Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thou Shalts and Thou Shalnts
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 76 of 204 (252355)
10-17-2005 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Funkaloyd
10-17-2005 8:33 AM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
Funkaloyd writes:
I don't think that this is the case (it depends how accurate "accurate" is), but even if we assume that God insured that Jesus was quoted accurately, there's still no reason to assume that God "inspired" all of the Gospels (especially as there are differences between them). Nor do we need to assume that he inspired all of the authors whose works are included in the New Testament (e.g. Paul), or the members of the various synods that determined what was to be included in the Bible.
But in order to assume Jesus words as prime and Pauls as secondary, one would have to make an unwarranted assumption. Partial inspiration. There is no basis for this. Either assume (for the purposes of this discussion) that all of it was inspired and discuss or none of it was and the discussion ends due to all being potentially inaccurate - with no way of knowing for sure what is and isn't accurate. Just speculation and off topic discussion about how we know some to be accurate and other stuff not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Funkaloyd, posted 10-17-2005 8:33 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 10-17-2005 2:25 PM iano has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 77 of 204 (252365)
10-17-2005 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by iano
10-17-2005 5:40 AM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
God inspiring the writers so as to ensure no error would mean Paul was as inspired as any recorder of Jesus' words. Would it not?
I certainly don't think so. God inspiring the writers dos not address the issue of accuracy or correctness at all.
There really is nothing to indicate that the Bible is accurate and there is very strong evidence that the Bible is not accurate in specific cases.
The Bible is but an anthology of anthologies. We know for a fact that it contains specific errors. Since we know there are some errors, then we cannot approach it in any way except on a tentative basis to be verified by external sources.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 5:40 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 10:42 AM jar has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 78 of 204 (252367)
10-17-2005 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by jar
10-17-2005 10:21 AM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
Jar writes:
There really is nothing to indicate that the Bible is accurate and there is very strong evidence that the Bible is not accurate in specific cases.
If the bible isn't assumed (only for the sake of discussion) to be accurate then no objective internally focussed discussion is possible about interpreting what it says. Only subjective discussion - in which any view on it is as good as the next one.
You yourself point to Matthew 25 as evidence of something. But what use the evidence of something if you don't know that is what Jesus actually said. If you say this is evidenced elsewhere (ie: internally, scripture measured against other scripture) then how do you know that is accurate.
Surely attempt at discussion become ridiculous
The Bible is but an anthology of anthologies.
You assert this but how do you demonstrate it as fact?
We know for a fact that it contains specific errors.
Have you got an example of an error so I can see broadly what you mean here?
Since we know there are some errors, then we cannot approach it in any way except on a tentative basis to be verified by external sources.
What kind of external verifcation allows us to ascertain any part of it is accurate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 10-17-2005 10:21 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 10-17-2005 11:01 AM iano has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 79 of 204 (252369)
10-17-2005 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by iano
10-17-2005 10:42 AM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
If the bible isn't assumed (only for the sake of discussion) to be accurate then no objective internally focussed discussion is possible about interpreting what it says.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying there, but a discussion seems possible since we're at post 78.
Only subjective discussion - in which any view on it is as good as the next one.
I'm also not sure about that. While it is certainly subjective, I do believe that not all subjective concepts are born equal.
re: anthology of anthologies writes:
You assert this but how do you demonstrate it as fact?
For example, there are two different creation stories, two differnt flood stories, several versions of the commandments, the Gospels, the Pauline treatises.
Have you got an example of an error so I can see broadly what you mean here?
The Creation stories, the Conquest of Canaan, the Exodus.
What kind of external verifcation allows us to ascertain any part of it is accurate?
The world we live in, other religious efforts such as creeds and writings, common sense, consistency of message.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 10:42 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Chiroptera, posted 10-17-2005 11:52 AM jar has not replied
 Message 81 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 12:14 PM jar has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 204 (252383)
10-17-2005 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by jar
10-17-2005 11:01 AM


And more.
quote:
For example, there are two different creation stories, two differnt flood stories, several versions of the commandments, the Gospels, the Pauline treatises.
...Two different accounts of Judas' death, four completely different accounts of the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb....

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 10-17-2005 11:01 AM jar has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 81 of 204 (252389)
10-17-2005 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by jar
10-17-2005 11:01 AM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
Jar writes:
I'm not quite sure what you're saying there, but a discussion seems possible since we're at post 78.
Discussion has progressed because folk are assuming what Jesus said is accurate. But when faced with having to take account of what Paul says revert back to "well that bit can be dismissed - it's only what Jesus says" At which point I raise the question I raise.
I'm also not sure about that. While it is certainly subjective, I do believe that not all subjective concepts are born equal.
I'm sure they're not - except that there is no objective way of knowing the relative merits of any of them as a soon as you start talking about the bible being inaccurate (for want of being unable to say objectively which bit is accurate or not). The discussion turns to what this theologian says versus that theologions. Subjective speculation which some may enjoy, but which ends the discussion about what the bible says. "How do you know Jesus/Paul said that?" is the first response that can be made to any comment
For example, there are two different creation stories, two differnt flood stories, several versions of the commandments, the Gospels, the Pauline treatises.
Have you got a specific example: like with enough text to see the background and context?
(errors) The Creation stories, the Conquest of Canaan, the Exodus.
Can you be a bit more specific?
iano writes:
What kind of external verifcation allows us to ascertain any part of it is accurate?
Jar writes:
The world we live in, other religious efforts such as creeds and writings, common sense, consistency of message.
Can you be specific as to how any of these things let us know anything Jesus, for example, said is actually what he said. As far as I am aware there is sufficient extra-biblical historical evidence to say a man called Jesus who claimed he was God etc actually lived. But what he actually said as reported in the Gospels? How can we know any of it for sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 10-17-2005 11:01 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 10-17-2005 12:22 PM iano has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 82 of 204 (252390)
10-17-2005 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by iano
10-17-2005 12:14 PM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
Lots of questions, most I've discussed in other areas so may be OT here.
Let me jump to what seems to be the heart of the matter and then if you wants more specifics, let's see if we can knock them down on at a time.
Can you be specific as to how any of these things let us know anything Jesus, for example, said is actually what he said. As far as I am aware there is sufficient extra-biblical historical evidence to say a man called Jesus who claimed he was God etc actually lived. But what he actually said as reported in the Gospels? How can we know any of it for sure?
As I've said in other threads, we can't know that for sure. But does it even matter?
If Jesus never lived and is no more than a tale told round the campfire, does it really matter?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 12:14 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 12:49 PM jar has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 83 of 204 (252397)
10-17-2005 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by jar
10-17-2005 12:22 PM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
jar writes:
As I've said in other threads, we can't know that for sure. But does it even matter? If Jesus never lived and is no more than a tale told round the campfire, does it really matter?
For the purposes of discussion it matters not a jot whether its true or fiction. All that matters for this discussion is the decision to assume (for the duration of the discussion) the whats written is scripture.
As soon as these constraints are stepped outside then what's good for the goose becomes good for the gander. If Pauls writing is not considered accurately reported and relevant scripture then neither can Matthews be..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 10-17-2005 12:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 10-17-2005 12:59 PM iano has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 84 of 204 (252399)
10-17-2005 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by iano
10-17-2005 12:49 PM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
The question from my perspective is Paul being interpreted accurately.
That requires looking at what is said within the constraint, limitations and purpose of the material.
Paul was building a franchise. He was a fanatic. He was a Spin Doctor, perfectly willing to mislead if it was helpful to building the franchise. A good exaample is the "Un-named God" incident.
He was also operating from major misunderstandings. Paul never had a great handle on what Jesus message was all about or Christianity. But he was important.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 12:49 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 3:47 PM jar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 85 of 204 (252416)
10-17-2005 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by iano
10-17-2005 9:00 AM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
iano writes:
But in order to assume Jesus words as prime and Pauls as secondary, one would have to make an unwarranted assumption. Partial inspiration.
No. Jesus' words are prime because Jesus is prime. Paul's words are secondary because Paul was secondary. Are you a "Christ"ian or a "Paul"ian?
Jesus was the son of God (for the purposes of this discussion). He ought to have known what He was talking about. If there is any difference in what He said and what Paul said, then what Jesus said automatically takes precedence.
Furthermore, what Jesus said takes precedence over what Paul said because Jesus was talking about the general. "On these two commandments hang ALL THE LAW and the prophets." Paul was talking to specific churches about specific problems.
It's as if Jesus said that in general it's wrong to kill people and Paul said that in specific instances it's permissible to kill specific people. Paul's specific words do not supercede Jesus' general words.
When Jesus says that the law consists of loving God and loving thy neighbour, that takes precedence over anything Paul said about condemnation.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 9:00 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 4:06 PM ringo has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 86 of 204 (252426)
10-17-2005 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by jar
10-17-2005 12:59 PM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
Jar writes:
The question from my perspective is Paul being interpreted accurately. That requires looking at what is said within the constraint, limitations and purpose of the material.
And who decided what that is? If the material has some extra-biblical constraints put on it, why stop with Paul? Where is the absolute measure against which relevancy,accuracy etc are measured
He was also operating from major misunderstandings. Paul never had a great handle on what Jesus message was all about or Christianity. But he was important
You've presumed the the message of the Gospels to be the standard against which to measure. On what basis do you suppose this to be the standard however? If you say "Jesus' words" how do you know the gospel writers recorded them correctly or that they had a great handle on Jesus message? (assuming for one second that there is any conflict between Jesus and Paul - which I don't)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 10-17-2005 12:59 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 10-17-2005 4:03 PM iano has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 87 of 204 (252428)
10-17-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by iano
10-17-2005 3:47 PM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
And who decided what that is? If the material has some extra-biblical constraints put on it, why stop with Paul? Where is the absolute measure against which relevancy,accuracy etc are measured
Well, part of the judgement can be based on the fact, not interpretation, that Paul, simply got things wrong. For example, he expected the Second Coming to be during the lifetime of those he was addressing. Didn't happen. Paul was wrong. And those parts of Paul's writings that were based on his false assumption are necessarily suspect.
There is also his own testimony that he was willing to Spin Doctor, to play fast and loose with facts for his own purposes. A good example as I mentioned is the "Un-Known God" incident. He was perfectly willing to use extra scriptural references to further HIS personal agenda.
You've presumed the the message of the Gospels to be the standard against which to measure.
I don't think I've made that assumption. The Bible is a Canon developed to support a religion. Religions have little to do with GOD. They are but a construct of man. They can help us as individuals to develop our own understanding of GOD, but we must always remember that they have no validity on their own. The Bible, like religion, can never be more than a Map, and an imperfect one at best.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 3:47 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 4:16 PM jar has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 88 of 204 (252429)
10-17-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ringo
10-17-2005 2:25 PM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
Ringo writes:
No. Jesus' words are prime because Jesus is prime. Paul's words are secondary because Paul was secondary. Are you a "Christ"ian or a "Paul"ian?
"Jesus' words" you say. They are the words the Gospel writers say Jesus said. What is prime therefore is the words of the Gospel writers vs the words of Paul.
Or can we at this point clear that up and decided simply that what is recorded is (for the purpose of this discussion) accurately recorded and examine it in that light ie: Jesus words are accurately recorded as are Pauls.
If there is any difference in what He said and what Paul said, then what Jesus said automatically takes precedence.
I would agree. And I would like to investigate what these alleged differences are. I have been saying that there are none. The message is one message. Jesus proclaims it Paul explains it. Two halves of the same coin if you like
But escape into the arbitary decision that one part of the bible is recording inaccurately and the other recording accurately won't wash here.
Paul was talking to specific churches about specific problems.
Romans 1-8 is an expostion of the workings of the Gospel. Very little in here has anything to do with the church in Rome specifically. Paul comparing the man in Christ and the man not in Christ throughout is universal
When Jesus says that the law consists of loving God and loving thy neighbour, that takes precedence over anything Paul said about condemnation.
Here we go again Jesus said "Love God..." and "Love your neighbour... that's the commandments/Law in a nutshell".
Now hands up all those who follow these commandments. And to the first person who is says "I don't all the time..but I try...and that's what counts" I say show me where Jesus (or anybody else in the bible for that matter) says that trying is how salvation works
I'm not interested in personal theory here "logic (read "MY logic") says so" I'd like the bible to say so. Given that thats what we supposedly examining here.
Cos if it ain't in the bible it's in your own head. And with all due respect...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 10-17-2005 2:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ringo, posted 10-17-2005 4:54 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 89 of 204 (252434)
10-17-2005 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by jar
10-17-2005 4:03 PM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
Jar writes:
They are but a construct of man. They can help us as individuals to develop our own understanding of GOD, but we must always remember that they have no validity on their own. The Bible, like religion, can never be more than a Map, and an imperfect one at best.
Sigh...
If scripture is mans construct, then Jesus' words are not necessarily Jesus' words. Thus it is pointless to try to may any case, including "damnation by not trying" from Jesus' alleged words.
If it's an imperfect map then which bits are the correct ones and how do you know which?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 10-17-2005 4:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 10-17-2005 4:32 PM iano has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 90 of 204 (252441)
10-17-2005 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by iano
10-17-2005 4:16 PM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
If it's an imperfect map then which bits are the correct ones and how do you know which?
The same way you test any map, by how closely it correspondes to reality.
The Creation Myths don't correspond to reality. So they are false.
Damning all but a few syncophants presents us with a God who is vapid, mean and without any redeeming characteristics.
Knowing that man cannot succeed yet setting the bar at that point shows a God that is stupid and petty.
You test messages against reality.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 4:16 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 4:44 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024