Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,101 Year: 5,358/9,624 Month: 383/323 Week: 23/204 Day: 23/21 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 46 of 304 (644827)
12-21-2011 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by GDR
12-20-2011 4:28 AM


Yes you’re right. The thing is I have faith in God, the God embodied in the man Jesus. My God is not the Bible. The Bible is the story of God and of the people charged with bringing His message of love, kindness, justice, truth and hope to the world. In Genesis 12 Abraham is told that all the people on earth are to be blessed through him. In reading through the OT we can see that just as in the church today, they failed more than they succeeded. In a way it kinda makes sense as Jesus said in Matthew 9:
quote:
9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. 10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.13But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
It makes sense that the church would be full of sinners and so here we are.
The early Jews kept turning away from God’s message and being influenced by their more powerful neighbours around them. They kept seeing God as a God who would give them domination over their neighbours and possessors of the land. (Not a lot has changed has it? ) The OT tells that story and in it we can see the mistakes they made, and as I said earlier, in it we can see God’s faithfulness to His creatures.
Look at all the different authors. Frankly if there weren’t contradictions I would have a lot less faith as it would be obvious that it was contrived. The Bible is a real book, or a real collection of books really. It has more than enough information in it to understand the true nature of God but if we start treating it as a Jesus replacement then we pervert the message. Jesus is the Word of God and the Bible contains the word of God.
While some of this is true it, has little or nothing to do with contradictions and the topic. Only the last few lines can have very much application to the topic at hand. Example how do we know the Jews kept turning away from God, except by the scriptures that relay that to us and how do we know the scribes werent embellishing this point, like that of 1Kings or Hosea
Im sure there are a few liberal Jews (non conservative) on this site that would argue that the writers were again embellishing and adding to the actual facts
GDR you cant pervert what you do not know is or is not the truth. I understand your intent here but you statements oare contradictory because you have to assume most if not all of your premises. Here is an example
However that is another discussion but I will add simply that the Gospel stories do not fit with anything that would be concocted by someone from that era and there is no reason for them to lie, particularly as most of the followers that we know of suffered for their faith.
Here is a perfect example of you becoming the judge of what is truthful or not in the scriptues. GDR has decided that the scribes that wrote IKings and Hosea had axes to grind, but the Gospel writers are free from lies and embellisment
I believe you are possibly one of the best people that anyone would want to meet, but your faith is not acutally faith, it is a type of musing and wonderment. it directly and indirectly assumes by statement and argument, litered with contradictory approaches that one can decide and choose out of his word what one wishes to accept and reject
Here is an example. You have very clearly identified what some of the weighter matters are in Gods view, love, mercy, forgiveness, etc. However you have failed to and it even seems you are avoiding the other important issues Contained in these books
Judeo-Christianity is a Obligatory religion, both in our responsibility to God and to man and not just in the message of Love your neighbor. We have an obligation, responsibility and mission to preach to the Lost that they are in thier sins and will be lost eternally if they do not repent
How will I convince these people that there is both a message of love and Justice in God, if I take the message of justice out, by hole punching the scriptures. Dont they have the same right in the form of exegesis to elliminate that which they do not like?
Why do they not have the same right to discard that which offends thier minds? If they disregard and disavow passages concerning thier sin and what will happen, arent they perfectly justified, following your approach.
GDR your heart is in the right place, but your faith is not. Your placing your faith in your abilites to decide what is acceptable or not, when God has already don e that for us
It boils down to whether or not you believe they were mistaken or not and if you have faith in their observations. I am firmly convinced in the truth of the Gospel message but I don’t know it to be true conclusively. If we knew all these things conclusively it would no longer be faith; our free will would be gone and we would in essence have lost the ability to choose to love unselfishly as we would always know that in the end it will pay off.
GDR you have as much freeewill to trust and believe God as you wish. Freewill is not freedom to decide what truth is and what is not WITHIN in Gods word, that part has already been decided. If we still get somethings wrong, that doenst change the premise that Gods is always right within his written Word
I have no problem with that, but it does not follow from that, that the Bible is to be understood as being dictated by God.
Ok, if you dont like the word dictated, then could we conclude as the bible teaches that God is infinite in wisdom and could therefore never make a wrong decision?
It is the great truths that God wants understood in both mind and heart. I’ll just go back to the witnesses at an accident; they will disagree on the details but they all agree that there was an accident. Just as the Gospel writers might disagree about details around the time of the resurrection appearances, they all agree that Jesus was resurrected.
This is not excally what the scriptures teaches about inspiration or how we are to believe it, but lets go with your premise.
If the fella says to you, GDR, its not possible for anyone to rise from the dead anymore than a man can live in the belly of a fish for three days, or that God would order one of his leaders to massacure people. this must be and I believe it to be allegorical? What will you say to him? Is he ok for believing its just allegorical? Can he get to heaven with such a belief?
If after all of your efforts he still refuse to believe its real, is he still ok, becuase one of the great truths of the Bible is that God is love
Yes, I am saying that one or both of the writers are mistaken. The scribe who wrote 2nd Kings is characterizing a very different god than what we see in Jesus, and as I said earlier I think that there is a very sound basis for believing in Jesus, but it is still a faith.
So if your same fella sees a passage where Jesus says we are to love our neighbors, then he reads a passage out of Paul that says
"Then the Lord will descend with the a shout and with the voice of the archangel, and in flaming fire, taking vengence on those that know not God andobey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ"
Will you expalin that this is two different writers being contradictory, misleading and mistaken concerning God and Christ? And when he says "well that is a glaring contradiction", Mr Greg. Will you tell him that he must have faith that the part you are telling him is ture and to be believed and the other should be discarded
When he says why cant both be true, what will you tell him?
In truth GDR, I need to put into practice the things you have mentioned concerning the more important matters. And you may need to put into practice trusting God accross the board concerning all his precepts. trust that he knows what he is doing and saying
I hate to admit it but Im more like Jonah than Paul or John. Sometimes my philosphy is like Jonah's, Lord cant you just destroy them and be done with it. Mercy and infinite Justice are both apart of his character. I dont have right to decide which one should be rejected or accepted
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 12-20-2011 4:28 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Panda, posted 12-21-2011 6:22 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2011 6:57 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 12-21-2011 11:02 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 47 of 304 (644846)
12-21-2011 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dawn Bertot
12-21-2011 1:21 AM


Murderer
DB writes:
Sometimes my philosphy is like Jonah's, Lord cant you just destroy them and be done with it.
It is good to see that you are following god's example and are advocating the mass murder of millions of people.
But it is a shame that you can't follow god's example and love everyone equally.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-21-2011 1:21 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 304 (644849)
12-21-2011 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dawn Bertot
12-21-2011 1:21 AM


If the fella says to you, GDR, its not possible for anyone to rise from the dead anymore than a man can live in the belly of a fish for three days, or that God would order one of his leaders to massacure people. this must be and I believe it to be allegorical? What will you say to him? Is he ok for believing its just allegorical? Can he get to heaven with such a belief?
You are no doubt aware of what it takes to be saved. Your salvation depends on repenting your sins and accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior and has absolutely nothing to do with with what you believe about Jonah surviving a three day stint in a fish belly or about how long ago the universe was created.
If you want to make being a Christian solely about avoiding God's judgement after death, I wonder what it is you intend to pick out of the Old Testament as there simply isn't much in there about the subject. Is this truly the message you use to evangelize?
I believe you are possibly one of the best people that anyone would want to meet, but your faith is not acutally faith, it is a type of musing and wonderment.
I don't detect any evidence of that. If any man believes Jesus is the Christ and returned from the dead and has not insisted that he place his hands in Jesus side, then the man has faith. If a man operates in that faith, then his faith is not dead. His take on Jonah's fish experience is irrelevant.
With regard to the contradiction GDR points to in Hosea, I don't see a clear cut contradiction. In the King James Version, Hosea 4 reads as follows:
quote:
4. And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel
Certainly getting vengeance for the previous massacre is how Jezreelians would see things, and God could have easily used this bad will to punish Israel for their actual crimes, namely those described in Hosea 1:2.
GDR quotes the NIV, and I will agree that it is difficult to gather the same message by reading only Hosea 4 from that translation. But upon reading Hosea 1:1-4, it is pretty clear that God's attitude towards Israel has changed because of the unfaithfulness of Judah to God.
I guess I'm agreeing with ICANT again. Yikes!
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-21-2011 1:21 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-21-2011 8:30 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 51 by GDR, posted 12-21-2011 2:29 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 49 of 304 (644856)
12-21-2011 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by NoNukes
12-21-2011 6:57 AM


You are no doubt aware of what it takes to be saved. Your salvation depends on repenting your sins and accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior and has absolutely nothing to do with with what you believe about Jonah surviving a three day stint in a fish belly or about how long ago the universe was created.
That wasnt the only point of the illustration. If however I choose to believe the resurrection is not a true story, but meant as an allegory, is that ok to?
If you want to make being a Christian solely about avoiding God's judgement after death, I wonder what it is you intend to pick out of the Old Testament as there simply isn't much in there about the subject. Is this truly the message you use to evangelize?
Avoiding Gods judgement wasnt the point either
I don't detect any evidence of that. If any man believes Jesus is the Christ and returned from the dead and has not insisted that he place his hands in Jesus side, then the man has faith. If a man operates in that faith, then his faith is not dead. His take on Jonah's fish experience is irrelevant.
My implication was that upon closer examination his faith is found wanting, in that while he believes in Christ he does not actually trust Gods omniscience, either because God acts immorally or we cannot disnguish between the scribes as to who is telling the truth
I am not implying or saying he is not a Christian or saved.
With regard to the contradiction GDR points to in Hosea, I don't see a clear cut contradiction. In the King James Version, Hosea 4 reads as follows:
Ok, but for the purposes of this discussion he does and has maintained that many exist. That is the context of our discussion
And thanks for that exposition on that passage, that was overall helpful
GDR quotes the NIV, and I will agree that it is difficult to gather the same message by reading only Hosea 4 from that translation. But upon reading Hosea 1:1-4, it is pretty clear that God's attitude towards Israel has changed because of the unfaithfulness of Judah to God.
I guess I'm agreeing with ICANT again. Yikes!
Ok and BTW I trust ICANTs conclusions in most Biblical matters, he is a very knowlegable and educated man
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2011 6:57 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2011 8:49 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 304 (644857)
12-21-2011 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dawn Bertot
12-21-2011 8:30 AM


quote:
My implication was that upon closer examination his faith is found wanting, in that while he believes in Christ he does not actually trust Gods omniscience, either because God acts immorally or we cannot disnguish between the scribes as to who is telling the truth
I understand that, and your implication is nonsense. Nothing that he has said implies any lack of belief in God's omniscience. What you have done here is conflate God's omniscience with your own interpretation of the Bible as having been dictated by God.
I am not implying or saying he is not a Christian or saved.
In fact, you are saying exactly that. Questioning someone's faith IS questioning whether they are a Christian. For by grace are ye saved through faith. You are saying in essence, that GDR is not a true Scotsman.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-21-2011 8:30 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by ICANT, posted 12-22-2011 5:06 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 77 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-23-2011 8:26 AM NoNukes has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 51 of 304 (644915)
12-21-2011 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by NoNukes
12-21-2011 6:57 AM


NoNukes writes:
With regard to the contradiction GDR points to in Hosea, I don't see a clear cut contradiction. In the King James Version, Hosea 4 reads as follows:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly getting vengeance for the previous massacre is how Jezreelians would see things, and God could have easily used this bad will to punish Israel for their actual crimes, namely those described in Hosea 1:2.
GDR quotes the NIV, and I will agree that it is difficult to gather the same message by reading only Hosea 4 from that translation. But upon reading Hosea 1:1-4, it is pretty clear that God's attitude towards Israel has changed because of the unfaithfulness of Judah to God.
The NAS is supposedly the translation that sticks closest to a literal translation of the earliest manuscripts so here is the pertinent vs from Kings II chap 10 and then Hosea 1: 1-4 from the NAS.
quote:
30 The LORD said to Jehu, "Because you have done well in executing what is right in My eyes, and have done to the house of Ahab according to all that was in My heart, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel."
The whole passage is in the OP but in this specific verse God is pleased with the slaughter, as well as the destruction of the idols to Baal, to the point of saying that is what is in his heart and then goes on to say that Jehu's sons through 4 generations shall sit on the throne of Israel.
quote:
1 The word of the LORD which came to Hosea the son of Beeri, during the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel. 2 When the LORD first spoke through Hosea, the LORD said to Hosea, "Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry ; for the land commits flagrant harlotry, forsaking the LORD." 3 So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son. 4 And the LORD said to him, "Name him Jezreel ; for yet a little while, and I will punish the house of Jehu for the bloodshed of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel. 5 "On that day I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel."
Now in Hosea we have God saying not only that He will punish the house of Jehu for the bloodshed but that He will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel.
It is patently obvious that the 2 book are written by 2 different authors with 2 different cultural perspectives. To think that both passages were dictated by God would make him not only duplicitous but a liar.
If however we understand the passages as 2 different writers with 2 different perspectives and understand it as the ongoing narrative of the people of God then it all fits into place, and we don't have to suspend our God given reason to make sense of it.
Be very careful of agreeing with ICANT.
Merry Christmas

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2011 6:57 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2011 4:37 PM GDR has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 304 (644937)
12-21-2011 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by GDR
12-21-2011 2:29 PM


If however we understand the passages as 2 different writers with 2 different perspectives and understand it as the ongoing narrative of the people of God then it all fits into place, and we don't have to suspend our God given reason to make sense of it.
Be very careful of agreeing with ICANT.
Believe me. I do check my work when I find myself in agreement with ICANT.
But even given the NSA translation, what it seems to me that you are doing is taking a hyper-literally reading the text, finding a contradiction, and then using the contradiction as an excuse for a much looser reading.
What I see even in the NSA translation is that God has gotten angry at Israel for transgressions other than the bloodshed, and has decided to punish Israel by switching sides.
Quite frankly, what I find more difficult to swallow is God's direction to Hosea to take a harlot wife. I don't get that at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by GDR, posted 12-21-2011 2:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by GDR, posted 12-21-2011 5:14 PM NoNukes has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 53 of 304 (644946)
12-21-2011 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by NoNukes
12-21-2011 4:37 PM


NoNukes writes:
But even given the NSA translation, what it seems to me that you are doing is taking a hyper-literally reading the text, finding a contradiction, and then using the contradiction as an excuse for a much looser reading.
What I see even in the NSA translation is that God has gotten angry at Israel for transgressions other than the bloodshed, and has decided to punish Israel by switching sides.
But very specifically says:
quote:
I will punish the house of Jehu for the bloodshed of Jezreel
Certainly I'm taking a literal reading, hyper or not, but that is that is the criteria that Dawn is using. I suppose you can say that God switched sides but does that sound like an omniscient god to you?
Also if you follow the story through as 2nd Kings was obviously written after the fact we can see that it did go down 4 generations from Jehu as King of Israel. In Hosea 1 it appears to be written while Jehu as still alive and we can see that in 2nd Kings that there was no punishment for the House of Jehu within that 4 generational spread, and there was still a succession of kings in Israel for a period of time after that.
In other words it appears that what Hosea claims that God told him would happen; didn't happen.
I'm not sure that I am taking a looser reading. I am saying that the messages accurately portray what the authors intended them to do. The authors just had a vastly different take on the situation.
NoNukes writes:
Quite frankly, what I find more difficult to swallow is God's direction to Hosea to take a harlot wife. I don't get that at all.
Ya, go figure. However, it is at least in a broad sense consistent with the way Jesus treated prostitutes, tax collectors etc. Jesus seemed to treat the legalists with all the answers, such as the Pharisees, considerably more harshly that He treated the prostitutes. I wonder if we have any parallels to that today?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2011 4:37 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2011 10:52 PM GDR has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 304 (644963)
12-21-2011 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by GDR
12-21-2011 5:14 PM


Certainly I'm taking a literal reading, hyper or not, but that is that is the criteria that Dawn is using. I suppose you can say that God switched sides but does that sound like an omniscient god to you?
God recognizes free will while being omniscient. I suppose that's going to lead to some strange sounding outcomes, but perhaps not so strange if Israel's punishment is going to be a short lived punishment rather than a condemnation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by GDR, posted 12-21-2011 5:14 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by GDR, posted 12-21-2011 11:08 PM NoNukes has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 55 of 304 (644964)
12-21-2011 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dawn Bertot
12-21-2011 1:21 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:
GDR you have as much freeewill to trust and believe God as you wish. Freewill is not freedom to decide what truth is and what is not WITHIN in Gods word, that part has already been decided. If we still get somethings wrong, that doenst change the premise that Gods is always right within his written Word
We have the freedom to comprehend truth to the best of our ability. You seem to agree that there are many things in the Bible that don’t really make sense but you simply conclude that there is some reason for it that you or I don’t understand.
Please explain to me why it is that it is necessary to understand the Bible as being literally written by God. The Bible itself is very clear. From John 1:
quote:
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. 9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.' " 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses ; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18No one has seen God at any time ; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Jesus is the Word of God. The Logos was incarnate in Jesus. That is why we are Christians. Jesus was the climax or fulfillment of the Israel story. If the teaching of Jesus is inconsistent with parts of the OT then as Christians it seems very obvious that we go with Jesus.
However, we keep going around in circles. I’ll try something else.
Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount to describe the give an understanding of existence in the life after the new creation and how it is that we are to build for that re-creation of all things. Here is a passage from it.
quote:
. 43"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'44"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven ; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.46"For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have ? Do not even the tax collectors do the same ?47"If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same ?
Now then let’s look at just one example from the OT. From Deuteronomy 7:
quote:
1 "When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, 2 and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.
Is this the same omniscient God that is the same yesterday, today and forever? The thing is, if you understand that the OT quote represents God equally with the quote from the Sermon on the Mount you wind up worshipping and serving a very different God that if you understand Jesus as embodying the Word of God and use that as a filter in understanding the OT.
The fundamentalist reading of the Scriptures that views the Deuteronomy reading as accurately depicting the heart of God has a very different take on things than someone who understands God as represented by Jesus. In a discussion that I had with Iano he wrote this:
quote:
As for nuking non-Christian nations? If God directed it I'd see no problem with it. Doubtlessly he'd have a multitude of goals in so doing. I don't think I'd want to take it on myself however (unless of course, he gave an unmistakable direction).
That is the type of thinking that you get when we understand the OT as literally true. I won’t quote them but look at the posts by the fundamentalists in the Hitch is Dead thread. I just can’t understand this kind of thinking by people who call themselves Christian. Frankly I find these posts by people who are supposedly of the same faith as me chilling. I can see no way of squaring any of those posts with the Sermon on the Mount, but if the OT is understood literally then I suppose it makes sense if the NT is only paid lip service.
Dawn Bertot writes:
GDR your heart is in the right place, but your faith is not. Your placing your faith in your abilites to decide what is acceptable or not, when God has already don e that for us
But you are placing your faith in your ability to decide what is acceptable or not when YOU MAKE THE DECISION that you will try to understand the Scriptures in a literal manner. I would add that I can’t quite understand how you actually can come to conclusions with the conflicting images of God that we find in those two quotes.
Dawn Bertot writes:
GDR you have as much freeewill to trust and believe God as you wish. Freewill is not freedom to decide what truth is and what is not WITHIN in Gods word, that part has already been decided. If we still get somethings wrong, that doenst change the premise that Gods is always right within his written Word
Once again you are dismissing the manner that I contend the Scriptures are to be understood and assuming that there is no questioning of your position. You simply dismiss contradictions and moral ambiguities out of hand by just saying that I, and presumably you as well, don’t understand for one reason or another.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Ok, if you dont like the word dictated, then could we conclude as the bible teaches that God is infinite in wisdom and could therefore never make a wrong decision?
Sure but that doesn’t tell us anything about how we are to understand the Scriptures.
I’ll give you that quote from Paul again form 1 Cor 4.
quote:
4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
God will judge the motives of men’s hearts. It is not about whether or not we got our theology right. Read from Mathew 7:
quote:
21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles ?'23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
And what is God’s will? We are called to humbly love kindness and do justice. We are told to love God and neighbour and we are told to love our enemy.
As Christians we have been given the vocation of proclaiming that Christ is King and to enact that message by serving His creation. Yes if we truly believe then we are pre-judged but just what does it mean by to believe. It does not mean giving intellectual ascent to the divinity of Christ. It is about actually making Him Lord, taking on board that to rule means to serve, (remember the washing of the disciple’s feet?) and finding our joy in the love that we show and feel for others, and for that matter all of His creation.
Dawn Bertot writes:
So if your same fella sees a passage where Jesus says we are to love our neighbors, then he reads a passage out of Paul that says
"Then the Lord will descend with the a shout and with the voice of the archangel, taking vengence on those that know not God andobey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ"
I can’t find that quote of Paul. Can you tell me where it comes from?
Edited by GDR, : typo

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-21-2011 1:21 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-23-2011 1:13 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 56 of 304 (644966)
12-21-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by NoNukes
12-21-2011 10:52 PM


NoNukes writes:
God recognizes free will while being omniscient. I suppose that's going to lead to some strange sounding outcomes, but perhaps not so strange if Israel's punishment is going to be a short lived punishment rather than a condemnation.
It didn't actually seemed to be short lived at all. The reign of the house of Jehab did last 4 generations and the kingdom of the House of Israel carried on longer than that. As I said, KING 2 seems to represent what actually happened which isn't surprising as it was obviously written well after the fact. The prophesy in Hosea just didn't come to fruition.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2011 10:52 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 12-22-2011 7:35 AM GDR has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 57 of 304 (644975)
12-22-2011 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dawn Bertot
12-20-2011 8:44 AM


Re: The OT is Not a Christian Document
Hi Dawn,
So should we consider those Jewish writers as reliable or unreliable
This question is a separate matter from interpretation. First we must ask "What are they saying?". Only then can we meaningfully ask whether or not it is true.
Great. Not to mention those nutty koo koo, stories about miracles and fantstic stories about what God may may not have done in that connection.
The OT was written a very long time ago, when people had a lot of very odd superstitious beliefs. I don't see the idea that some of the miracle stories are weird being a barrier to interpretation. Believing, yes, but interpretation, not so much.
What should we filter those stories through
The historical and cultural context from which they originated.
There is much more to consider when deciding upon a literal or non-literal interpretation than a skeptic like yourself can imagine
Oh come on! "You couldn't possibly understand" isn't a very useful or satisfying answer Dawn. Would you be satisfied with that if I threw it at you? I would hope not. Anyone can claim that about anything.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-20-2011 8:44 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 58 of 304 (644976)
12-22-2011 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by GDR
12-20-2011 1:30 PM


Re: The OT is Not a Christian Document
Not really. Paul was a first century Pharicetical Jew and steeped in the tradition. He would understand the Hebrew Scriptures in a way that we can’t hope to today.
Perhaps. But not necessarily in the same way as the authors. Paul is coming to the OT centuries after it was written. He may have been a scholar of Judaism, but his understanding of those texts would have been badly flawed. For example, he would have believed in Mosaic authorship, a major mistake. He would have had no idea about anything resembling the Documentary Hypothesis, another major failing. He would have been steeped in tradition about those texts, much of which would have been wrong. I don't think we can take him that seriously as an interpretor.
His opinion maybe more significant than yours or mine, but I don't think his opinion is especially important.
However, it is important that we realize that Jesus was a Jew, functioning in that culture, speaking in speaking synagogues and in the vast majority of cases speaking to a Jewish audience. In addition all of the writers to the best of our knowledge were Jewish except for Luke. When you get a good Bible and follow through with the footnotes in the Gospels it is obvious that Jesus understood His vocation within a very Jewish context.
But it is also fair to say that Jesus shook up the status quo to a very great extent. His Judaism was a radical departure from that which had gone before. I don't think we should expect the Old and New Testaments to align with each other; if anything, we should expect them to disagree a great deal, which they do.
...we can’t understand the OT in Christian terms but the OT can be of help in understanding Jesus in Jewish terms.
I strongly agree with this.
A Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by GDR, posted 12-20-2011 1:30 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by GDR, posted 12-22-2011 11:13 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 12-22-2011 5:45 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 304 (644992)
12-22-2011 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by GDR
12-21-2011 11:08 PM


It didn't actually seemed to be short lived at all. The reign of the house of Jehab did last 4 generations and the kingdom of the House of Israel carried on longer than that.
That's pretty short compared to forever.
You might be correct regarding the interpretation of Hosea/Kings 2, but I don't think your reading is forced by an insurmountable contradiction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by GDR, posted 12-21-2011 11:08 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 60 of 304 (645012)
12-22-2011 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Granny Magda
12-22-2011 2:29 AM


Re: The OT is Not a Christian Document
Granny Magda writes:
Perhaps. But not necessarily in the same way as the authors. Paul is coming to the OT centuries after it was written. He may have been a scholar of Judaism, but his understanding of those texts would have been badly flawed. For example, he would have believed in Mosaic authorship, a major mistake. He would have had no idea about anything resembling the Documentary Hypothesis, another major failing. He would have been steeped in tradition about those texts, much of which would have been wrong. I don't think we can take him that seriously as an interpretor.
I'm not so sure about Paul subscribing to Mosaic authorship. Anyone who knew the scriptures as well as Paul would know that it would have been difficult for Moses to write the part of the Torah after he was dead.
I suggest that it could have been understood as tradition and not fact. For example how many sermons are preached on the Prodigal Son that someone listening to it, who had no prior knowledge, would believe that it was story that the preacher believed to be historical.
I agree that he would have no idea about the "Documentary Hypothesis" but some parts of the Torah are obviously from different sources so I think he might well have had a smattering of an understanding of it.
He would at least have knowledge of the way that it was understood by his contemporaries and of course just how that played into Christ's understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Granny Magda writes:
But it is also fair to say that Jesus shook up the status quo to a very great extent. His Judaism was a radical departure from that which had gone before. I don't think we should expect the Old and New Testaments to align with each other; if anything, we should expect them to disagree a great deal, which they do.
Yes and no IMHO. I believe that Jesus' self understanding of who He was as Messiah, and the vocation that flowed from that, was solidly based on the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly Isaiah, Daniel and the Psalms.
The OT is written by men with their personal and cultural biases but within all of that I firmly believe that there is the true revelation of God.
Jesus understanding was very different than the understanding of His Jewish contemporaries like you say. For the Jews it was primarily about God giving them land and power in this life whereas Jesus was about changing hearts and building the Kingdom for the next life.
Granny Magda writes:
A Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Thanks and to you as well

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Granny Magda, posted 12-22-2011 2:29 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 12-22-2011 5:59 PM GDR has replied
 Message 85 by Granny Magda, posted 12-24-2011 6:59 AM 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