Chan man,
You need some hammering from me man…
I’ll set you straight forever…
Gave, I believe you still have a chance with us, haven’t you?
Alright uniqor man, you must remember it is the chair that truly matters. No one remembers the hammer or rock for that matter, only the comfort of the chair.
Wouldn’t want get ungly with you, Xong Di, Ge Mer plus, Bro…
Hi Chan,
The fact that we are talking about Scripture, debating, conjecturing and contextualising was how Jewish Scribes saw how the command in deuteronomy was to be obeyed. That is how rabbinic teaching came about - and Jesus was a part of that tradition, if we believe the synoptic Gospels.
If you see how he argues about David on the run taking the Bread that was given as an offering (Mt. 12:3-8 ), you can see how he contextualises too. The difference to your position is that the scribes debated positions with dedication, but they accepted that there were different views.
That would be easy, but scripture has been around a long time and the written traditions had a long oral tradition before and alongside those written traditions. The Fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are most certainly legends, Moses is probably one too, judging by the way the story is told - we can’t be sure who is actually historical. But that is not the point.
I have used a metaphor in the past about picking up the thread and weaving it into our reality, using scripture as a source of inspiration, travelling with Abraham through his hundred odd years; discovering like Isaac that God gives room to live, struggling as Jacob did at P’niel, demanding a blessing and holding on like grim death. These stories are alive if you are willing to go with them - but for goodness sake don’t take them as historically true in every detail.
Shalom
Bob
Why not? and why can’t I? and without lost of intellectual integrity too! “For goodness sake” is not good nor intellectual enough a reason to convict anyone. Please! You have to do better than that!
The fact that events happened a long time ago and that we do not know everything - eg whether they were orally or textually transmitted - does not necessarily makes them untrue. And the fact that written or spoken stuff can be corrupted does not mean it is corrupted. That something can happen does not mean it actually happened. We have to and are able ascertain the truth elsewhere and in other ways, eg corroboration, consistency, and so on, if we have no access to the original authors.
I cannot agree intellectually whatever you say if your conclusion is based solely on the fact that what’s in the bible happened long ago. Please keep your faith - in the untruthfulness or unreliability of ancient documents - elsewhere. Please keep to being intellectual, and not merely say that you are.
I have a few concerns that I wish to address towards you, in particular, Chan, which regard the accuracy of the Bible—specifically the New Testament. Paul wrote much of what is in the New Testament in a series of letters to particular people. The problem with the Bible and its reliability concerning its accuracy lies in the fact that it was written [i]many[/] years subsequent to the events of Jesus’ times. It is not a matter of the year in which the Bible was written, necessarily (because old documents can be relied on in regards to their accuracy i.e. The Egyptian Book of the Dead).
Taking Paul into account, we must regress to the written accounts of his conversion to Christianity. There are three versions, two of which contradict the one that is commonly thought to be true. Nevertheless, the other two were written by the same author.
The most controversial contradiction is the Greek word Akouo, which means to hear or to understand. The problem with this light translational difference is the fact that in no time does the Bible use the word Akouo in reference to “understandingâ€. It has always been used, either as the root: to hear; or it is used in other ways—such as hearing, heard et cetera. But the only point in which the word is mysteriously translated as understood is within the context of Paul’s conversion (in order to “tear†the contradiction apart).
One of the most important additions to the Bible is the use of the word inspiration. Theopneustos, the Hellenistic-Greek word for inspired, that literally means God-breathed, is not present in Classical Greek. The Bible, as we know it, was written in Classical Greek. It was not until the canonizing of the Catholic Church that the word Theopneustos was used. There are other instances of the Church adding words and variations in the meaning of words to fit the ideal of the Church, and the idea of God and the Christ.
These examples have been used in hopes of indenting the idea that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of accuracy in and of itself. It became flawed the minute someone tried to translate it, diluting the potency of both the message and the intent of the Author’s. The Anglicized version of the Bible is just as ridiculous to me as the New International Version is ridiculous to Fundamentalist-Christians.
How did you determined for yourself this book’s reliability and accuracy?
As to the bible, it is the bible: a collection of human writings testifying to knowledge and experiences of God. It is no more holier or priviledged in truth than any piece of writing here on ILP or the New York Times. It is to be judged on its own merit, nothing more, nothing less.
But the crux of the issue here is the gospel of Jesus Christ.
What is the gospel? Do we, can we know what is it, and what it means, today, after such a long time? And to whom is the gospel addressed? Is it applicable for anybody today?
I am not so concern by whatever means we come to know of it. I am only concern that it is true, ie that there is no contradiction, and so on, or false as the case may be. I do not want to believe in fairy tales. I believe only that which is true, nothing more, nothing less.
For if God be true and living, then surely there are other ways of knowing him than just imperfect words in flawed languages of dead men? And if God loves us, surely he seeks us to know him, for does not all lovers do that?
There are people who believes anything, even fairy tales, let them be. If Abraham is a fairy tale, then dont bother telling me the story, and I dont want to know it nor waste my time, effort and thoughts trying to ‘understand’ it. It is meaningless. There are better things to do, perhaps reading the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
For if the Egyptian Book of the Dead is true, so be it; I will believe it. But you have to convinced me in a reasonable way that it is so. And if you say we cannot reliably know anything of the gospel nor of Jesus Christ, then so be it too. I wont believe none of it. But again I only ask that you be reasonable.
But you have to show me that you, today, can know better than the early church fathers, who lived closer to the times of Christ, and who may have even read Paul’s letters first hand, and that they are in error in the canonisation of the bible. Only then do I have any reason at all even to hear you.
To merely quote modern scholarship counts for nothing. For are these not just mere works of mortal corruptible men too? Why should what they say be more trustworthy or reliable than what the early church fathers believed? To throw doubt into a thing, does not make the thing false. That the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth called John Kerry a liar, does not mean John Kerry lied. The one who calls another a liar can be a liar himself.
Think of it this way: God is fair: He favours neither scholars nor fools for salvation.
Chan,
I can’t believe you wrote this. The cat did it, right?
Please re-consider what you’ve (or the cat) written here. The irrationality of these statements is… beyond words. (bad cat!)
JT
maybe what chan is trying to say is what i would say about the matter. it doesnt matter if jesus farted on friday, it matters what his message was and how that message affects our lives. we can know today how following the golden rule will affect our lives much better than jesus could have predicted 2000 years ago. the trivial details are pointless. there is no greater message in the bible that requires a deep understanding of every single parable and cant be explained without them. ive never known anything like that.
Sorry Chan, you’re getting weaker.
Who on earth has ever said that the Bible was ‘untrue’? You are falling into the trap of rationalism just like any atheist who refutes the Bible - just because something isn’t historical, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t true! But what you are saying is, 'I don’t want it to be true that way, it has to be historical"
The other day I spoke to someone who asked my why I said that Jonah was my favourite satire. When I told him he asked, “don’t you believe that God could keep someone alive in the belly of a whale?” I told him that I didn’t see it as necessary, the message comes across beautifully as a satire. He then said, " I suppose you don’t believe that Bileam’s donkey spoke to him either!" I said (smiling broadly) that I didn’t and was promptly told that I had no faith in God and that my idea of God was too small.
I’m sorry, but who has a problem? Up until he mentioned this, people were enjoying my paraphrasing Jonah and everyone got the message. I sometimes think that such people are the ones with big problems - not people like me. I can read the Bible and enjoy every bit of it. I am inspired and I am admonished, I become meditative and I can become romantic reading the Bible - and all the time it’s historicity is secondary, if it is important at all.
Well, exactly Chan, thats the same with the Bible. Just because much of the Bible could have happened, doesn’t mean it did. We have to ask what the authors were portraying, what did they want to say? What a shame it would be if someone came along in a hundred years and claimed that Gulliver’s Travels was historical!
Shalom
Bob[/code]
[/quote]
Sorry Chan, you’re getting weaker.
Who on earth has ever said that the Bible was ‘untrue’? You are falling into the trap of rationalism just like any atheist who refutes the Bible - just because something isn’t historical, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t true! But what you are saying is, 'I don’t want it to be true that way, it has to be historical"
The other day I spoke to someone who asked my why I said that Jonah was my favourite satire. When I told him he asked, “don’t you believe that God could keep someone alive in the belly of a whale?” I told him that I didn’t see it as necessary, the message comes across beautifully as a satire. He then said, " I suppose you don’t believe that Bileam’s donkey spoke to him either!" I said (smiling broadly) that I didn’t and was promptly told that I had no faith in God and that my idea of God was too small.
I’m sorry, but who has a problem? Up until he mentioned this, people were enjoying my paraphrasing Jonah and everyone got the message. I sometimes think that such people are the ones with big problems - not people like me. I can read the Bible and enjoy every bit of it. I am inspired and I am admonished, I become meditative and I can become romantic reading the Bible - and all the time it’s historicity is secondary, if it is important at all.
Well, exactly Chan, thats the same with the Bible. Just because much of the Bible could have happened, doesn’t mean it did. We have to ask what the authors were portraying, what did they want to say? What a shame it would be if someone came along in a hundred years and claimed that Gulliver’s Travels was historical!
Shalom
Bob
Chan: There is no instance of an Author of the New Testament claiming to have the knowledge or experiences of God. In fact, that is justifying-rhetoric used by Fundamentalist-Christians. The New Testament does say that Scripture; however, is inspired. It is inspired in the same way that a woman is the inspiration of a love poem. It is inspired in light of the fact that it inspires ideas about God. It is the addendum of the Fundamentalist Christian that conscripts the idea of Scripture being God-Breathed.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead does not take from a source of any higher power and understands that it is written by flawed people. In this instance, however, the flaw is acceptable because the Book, itself, does not make any definitive proclamations. It merely subjects the reader to a series of beliefs that Ancient Egyptians had concerning the afterlife and everything bound by the Egyptian notion of it. There is no story, just facts on what they believed. This is why I and scholars can assume that the Book is accurate.
You are assuming that as finite beings humans are, inherently, flawed. I will argue that humanity is perfect in its balance of weakness and power. Language, in and of itself, is neither flawed nor are its words imperfect. Words suffice. By using the characteristic of love to attribute certain emotional qualities to God I will assume that you are referring to the Christian God and no other. God might not love. He might just be tolerant, or hold no emotion known to mankind whatsoever.
I believe in the supernatural. We have something called Kumuna in Jamaica, or Obea as it is commonly referred to. Kumuna is very powerful and the women who practice are revered for the immense power they hold—magically speaking. I once saw a young woman, who had cheated on her husband with another man give birth to needles and nails before dying. I had seen it with my own eyes. These kinds of events are very common in my country, some far worse, and some pleasant, Fairy Tales might be true to say the least.
The problem with making the claim that “I†(collectively) hold more knowledge about Christ than the Church back then would be like the Church claiming that they knew more than the people nearest to Jesus, or who lived during his time. You should also hear me out simply because I have an opposing viewpoint.
By the value of your line of logic, wherein it is not enough to quote a modern scholar, then we cannot believe anything we read, whether it be in the news regarding genocide in Africa that dates back to the 80’s or some revised version of a mathematics book. Because, by the characteristic flaw that is inherent in all humans, these people cannot be trusted.
perhaps the flaw in humanity that allows them to write innacurate descriptions of god is aggravated by the potential for making trillions of dollars and ruling the world.
Thats not what I am saying. And don’t put words in my mouth.
Let me reiterate what I am saying: I believe if and only if it is true.
And if something happened, it is a fact and thus true.
I say again I do not believe in fairy tales. Apparently you have no problem with fairy tales, and truth is not a necessary criteria for belief.
Talking donkey? Well let me ask you: do you categorically rule out this possibility? That ‘God’, whatever it is to you, can never ever do such a thing? And if you say so, what is your basis for saying so?
On Gulliver Travels, why cant you believe it since you can believe in a whale of a tale in Jonah? Why can’t Gulliver Travels be ‘satire’ too for you? Or that there is ‘meaning’ hidden in the stories, or whatever, however you want to read into it? Why is the tale of Jonah or Balaam more ‘important’ or ‘valuable’ than Gulliver Travels? Why not ‘believe’ in Gilgamesh, or Illiad, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead, instead of the bible, for are these not myths too? Why not take comfort and be inspired from the Chinese Tao I Ching or the Hindu Bhagvad Gita or Nostradamus, instead of the bible?
But why the need to believe in myths at all???
Do you not rather believe something that is true, like the New York Times or CNN or science?
It is not necessarily not you.
It also could mean it did.
The problem is not the asking, but the answering.
Have you read the book of Acts in the bible?
Futureman, what is it like in your strange little world?
You had better believed I wrote it.
Don’t blame my poor cat, and he is far wiser than I am.
So what’s wrong with what I wrote? It would be an interesting insight into what you yourself think and believe.
Fascinating. Please tell me why is it unbelieveably, unspeakably, irrational? 
Oh? So you are saying the bible is ‘true’? Just what then do you mean by ‘true’?
Chan,
I do believe you’re sincere, but I would suggest that there may be a couple of things you might have missed.
Chan, it might not hurt to spend a bit of time looking at the issues around the term “truth”. If truth were easily discerned and knowable this forum would diasppear in a New York minute. It probably would never have existed in the first place, since the “truth” about everything would have already been known thousands of years before.
If you really believe that truth reside’s in the New York Times, CNN, and science there really is no point to this discussion.
JT
you guys arent addressing what is actually true about the bible: the message, the golden rule. those things truly and verifiably affect our lives. thats what i call true.
lets say aesop explained the golden rule using a talking lemur and an enchanted rock. somehow the story wonderfully illustrates why we should follow the golden rule. what is the point in believing that enchanted rocks actually existed in the time of aesop? none.
if it turns out god doesnt demand that i follow the golden rule or that he doesnt exist, i will still be glad that i followed it. it makes my life better with or without god watching.
if you believe that jesus went to heaven with a payload of all future sins that exploded into the sun, and it turns out that that isnt true, what good has the blind belief alone gained for you in your life. how has that irrational belief helped you to be happier.
it doesnt. it makes you feel guilty and obliged to go to mass. thats all.
WHAT ELSE HUH PROVE ME WRONG. i have been waiting for you to tell me what good this belief does since i signed up here. and i get nothing.