologians suggest that various passages in the OT are allegorical in their prediction of coming events - such as the birth of Jesus. So, was the literalist interpretation of the Bible really a more recent direction? Was it what the assemblers of the Bible wanted? Did God really just dictate to some human the events of creation? I would suggest that the story of Adam is more meaningful as allegory than it could ever be as literal history. And, I would suggest that the full meaning of the two creation allegories is probably lost to time.
I would say a good study is the event of canonization, and the decision making factors involved. It is too much for this thread, but would be a worthwhile exercise, to find out 'how' the most influential, provocative, polemical, loved and hated book came to be. Perhaps i will start a thread on that, someday.. ..since i shy away from controversy.. I perceive from historical readings, commentaries, and other communications, that the biblical stories have been viewed literally, not allegorically. The allegorical perspective is a more recent development, in the history of Christianity. I know of none of the old church fathers or apologists who did not take a literal view of the scriptures. Unless there is a 'prophetic voice' in a passage, indicating a dual meaning, or obvious metaphorical intent, the recounting of words and events stand as literal accounts. The 'how' of miraculous events were not in question, since we posit an all powerful Supreme Being, anyway.
I'm not so sure the "allegorical perspective" is all that recent. Judaism allows for allegorical interpretations, for example. And, I don't believe you can so easily cast aside Judaism's interpretation of their ancient texts. I'd definitely agree with that last sentence, though. Once one feels free to ascribe any impossibility to an all powerful being, then there is an easy answer for absolutely anything and everything. Gravity? Earth's movement? Dinosaur bones? Life? The Universe? Earthquakes? "God did it" totally suffices, with no need for questioning where his involvement begins or ends.
Fortunately for humanity, the early inquirer's into the mysteries of the material universe (most of whom were believers in God), did not take a passive, fatalistic view, but were driven to understand, 'what God hath wrought'. We see today, because we have stood on the shoulders of giants. There is no reason to denigrate faith, as it is part and parcel of every human being. It is better to appreciate the balance it brings to the quest for human knowledge. It is not an enemy of empirical science, but a helpful ally. Too often science is presented as a religious cult, on these forums, and is portrayed as an enemy of faith and the theoretical. But that is a false caricature, and cuts the feet off of any quest for truth. It does, indeed, make one lame, as Einstein said.
That is a fundamental of scientific progress. And, I'd point out that the lasting works of our scientific forebears lasts when it does NOT include God. Again, I don't denigrate faith in god (which is what we mean by faith, right?). However, different humans absolutely do incorporate "faith" in very different ways. There is still no room in scientific results for the supernatural. But, not everyone is as strong as Einstein in excluding "faith" from their results. And, I think progress in knowledge IS threatened by "faith" for that reason. Let's remember that "god did it" is the unassailable final answer that motivates no further investigation. On the level of human interaction, once something is attributed to god, it's very hard to continue the conversation. In the other direction, I don't see science as threatening religion in any significant way. Religious organizations may get involved in making absolute statements about how our physical universe works, of course. When that happens, then those specific decisions do get threatened by an investigation based on logic and evidence, I suppose.
I have an elaboration on the Fall as given to a near death experiencer and I am wondering what you think of it? https://www.near-death.com/science/articles/richard-eby-and-secomd-coming-of-christ.html#a03 Personally.... I found it kind of impressive! https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/eze/28/1/s_830001 Ezekiel 28:13
It has a look and feel of a 'me too!' religious cult writing. A modern Jesus talking in Olde English, but updated with hip new age terminology. My first inclination is to gloss over it, and ignore it as a diversion from Christian Piety. It seems to be a lure away from biblical Christianity, toward a mystical vision. Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind.. Col 2:18 That is my impression, and i have no desire to dig deeper.
