Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 239 of 304 (656190)
03-16-2012 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by purpledawn
03-16-2012 6:22 PM


Re: Yizreel (yiz-reh-ale') or Yisrael (yis-raw-ale')
purpledawn writes:
Please provide scripture that supports what you're saying. The New Testament was also written by many men (some anonymous or pseudonymous) several decades after the fact and the source for the life and teachings of Jesus. Jesus didn't leave any writings of his own. It is part of the Bible. Pseudonymity and the New Testament
This isn't about who you worship, it is about the text. You're saying that bias is in the text, but you haven't shown that the text is actually bias. How do you determine which text is bias and which isn't. They are all written by men for their culture.
Yes it is about the text. It is about how we understand about how the text is to be understood. In the end, regardless of our position it is an article of faith. Nothing can be proven by the text except for the fact that it exists. My approach is fairly straightforward.
Paul writes the following in 1st Corinthians:
quote:
14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
I think that we can reasonably assume that Paul actually wrote this in which case we can assume that he actually believes in the resurrection of Jesus. All accounts of his life also support that view. Essentially Paul is saying that if Jesus was not resurrected then the followers of Jesus are not only wrong but are to be pitied. The essential question then is did the resurrection actually happen or not, and if so then what can we infer from it.
Personally I have read a considerable amount on the subject and if one doesn’t start with the belief that it is impossible, and that miracles don’t happen, then I find the argument for much stronger than the argument against the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
However, that does not make it fact. It is an article of faith as to whether it happened or not. I take it on faith that it did happen essentially as the gospel writers describe it. On that basis I then give credibility to the accounts of Jesus’ life as told in the gospels. I then use the gospels as a lens through which to view the OT and to understand it.
purpledawn writes:
Scripture please. Where in the OT does God actually demonstrate love and forgiveness?
The whole story is about God’s faithful love and forgiveness. Consider all the brutality of the OT and yet God faithfully loved and forgave by giving us Jesus. He keeps hanging in there with us.
purpledawn writes:
Again, please provide scripture that supports this. Besides you, what supports the idea that there is bias in the OT, but not the NT or bias when God is doing something unJesus like.
First off you want me to use a literal reading of scripture to prove my point when I am arguing against a literal reading. The story of Jehu as told by the scribes in Kings as compared to Hosea is still the example I give for cultural bias. You don’t have to accept that but it seems pretty clear to me. I am not saying that there isn’t bias at times in the NT either but the NT is written in a different style than was the OT. The gospels are written as an account of what had actually been observed in the life of Jesus. Yes, we are dependent on them getting it right and I have no doubt that some details aren’t 100% but I don’t see that as a problem. There is no reason for them to make that stuff up.
The gospels were written decades later but it is pretty obvious that there were pre-existing written sources for them as well as the oral tradition. In addition there still would have been eye witness when the gospels came out in their current form.
purpledawn writes:
You're wandering. We are discussing God's actions, not ours. Like it or not, God gave out laws and some had a death penalty. Civilizations still have laws today.
I’m not wandering. The point is that all the so called laws hang on the concept of love of God and neighbour. It is my contention that the laws that you say are God given actually were instituted by man who used God to justify them. It is all about the heart and not about keeping a set of laws. If we love our neighbour we will not murder him or steal from him.
GDR writes:
Not at all. The principle always remains the same as I said earlier. Much of Jesus talked about was how the Jews were to deal with the Romans on both a nationalistic and individual basis. The state is just a conglomeration of individuals, and ideally should reflect the collective view of the individuals.
purpledawn writes:
Scripture please.
Love your enemy. Turn the other cheek. Go the extra mile.
purpledawn writes:
The NT is also written by men and not dictated. You're not supporting your claims.
I agree that the NT was not dictated either. There is no proof for my position just as there is no proof that the Bible is to be understood literally. In my view it is impossible to take the Bible as dictated by God as there are discrepancies in the very nature of God as well as direct contradictions in as simple a thing as genealogies. As I said, it is the Christian faith. However I put my faith in what I understand of Jesus as opposed to putting my faith in a collection of books.
purpledawn writes:
I can't really make a counter argument since you haven't provided scripture or supported your position. I don't see that your method of interpretation of the text is a valid method.
I have gone into this in more detail in other threads. Read Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. He say that it is written or that Moses said before quoting and correcting the scripture.
What is the justification for understanding the Bible to be dictated by God a valid method and what is it that makes my method invalid?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by purpledawn, posted 03-16-2012 6:22 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by purpledawn, posted 03-17-2012 6:51 AM GDR has replied
 Message 241 by Nuggin, posted 03-17-2012 11:16 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 242 of 304 (656329)
03-17-2012 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by purpledawn
03-17-2012 6:51 AM


Re: Eisegesis
purpledawn writes:
Literal (P'shat) interpretation of the Bible text doesn't mean the text was dictated by God or that there are no mistakes in the text or inconsistencies between manuscripts. It simply means we read the book the same way we do any other book in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the word’s being used, literary style, historical and cultural setting, and context.
I agree with that. That is the correct meaning for literal but it seems that not everyone agrees with that understanding. That is why I started using the term dictated by God as that seemed to be acceptable to some of the creationists/fundamentalists on this forum.
purpledawn writes:
The idea that the Bible is dictated is a tradition of mankind and not supported by the text.
Absolutely
purpledawn writes:
You seem to use eisegesis which means you're putting your own subjective interpretations into the text, but those interpretations aren't supported by the text itself.
We all come to our understanding of the Bible subjectively, however I’m inclined to think that I do read it literally in the way that you defined it above. When Hosea says that God wants to punish the house of Jehu I understand that is just what Hosea wanted to say and it is what he believed. Exegesis hardly plays into it as it is so straightforward. I then have to subjectively come to a conclusion about whether he was right or wrong.
It seems to me that there are two really all encompassing statements in the Bible. One in the OT and one in the NT. In the OT we have the statement by the prophet Micah that what God wants of us is that we be humble, loving kindness/mercy and act justly. In the NT we have Jesus saying that everything hangs on love, love of God and love of neighbour.
I agree that this is what God wants of us, but if we are God’s image bearing creatures then I think it is safe to conclude that these characteristics would be held by God, and that is what we see in Jesus.
purpledawn writes:
Basically, you're preaching your own version of your religion. IOW, your own brand of bias. You have nothing to support that your arguments are right or viable. You could be leading people down the wrong path.
But that is what everyone does. We don’t have certainty. It is by faith.
purpledawn writes:
Maybe you need to explain what you understand a literal reading means to you. I've shown you several meanings.
I agree that’s a problem but we’ll go with what you wrote above in which case the way I used it in my last post is not consistent with that definition. In other threads on this forum it seems to have been ok to use literal’ and God dictated as synonymous.
purpledawn writes:
None of the New Testament writers were eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus. Writing a story in the style of a journal doesn't make the information any more valid. You have no way of knowing whether any of the writers did or didn't have a reason to make stuff up. You're making stuff up by claiming bias for no other reason than it conflicts with your view of God. I know, you said it wasn't your view but that of Jesus. How do you know what Jesus' point of view is without reading the text? So you don't seem to mind the literal interpretation in some cases. You're being selective about what you accept as unbias.
Well we aren’t actually sure that none of the gospel writers were eye-witnesses but it is quite likely. However there is consensus that the gospels are taking from earlier texts and from the oral tradition of those that were eye-witnesses. There are a number of reasons to be confident that the writers didn’t just make it up. There is the style of writing which is obviously meant to be understood as written, there was no expectation that the Messiah would be resurrected except at the end of time and that wasn’t consistent with all 1st century Jews, it used women as witnesses etc. Here is one site that does a pretty good job of going through the argument. The resurrection of Jesus
I have read and listened to debates between N T Wright and Marcus Borg and Dom Crossan, and have found the arguments of Wright to be compelling. Still, as I said, in the end it is about faith.
Yes I have my biases as do you and everyone else. It is faith. Yes I believe that the Bible is the inspired book of God working with the world and through his created beings. God informs us and teaches us using the Bible as a means to His ends. I know that on one level yet I don’t know in the way that I know I have 5 fingers on each hand, or even in the way I know the sun will come up again tomorrow.
purpledawn writes:
If you love God, you love him warts and all.
We love our kids warts and all but that isn’t the same as loving God. Why would I love an entity that justifies genocide, the stoning to death of someone who picked up firewood on the wrong day of the week, or an entity that would have the people that he loves stoning to death children with no thought of the damage that would do to their mental state, but then tells us that we are to love our neighbours as ourselves.
I don’t choose to love a god like that. Why would I unless those attributes are something I look up to. I might worship a God like that out of fear but not out of love.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by purpledawn, posted 03-17-2012 6:51 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by purpledawn, posted 03-17-2012 8:14 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 243 of 304 (656330)
03-17-2012 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Nuggin
03-17-2012 11:16 AM


Re: Yizreel (yiz-reh-ale') or Yisrael (yis-raw-ale')
Nuggin writes:
Then it sounds like you are saying "This is just a book, it has no real meaning other than the fact that it is a book. You can ascribe meaning to it, but really, it's just a book."
That makes the Bible no more valid than Harry Potter or the Iliad.
I can see why you say that but it doesn't represent what I believe. I believe that the writers were inspired by God to write what we see, but they would write it in their own words. Essentially it is a narrative beginning with creation and ending with re-creation.
I also believe God uses it as a medium of communication for us and it is authoritative in that it reflects God's authority. Here is an excellent talk on Biblical authority.
How Can the Bible be Authoritative

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Nuggin, posted 03-17-2012 11:16 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Nuggin, posted 03-17-2012 7:24 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 245 of 304 (656343)
03-17-2012 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Nuggin
03-17-2012 7:24 PM


Re: Yizreel (yiz-reh-ale') or Yisrael (yis-raw-ale')
Well even in that Harry Potter was written as fiction, (really enjoyed them), whereas the Bible was written for the most part to tell a truth - either as a factual account, through metaphorical mythology, through actual accounts such as the gospels o,r as in the epistles, teaching that is based on the rest of the scriptures as well as the life, teaching and death of Jesus..
Here is what C S Lewis says in Chap 15 of his book miracles.
quote:
My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David's court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.
I believe that my understanding of scripture is pretty much the same as Lewis and Wright, at least as I understand them. (I have read most of what either one has written.)

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Nuggin, posted 03-17-2012 7:24 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Nuggin, posted 03-17-2012 9:29 PM GDR has replied
 Message 248 by purpledawn, posted 03-18-2012 6:49 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 249 of 304 (656412)
03-18-2012 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Nuggin
03-17-2012 9:29 PM


The Christian Message
Nuggin writes:
This is a book the orders genocide. It condemns people to death for MINOR transgressions against an imaginary figure.
It better be the ABSOLUTE truth or it's the most evil bit of literature ever produced. People are making REAL LIFE decisions TODAY in the areas of politics based on the belief that this story is absolutely real and that the wizard it describes is literally in the process of destroying the world.
Nonsense. It is the story of the Jewish people. There are many stories through the ages where horrible atrocities were committed in the name of one deity or another. A current story is the whole issue of the `Lords Resistance Army` in Uganda.
I`m fairly sure that those things the Bible talks about really happened, and the actions were justified by saying that God wanted them to do what they did. Whether or not they actually believed it or not is another matter.
Even fundamentalists find ways of rationalizing the OT in that we don`t see any churches that I know of that advocate stoning. (If there are they are rare and fringe.)
Nuggin writes:
"It's the end of days, so why pass environmental protection legislation".
Well IMHO that is as a result of a complete misreading of the Scriptures. In the first place the story of Genesis 1
quote:
(26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.")
is that we are to be stewards of all creation.
The Christian message for the future is best told in Ephesians Chap 1:
quote:
9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
Taking care of planet and all life on it has eternal consequences in that all things on earth are to be part of God's recreated world at the end of time. Care of the environment is part of the mission that we have been given by God.
Nuggin writes:
Seriously. If you don't believe 100% that it is the absolute truth, then you need to get your ass out there and start convincing the people who DO believe its the absolute truth that they are wrong. Otherwise, THEY are going to kill US.
I think that is what I'm doing now isn't it?
Incidentally, I belief that the Christian church in the west is going through something of a reformation. Many of the former voices of Christianity such as Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson are being marginalized. People like Scot McKnight, Tim Keller, Rob Bell, N T Wright etc are coming more to the forefront of the faith.
In many ways the Evangelical church has become a religion that has been primarily about me and my salvation. I think the point of the gospels is that it isn't all about me. It's about God and what He is doing and what He wants of us. What He wants of us is that we sacrificially love all of creation, which of course includes our neighbour. By making it all about me many evangelicals have turned Christianity around by 180 degrees making it all about me as opposed to it being about God and neighbour.
When it comes to the Bible we are to read and understand it with hearts and minds that image God's unconditional love for us. The gospel message is that Christ is King of creation and that we are called to follow Him as King. To follow Him means that we are here to serve God's good creation in preparation for His return, whenever that is and whatever it will look like.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Nuggin, posted 03-17-2012 9:29 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Nuggin, posted 03-18-2012 4:11 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 251 of 304 (656421)
03-18-2012 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by purpledawn
03-18-2012 6:49 AM


Re: C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
purpledawn writes:
Since you agree with C.S. Lewis to some degree, let's try debating the credibility of Lewis' method vs the Literal Interpretation Method, not yours. Don't make this thread about you personally. You can pick and choose all you want, that's your choice.
Please provide evidence to support your arguments.
Well OK, but it does seem to be pretty one-sided. You ignore the questions I ask you and don’t offer an opinion of your own in order to have a proper discussion. I agree that I have put forth a position to be defended, but it is a much better discussion if we actually discuss our two points of view as opposed to you taking pot shots at mine without having to contrast it with your own views.
Let’s not worry about Jonah for the time being. Lets’ look at what Jesus and Paul wrote about the OT.
The Jews at the time of Christ had numerous food laws, primarily as detailed in Leviticus 11. Both Jesus and Paul rejected them which of course put them on the wrong side of Jewish leadership at the time. Jesus says this in Matthew 15.
quote:
8 " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'" 10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11 What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
Jesus isn’t just saying that the rules are changing; He is saying that the original food laws from the OT were rules taught by men and that they were wrong.
Paul in Romans 14 writes:
quote:
14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.
Another example. Deuteronomy 24 reads:
quote:
1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies.
I think that most everyone would agree that the most important sermon in the Bible is the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5-7) Jesus says in Matthew 6:
quote:
31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
And again — Exodus 21 says:
quote:
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
But Jesus says in Matthew 5:
quote:
38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Deuteronomy 23.
quote:
3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you. 5 However, the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the LORD your God loves you. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live.
Jesus repudiates that again in Matthew 5.
quote:
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
It is clear that neither Jesus nor Paul viewed the Scriptures as something to be understood as being directly from God. One of the things that Jesus did was to bring fulfillment and clarity to the Scriptures.
AbE AbE I should add that if Jesus tells us that the specific laws in the OT are not to be understood as being of God, then when the Jewish people suggested that Yahweh promotes genocide and public stoning, (things that are in contradiction to what Jesus taught), and actually committed such acts we can safely conclude that that wasn't of God either.
Edited by GDR, : Afterthought

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by purpledawn, posted 03-18-2012 6:49 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by purpledawn, posted 03-18-2012 8:43 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 252 of 304 (656424)
03-18-2012 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Nuggin
03-18-2012 4:11 PM


Re: The Christian Message
Nuggin writes:
Then some rules are ignored. Okay, but then NO rule in the Bible should be enforced upon anyone simply because "The Bible says so".
I don't see it quite that way. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians Chap 7:
quote:
12 "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything.
It isn't about a certain set of laws as such. It is about where are hearts are. If our hearts are focused on the love of God and the love of neighbour then we aren't going to be murdering them. stealing from them, running around with their wife/husband etc. Yes we have specifics laid out in the Bible but in the end it is about loving unselfishly and even sacrificially.
From Matthew 12:
quote:
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" 29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." 32 "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
From Luke 6:
quote:
45 The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.
From Romans 2:
quote:
29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
From Romans 10:
quote:
4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. 5 Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' " (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 "or 'Who will descend into the deep?' " (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
From 2 Corinthians 9:
quote:
7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
From Ephesians 1:
quote:
5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
There are of course other examples but that should be more than enough to get my point across. It isn’t about a set of laws per se but about having a loving heart.
Edited by GDR, : last para as an afterthought
Edited by GDR, : Edited wrong message so I removed it

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Nuggin, posted 03-18-2012 4:11 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 254 of 304 (656465)
03-18-2012 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by purpledawn
03-18-2012 8:43 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
purpledawn writes:
If I've missed a question, you'll have to refresh my memory. I'm not sure what you considered my posts to be if not my opinion on methods of Bible interpretation with evidence/support to back up my opinion.
Granted I wasn't to clear on the question but you told me that the Bible is not to be read as dictated by God so how is it to be understood. Does God advocate genocide and stoning to death for minor offences? I also asked why it is that I should worship a God who advocates genocide and stoning.
purple dawn writes:
Jesus did not reject the food laws. In Matthew 15:1-20 as in Mark 7:1-23 Jesus was talking about hand washing before eating. It wasn't about what was being eaten. I don't think handing washing was in the laws given by God in the OT. Besides, the Book of Matthew may have been written as a satire. Message 1
Mark 7:
quote:
18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body."(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "
(Emphasis mine)
Mark even clarifies it for us that Jesus is saying that all foods are clean.
purpledawn writes:
Paul did not reject the food laws. Romans 14 is more than likely dealing with meat offered to idols. Some Jews stayed away from all meats for fear that it might have been offered to an idol. The Fence around the Torah was a better safe than sorry approach. So they wouldn't accidentally break any of the laws. I haven't found a law from God in the OT that says his people couldn't eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols. He just didn't want them worshiping idols.
Here is more of Romans 14:
quote:
17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. 19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. 22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
The question of food that has been offered to idols is dealt with separately in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians to deal with a specific question in that church. In his letter to the Romans it is clear that he is dealing with all food.
This is from Matthew 12:
quote:
1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." 3 He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread--which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.
Jesus is saying that not only that are His disciples justified in breaking the Sabbath laws but so was David. The fact that Jesus justified what David did indicates that it wasn’t that Jesus had come with a different set of laws but that the laws weren’t of God in the first place.
purpledawn writes:
An eye for an eye deals with legal compensation. Jesus is teaching that it is better to go beyond the minimum requirements, raise the bar. That doesn't do away with the minimum requirements or say that the OT scriptures weren't from God.
I’ll requote from Matthew 5:
quote:
38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Jesus says that you have heard that it was said which is an obvious reference to Exodus 21:3. He then carries on saying BUT I Tell you......... It is a repudiation of what was written in Exodus. The Pharisees knew what He meant which is why they were so upset.
purpledawn writes:
Deuteronomy 23 doesn't say hate your enemy. It is a judgement by God on the Ammonites and Moabites. In Matthew 5, Jesus is talking to people in an occupied country. The enemy was all around them. They had to live among them. Different situations.
Again, in Matthew 5 Jesus says:
quote:
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
I suggest that when Jesus says you have heard that it was said that he is referring to the passage in Deuteronomy but I agree that it isn’t conclusive. However, the passage in Deuteronomy does go on to say:
quote:
6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live.
The idea of loving your enemy is in direct contradiction to how God is saying that the pagan neighbours of the Jews were to be treated.
purpledawn writes:
Please show me where Jesus tells us that the specific laws in the OT are not to be understood as being of God.
I have just given you several examples. I have also shown how both Paul and Jesus say that it isn’t about set laws but about the heart in my reply to Nuggin.
purpledawn writes:
In the OT, God is laying down laws for a nation that will be governing itself and did govern itself. In the NT, the Jews were limited on governing themselves.
It is obvious in the teachings of Paul and Jesus that God does want us to be governed so that we would have order in our societies. He wants us to have laws that are consistent with His desires for us. The food laws, circumcision etc did serve a purpose in that they not only maintained order but also set the Jews apart from their pagan neighbours. That does not mean that God instituted the specific laws that they followed even though in some sense they were useful for His purposes.
purpledawn writes:
The Jews weren't in any place to make treaties with anyone.
The quote you used concerned the time of the Roman occupation centuries after the time that they were talking about in the Torah.
purpledawn writes:
The C.S. Lewis method seems to miss the point of a lesson just as letterism does.
Maybe you can explain this and tell me what you mean by lettertism. I googled it and came up with nothing. Also could you just explain what you mean by that sentence?
Thanks

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by purpledawn, posted 03-18-2012 8:43 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by purpledawn, posted 03-19-2012 7:51 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 256 of 304 (656521)
03-19-2012 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by purpledawn
03-19-2012 7:51 AM


Re: C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
purpledawn writes:
The belief that the Bible was dictated by God, is just that, a belief. I don't know that it is part of any method of interpretation. One's beliefs will impact their understanding.
Of course.
purpledawn writes:
In Message 236, I addressed the issue of the death sentences and showed that the laws given weren't out of line with the times. I also showed information concerning Jews and stoning. If the text attributes the rules to God, then yes, according to the text God advocates what he supposedly said.
Of course that is what the text says so essentially we can come to one of two conclusions about that.
1/ The author is correct and it could be actually from God or that he accurately discerned God’s will.
2/ The author is mistaken although it might be a genuine mistake or he could be lying.
We have to come to a conclusion about that. If we assume that all of the text is literally directly from God then we don’t have to think any further. It is obviously correct. If however we accept that the text is culturally and personally conditioned then we have to consider it more closely. I believe the latter with my degree of confidence in the accuracy of the text increasing as we draw closer to the time that the New Testament was written. The Gospels are written in a manner of someone relating an actual story with details. I accept that the gospels were written later but there is every indication that the gospels are taken from earlier writings and from eye witness accounts. There are details in the Gospels, such as Jesus writing in the sand without any record of what He wrote, such as the failings of one of the primary movers in the early church, (Peter), such as having women as witnesses in a strongly patriarchal society, such as the degree of confusion as to what Jesus meant amongst the disciples etc that gives the Gospels a sense of authenticity.
Paul’s writings were earlier and he was a contemporary of the disciples, and so would have close to first hand knowledge of Jesus’ message.
purpledawn writes:
My problem with the Lewis method is that there isn't any consistent basis for declaring the OT written by men and not of God, but that the NT is of God even though it is also written by men. His system negates the parts he didn't believe or didn't match his view of God.
The OT isn’t written in the style of the new. It is more consistent with other mythologies and legends. The historical accounts are consistent with other histories written by authors from the perspective of a specific nation or culture with the nationalistic bias that comes from that.
purpledawn writes:
If one believes that Jesus is the God of Abraham in human form, I don't see that there is a choice. If one worships Jesus, then one is worshiping a god that advocates genocide.
I don’t agree at all. I believe that the man Jesus embodied the God of Abraham but that is not the same as having to believe at face value all that is written in the OT. Jesus came as a climax and fulfillment of the Israel story. With that fulfillment He brought correction. Are you saying that just because some scribe in the employ of Jehu got it wrong that God couldn’t have resurrected Jesus. Are you saying because someone in the ancient past abused his position of authority and decreed that someone picking up firewood on Sunday should be stoned to death that God couldn’t have used Jesus to give His message of love, justice, mercy and forgiveness that we see in the Sermon on the Mount.
Let’s say that I were to come to the conclusion that God really did advocate genocide and the stoning to death for minor offences. I might believe in a god like that but that would not mean that I would have to worship him. Frankly if I believed in that kind of God I wouldn’t worship him.
purpledawn writes:
We're supposed to be discussing the Lewis interpretation method. I don't think we need to hit every verse you feel negates the OT. You need to explain why these verses mean the OT is not of God and the NT is. Both are written by men. What makes one of God and one not?
There are many contradictions, a few of which I have pointed out between the NT and the OT and I have already discussed the differences between the OT and the NT earlier in this post.
One other point I’d mention about Lewis’ position is this. In Romans 1 we read:
quote:
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
I understand that we shouldn’t just cherry pick verses from the Bible but it is my contention that we aren’t meant to rely solely on the Scriptures. We all have consciences and reason. Of course we are human and are reasoning is flawed so we won’t always get it right, but we do have this innate sense of right and wrong, that is undoubtedly affecting by our relationships and even our mental well being. We know instinctively that the genocide and stoning that we have discussed is wrong. Jesus denounces it but it is sometimes sanctioned in the OT. This life is about choices and I choose Jesus and His way.
In addition the verse from Romans tells us that we can also understand God through what has been made. In that regard I believe that in one way we can look upon science as type of theology. C S Lewis had no problem with any conflict between science and Christianity and in fact, Lewis was a theistic evolutionist and was quite interested in science. Interestingly enough we have Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project who is a devout evangelical Christian who strongly confirms the theory of evolution and calls DNA the Language of God.
I suggest that Lewis’ view is consistent with both the Gospels and the epistles but I have a hunch you’ll disagree.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by purpledawn, posted 03-19-2012 7:51 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by purpledawn, posted 03-19-2012 5:05 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 258 of 304 (656561)
03-20-2012 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by purpledawn
03-19-2012 5:05 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
purpledawn writes:
Why should one worship any god at all today?
Because I believe it to be true.
Frankly I believe I've answered the questions you asked and obviously you feel I haven't. Why don't we have a go at you explaining to me how the Bible is to be understood.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by purpledawn, posted 03-19-2012 5:05 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by purpledawn, posted 03-20-2012 8:31 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 260 of 304 (656660)
03-20-2012 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by purpledawn
03-20-2012 8:31 AM


Re: C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
purpledawn writes:
So people should worship a god because you believe it to be true?
I wasn't asking why you worship a god. I'm asking why should people worship a god at all? You pointed out that you wouldn't worship a god that advocates genocide, so what is the point in worshiping a god?
OK. The people should worship a god because they believe that god exists and also because they believe that there god is worth worshipping. My point earlier is that one might believe that a god who advocates genocide and stoning exists but they would have to make up their own mind whether or not a god like that is worth worshipping.
purpledawn writes:
You haven't shown us evidence that the Lewis method of interpreting or understanding the Bible is viable.
We've shown you the problems we see with that method. It's inconsistent.
This is not how one reads a book or a compilation of writings.
Yes, it is going to be inconsistent as it is written by a variety of authors.
purpledawn writes:
So we need to understand what each author was trying to tell his audience. The OT doesn't need the NT to be understood. It can stand alone. Some NT writers use the OT to support their message.
Well that is painfully obvious.
purpledawn writes:
So we have to understand what they are telling their audience, not what we want to hear. Just like the food issue in Message 253 and Message 255. Neither Jesus nor Paul did away with the food laws. Jesus addressed a traditional ritual and Paul basically was trying to make it easier for Jews and Gentiles to eat together.
OK so we don’t agree about how that scripture is to be understood. I still maintain that both Paul and Jesus were very clear that the food laws were not in effect.
purpledawn writes:
The early followers of Jesus still kept Jewish law.
Well the Jewish ones did as Jesus’ followers they didn’t consider that they had stopped being Jewish. It was different for the gentile followers of Jesus. Look at the debate between Paul and others such as Peter over circumcision.
purpledawn writes:
Since we are so far removed from the time, we need some background history to understand what the writer was trying to tell his audience or how they might have understood it. I've listened to a 1943 Red Skelton Show radio broadcast. Some of the humor is lost on me since it is before my time. I can look at history or talk to someone who remembers that time. Since the Bible writers are over 2000 years in the past, we are limited on accessible history.
Of course.
purpledawn writes:
You have stated repeatedly in this thread that the Bible was written by men who were inspired to write down their stories but they weren't dictated by God. They contain their personal and culturally biases. Message 8
You change horses when you get to the NT.
I’m not suggesting that the NT was dictated by God but yes I do understand it differently than I do the OT. Early Christianity was all based on the bodily resurrection of Jesus. If it wasn’t for that Jesus would have been just another in the fairly long list of failed messiahs. Yes, the only accounts that we have are in the Gospels. If we reject the accounts of the resurrection then I agree there isn’t much reason to differentiate between the OT and the NT except that the NT is closer to our time and there is more literature from that era.
If however we come to the conclusion that the resurrection happened as recorded in the Gospels, (I have read and listened to numerous debates on the subject), then we can look at things differently. In the case of the OT if we look at the historical narratives we can assume that the writing is being written with a particular bias. The scribe that wrote the account of Jehu would in all likelihood be paid by Jehu or his descendents and isn’t going to be writing something that will upset them regardless of what he actually thinks about the whole thing.
As far as the mythologies go it is hard to say. I agree with Lewis that they are God’s chosen mythologies which also have roots in other ancient texts. As such I contend that there is much to be learned from them but that they aren’t to be understood as actual events. In fact, if we have them to learn from it is immaterial as to whether they tell of an actual event or not. The story of the Good Samaritan is accepted as a parable, but the lesson from the story remains whether or not Jesus was telling a story that really happened or not.
When the OT tells of decrees from God we have to be more careful. I believe that God speaks to His people through human imagination, and sometimes they would get it right and sometimes not. (It is no different today IMHO.) Sometimes they were also guilty of abusing their power as we still see church leaders doing in modern times. We are dealing with fallible humans.
Back to the NT. If we accept that Jesus was the embodiment of God we are dealing with a situation where His followers were hearing from God directly. I accept that we don’t know if the Gospel writers actually were contemporaries of Jesus or not, but everyone accepts that there would have been written sources from which the Gospel writers drew their information, and there still would have been eyewitnesses around at the time they were compiled. The same is true for what Paul wrote.
There is no motive for any of them that I can see for them to make the whole thing up, nor are they written in a way, (I gave examples earlier) that would give us reason to think that. One reason I didn’t mention earlier was that in Paul’s letters we can see that there was conflict over circumcision. The Gospels never mention the conflict. It is reasonable to think that if they were going to put words into the mouth of Jesus they would have had Him commenting on the issue. However, they don’t do that and I suggest that it is because Jesus never addressed the subject, which gives us more confidence that they honestly and accurately as possible recorded what Jesus said and the narrative that was His life on Earth.
purpledawn writes:
A valid method of interpretation should lead a person to understand what the text is actually saying to the audience regardless of one's belief or faith.
Of course.
purpledawn writes:
In the issue with Hosea and Jehu, you need the contradiction to support your belief that your God doesn't condone killings.
No. The contradiction only gives two points of view. It is what Jesus taught that leads me to the conclusion that God didn’t justify the killings.
purpledawn writes:
The God of Abraham condones killings. Depending on which Gospel one reads, Jesus is not God. Jesus is a man.
Some of the OT authors claim that God condoned killing.
Jesus was a man who embodied the return of Yahweh to His people. In my view that message can be gleaned in all of the Gospels although I agree that the disciples didn’t understand Him that way until after His death.
purpledawn writes:
Although you don't like the belief that the Bible is dictated by God, you seem to treat the NT as though it is dictated by God. The NT is true, but the OT isn't. You method isn't consistent through all the writings of the Bible.
You have made a few comments on the Bible but you haven’t told us how it is that you discern what is to be understood as factual in the Bible. You haven’t addressed the question at all.
purpledawn writes:
can you outline just how the Lewis method goes about interpreting the Bible?
In the first place there is no such thing as the Lewis Method. I have given you the approach that I take in understanding the Bible. You don’t accept that so fine, but I still haven’t heard on you to come to your conclusions. How do you decide what you believe about what the Gospel writers have to say? What do you conclude about the accounts of the resurrection?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by purpledawn, posted 03-20-2012 8:31 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by purpledawn, posted 03-20-2012 8:01 PM GDR has replied
 Message 262 by purpledawn, posted 03-20-2012 9:15 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 263 of 304 (656671)
03-20-2012 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by purpledawn
03-20-2012 8:01 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
GDR writes:
OK. The people should worship a god because they believe that god exists and also because they believe that there god is worth worshipping. My point earlier is that one might believe that a god who advocates genocide and stoning exists but they would have to make up their own mind whether or not a god like that is worth worshipping.
purpledawn writes:
Which means you have to make up your own mind. Stop asking us why you should worship a god that advocates genocide and stoning.
I don’t recall in the forum guidelines that only PD asks the questions. If you don’t have an answer just say so. It seems to me that this is one of the critical questions that we have to ask. It makes a huge difference how we as individuals in a democracy feel about things like war, capital punishment etc. If God advocates genocide and stoning we would very likely have a different POV than we would if we understand God to be what we see in Jesus where we are to love our enemy, turn the other cheek etc.
GDR writes:
I still maintain that both Paul and Jesus were very clear that the food laws were not in effect.
purpledawn writes:
But you provided no evidence to support your position.
I gave you several verses and my rationale for understanding them. There isn’t any point in repeating them.
purpledawn writes:
The early followers of Jesus still kept Jewish law.
GDR writes:
Well the Jewish ones did as Jesus’ followers they didn’t consider that they had stopped being Jewish. It was different for the gentile followers of Jesus. Look at the debate between Paul and others such as Peter over circumcision.
purpledawn writes:
We're talking about food. Stop adding new points. Since the Jewish followers still followed the Jewish laws it is clear that neither Jesus nor Paul did away with the Jewish food laws. There's a thread for that discussion. You can take your evidence there.
You asked a question and I answered it and gave an example to make my point. The food laws weren’t the only Jewish laws.
GDR writes:
In the case of the OT if we look at the historical narratives we can assume that the writing is being written with a particular bias. The scribe that wrote the account of Jehu would in all likelihood be paid by Jehu or his descendents and isn’t going to be writing something that will upset them regardless of what he actually thinks about the whole thing.
purpledawn writes:
You're writing fiction and still provide no evidence for your assumption.
It isn’t fiction. It is literally my position which may be right or wrong or somewhere in between. I gave you the rationale for this position earlier. You don’t accept it so that’s fine.
purpledawn writes:
More gobbledygook. You still provide no evidence.
By the time the synoptics were written, I doubt that circumcision was their biggest issue.
Writers have a message they want to give their audience. Interpretation is about understanding their message, not ours.
What would constitute evidence for you?
GDR writes:
In the first place there is no such thing as the Lewis Method. I have given you the approach that I take in understanding the Bible. You don’t accept that so fine, but I still haven’t heard on you to come to your conclusions. How do you decide what you believe about what the Gospel writers have to say? What do you conclude about the accounts of the resurrection?
purpledawn writes:
Nothing
This isn’t a discussion or even a debate. I have no idea about what you believe or what point you are trying to make. I have given you my rationale and you don’t accept it. That’s fine by me.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by purpledawn, posted 03-20-2012 8:01 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by purpledawn, posted 03-21-2012 8:51 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 264 of 304 (656672)
03-20-2012 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by purpledawn
03-20-2012 9:15 PM


Re: Afterthought and Fiction
purpledawn writes:
You've mentioned twice concerning the NT that you see no reason for them to make stuff up.
I've brought to your attention that you are making stuff up.
Can you explain the reason you are making stuff up?
Right. Just what am I making up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by purpledawn, posted 03-20-2012 9:15 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by purpledawn, posted 03-21-2012 1:46 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 267 of 304 (656766)
03-21-2012 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by purpledawn
03-21-2012 8:51 AM


What is the true nature of God?
purpledawn writes:
don't need to know my belief. It has no bearing on interpreting the text.
That’s a cop out. You continually tell me that my understanding of the Scriptures is flawed but you aren’t prepared to tell me how it should be done.
purpledawn writes:
My point is that interpreting text through a lens of belief is inconsistent.
Just because you make these broad statements doesn’t make them correct. Everyone interprets the texts through a lens of belief. However it should be that the text forms our belief and not the other way around, before going back and interpreting the text. In addition as we gain information and knowledge we should be prepared to adjust our understanding as none of us understand perfectly. I am also a great believer in reading what others who have spent life times studying the Bible and the context in which it was written as well as to whom the message was intended.
purpledawn writes:
If I've understood you correctly, you've basically said that the gospels are true because of their biographical style of presentation.
I would view them as biographical in narrative form. I did not say that makes them true. My point is that the authors wrote them in a form that is meant what they had written to be taken to be as close as possible to what we would see if the whole thing had been recorded. However, just because that is there intent does not prove that they are true. They could be making it up for some unknown reason or they might just have gotten it wrong. Possibly their sources had it wrong.
purpledawn writes:
You seem to use eisegesis which means you're putting your own subjective interpretations into the text, but those interpretations aren't supported by the text itself.
I disagree. I form my interpretations from the text taken in context and then apply that understanding. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a theological scholar but I have spent considerable time reading what those who are have to say.
purpledawn writes:
IMO, humans are an aggressive animal. As with any animal some are more aggressive than others. Civilization has changed over time and so has mankind. Some things are better and some things are not. It's the nature of the beast.
Of course.
purpledawn writes:
Now if we look at the Bible (old and new) as a compilation of human writings inspired by their times and the needs of their people, we see a god that changes as the situation of his chosen people changes.
What is your evidence for that? What you are saying is that God is a god that engages in situational ethics. You are saying that because His people were barbaric that it was ok for Him to justify their barbaric acts. By your logic what the west should now do is to nuke every Islamic nation. This would be your god acting with the times and needs of his people in our current situation just as when the text tells us that he did with the worshippers of Baal. How does that fit with loving your enemy and turning the other cheek?
purpledawn writes:
It's fascinating that you will worship a god that embodies mercy, forgiveness and love; but you can't worship a god that has become a god that embodies mercy, forgiveness and love.
Your belief then is that the Christian God who is outside of time as we know it and has existed since the world began is evolving, and that he was a god who advocated genocide and stoning 3000 years ago but has since changed his ways.
I suggest that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
How about this from James 1:
quote:
17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.
Or this from Hebrews 13:
quote:
The Lord does not change. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
And just so we don’t leave out the OT:
quote:
6 "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you," says the LORD Almighty
purpledawn writes:
Some Christians ask for forgiveness from God for their past transgressions, but some (like you) can't forgive God for his past transgressions. Haven't learned the lesson yet have they?
Do to others what you would have them do to you. Obviously you don't extend that same courtesy to God.
I am supposed to forgive God? Obviously you seem to be able to generate the unbelievable hubris to believe that you can look God in His metaphorical eye and say I forgive you. As I believe in an unchanging God, (the one described in the Bible), I have to determine which God is most accurately portrayed. If Jesus is the embodiment of God, as I believe, then I think I’m more inclined to go with Him and a God of mercy forgiveness and love as opposed to a God who didn’t used to believe in that, but did 2000 years ago and maybe still does today.
purpledawn writes:
The point is to understand their message and not try to put our message in their mouth. Interpretation is a means to understanding what the ancient writers were telling their audience.
Absolutely, and what the ancient writers wanted their audience to know was that their god was behind their barbarism. It didn’t go well for the so called prophets who went against their leaders although of course there are exceptions to that such as Micaiah and even he was thrown into prison until he was vindicated.
GDR writes:
I believe that the man Jesus embodied the God of Abraham but that is not the same as having to believe at face value all that is written in the OT. Jesus came as a climax and fulfillment of the Israel story. With that fulfillment He brought correction. Are you saying that just because some scribe in the employ of Jehu got it wrong that God couldn’t have resurrected Jesus. Are you saying because someone in the ancient past abused his position of authority and decreed that someone picking up firewood on Sunday should be stoned to death that God couldn’t have used Jesus to give His message of love, justice, mercy and forgiveness that we see in the Sermon on the Mount.
purpledawn writes:
The bold section is a made up story line because you have no evidence to support it and the text doesn't support it. You are adding to the story.
Are you saying that Jesus was not the fulfillment of the Israel story? From Matthew 1
quote:
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:
From Matthew 5:
quote:
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
From Matthew 21:
quote:
2 saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away." 4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
From John 12:
quote:
37 Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: "Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" 39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them." 41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.
I showed you earlier where in the Sermon on the Mount in particular He brought correction to what was in the Hebrew Scriptures.
purpledawn writes:
Of course, the book of kings was supposedly compiled/written after Hosea according to scholars.
So what? The two writers obviously had different views on what Jehu had done regardless of when it was written.
There are still two verses in the Bible where the writers obviously intend to give us a broad summary of what God wants of us. If we are His agents on Earth it is certainly reasonable to believe that the attributes he wants of His image bearing creatures is that we would reflect His image to the world. So what is that image He wants us to reflect?
Micah 6:8
quote:
8 He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
Matthew 22:
quote:
36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
IMHO that is where we can see the true nature of God, a God that embraces mercy, truth, justice, kindness, forgiveness and and an all encompassing love.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by purpledawn, posted 03-21-2012 8:51 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by purpledawn, posted 03-22-2012 7:23 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 269 of 304 (656850)
03-22-2012 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by purpledawn
03-22-2012 7:23 AM


Understanding the Scriptures
purpledawn writes:
This discussion isn't about me or belief. This discussion is about methods of Bible interpretation.
Yes, we are discussing our methods of Bible interpretations and as you have outlined your method leaves us with a god that 3000 or so years ago advocated genocide and death by stoning for minor offences and now requires forgiveness for that, in light of the fact that 2000 years ago God as you understand Him gave all of that up and became merciful, loving and forgiving. That of course leaves open the question of what God is like today.
My method of interpretation starts with the Biblical quotes that I gave you that tell us that God is unchanging. My interpretation is that Jesus was the embodiment of God and that we are to understand the OT through the message of the NT which isn’t to say that God wasn’t speaking to the people then and to us now through the OT. It is a matter of how to understand just what the message is.
purpledawn writes:
More specifically this thread is about the problem with literal interpretation of scripture. Unfortunately, I think you considered literal to mean dictated by God, which it doesn't as the links will show you. Then there are those who believe that all that is written in the Bible happened exactly as written. Those are beliefs and not methods of interpretation (Message 240) and you agreed in Message 242.
Yes I agree with that. I think the term literalist is something like the term creationist. At least on this forum when the term creationist is used it is means someone who believes in reading the story in Genesis as historical rather than as an inspired mythology. I agree that your definition is correct but I used it in the OP in the manner in which I think it is normally understood by others on the forum.
purpledawn writes:
Even though this thread is not a step by step instruction manual, you can see the process I use in interpretation by the links I provide to support my arguments. Food Laws.
But your arguments don’t fit the text. Mark even goes so far as to make it crystal clear when he says, (as I quoted earlier), that in saying this Jesus declared all foods clean.
The disciples didn’t follow all of the laws in real life with the eating in the grain fields just being one example and for that matter Jesus Himself healing on the Sabbath being another example. Paul makes it clear that it is about the heart. A loving, merciful and forgiving heart leads one to follow the laws such as not eating meat with someone for whom that would be a problem. (Like drinking in front of an alcoholic.)
purpledawn writes:
You're the one saying that the OT is not of God, but the NT is.
I have not said that. As you yourself have pointed out, the Bible was written by a variety of individuals in different circumstances and in different cultures. I agree with what you said that we have to consider all of that and in addition we have to consider the target audience.
Frankly, IMHO, the story of Jesus and His Kingdom message only makes sense when it is understood through the message of the OT. For example we have the anointed of God being the suffering servant in Isaiah. We see overtones of the divinity of Christ in the son of man quotes in Daniel 7.
At one point you asked about the story of Jonah and how to interpret that. I contend that, to use Lewis’ phrase it is an inspired mythology. It foretells the Jesus story in that God is reaching out to a sinful people and is determined to do so through death, (3 days in the belly of a whale tends to do that), and then through a message of love and forgiveness which led to repentance by the people of Nineveh. It goes to the very heart and nature of God. Matthew 12:40
quote:
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
We see through the inspired mythology of Genesis that God has given mankind dominion over our portion of creation. He has chosen to work through us. We have the knowledge of right and wrong and the ability to choose between the two. Even when He returned He did so through the man Jesus.
My favourite theologian is N T Wright He often says in his talks and lectures that probably about a third of what he is telling them is wrong. He says that the problem is he doesn’t know which third it is. This is from a man who has devoted his life from a very young age to understanding the scriptures, understanding any other historical data he can get his hands on as well as understanding the writings of all theologians through the ages. The point is that we aren’t going to have a perfect understanding of things. IMHO we can build upon our understanding of God just as we continue to build our scientific knowledge, but we have a long way to go in either field.
Let's go back to it being necessary to understand the individual, the culture and the audience when we read the Bible and then combine that with the fallibility of those to whom God has given Earthly dominion to. We can then understand that not everything in the Bible is going to truly represent the true nature and desires of God. As humans we aren’t always going to get it right, and we should accept that there are going to be contradictions and human fallibility in the scriptures, but at the same time understand that God does work through people, through their hearts, minds and imaginations to shed light on things.
So, in no way am I rejecting the OT. When you read through a good Bible with the proper references you can see that Jesus was always explaining both who He was and His message through the OT. As I said the story of Jesus only makes sense through understanding the OT, and the OT truths are revealed through the lens of the NT.
Edited by GDR, : Reworded a couple of things to hopefully make it clearer. Had been a bit rushed.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by purpledawn, posted 03-22-2012 7:23 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by purpledawn, posted 03-22-2012 6:53 PM GDR 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