The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight

[7starmantis]

This gets a little technical, but Paul actually outlines the different 'levels' of interpretation and understanding in some of his letters. Namely, a 'physical' (hylic or sarkic), a 'mental' or 'intellectual' (psychic), and a 'spiritual' (pneumatic). Likewise, he also differentiates between 'uninitiated' and 'initiated' Christians.

While this explanation clearly is dependent somewhat on Pythagoreanism and Platonism, it also has precedent in Judaic tradition. Midrash is the Jewish tradition of interpreting scriptures and writings of prophets allegorically or symbolically, and carries with it pretty much the same 'levels' of interpretation (literal, moral, and spiritual).

Your asking us to accept your authority on what Paul actually outlines. I'm not saying your wrong (yet) but your not providing proof. If I was to take a clearly "born again christian" point of view, your extra-biblical accounts of Paul would be thin at best. Your misunderstanding Paul's writings, he's not speaking of two types of christians, "initiated" and "unititiated", but more "mature" and "immature".

Remeber that the bible also claims pure jewish tradition as false or "not enough". The fact that judaic traditions show precedents, hold no merrit with believers of the bible. Interpretation aside, there are hard statements in the bible and that is one of them.

Although your willingness to avoid making a hard statement yourself is interesting.

Sorry, but my understanding of 'Christianity' is not limited to 'the guys that won'. Just because Constantine started wiping everybody else does not mean the interpretation he supported have the corner market here.

Part of the problem here is that the school you are declaring to be 'Christianity' here doesn't really seem to have really existed before the middle of the 2nd century. Even then, it had very little jurisdiction outside of Rome. For that matter, true Christian 'doctrine' as it exists today was hammered out in the Council of Nicea around 330 CE. We don't see anything exactly like it before this historic meeting.

By contrast, the 'docetic' schools of 'Christological' thought were very, very widespread by this time --- having roots in Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, and other places. It is literally an unwieldly thought to assume that all these 'modifications' or 'adaptations' to the original 'Christianity' took place everywhere in the known world, consequently became the dominant 'Christian' school of thought in all these places, and the only place literalist 'Christian' school retained its 'purity' was Rome.

I'm gonna go with Occam's Razor on this one.

OK, thats exactly my point. Your acceptance of what "Christianity" is and my acceptance of it are far apart. Constantine wouldn't be anyone I would accept as spreading "christianity".
The fact that there is a lack of history for Christians actually supports my deffinition of "Christian". Before Jesus Christ there was no "Christianity" or "Christian" according to the bible. In the bible it teaches that OT "salvation" if you will, was gained through works, not faith as in the NT.
My literal definition of "Christian" would actually be supported by your fact. Also, Rome isn't considered by most "born again christians" as a focal point of "Christianity". Many seperate "Christianity" from catholicism. Its not so unwieldly to think of "the entire known world" when your speaking to a "believer" who believes "God" created the whole world.

Personally, I simply ignore this sectarian squabbling altogether.

Thats the problem. Your standing on the outside trying to group together a large group of people who would adamantly disagree with your label.

Christianity, to me, is a historical phenomenon. Regardless of what opinion you may or may not have regarding any given denomination or sect's claim to the name, they all have a shared history. The history is what is important here, not some weird sense of ideological 'purity'.

The history is not what is important to a believer, thats why we are going in circles. Your basing your views on history, while believers base their views on the bible alone.

Likewise with other religions. You could easily make the claim that Japan's Pure Land Buddhism deviates wildly from the supposed 'original teachings' of Siddhartha Gautama (assuming he actually existed). A heaven, hell, personal savior, and salvation through grace all seem to not exactly be your standard Buddhist fare. But, the point remains, the Pure Land sect is a school of Buddhism --- not matter how 'heretical' you claim their position is.

The bible teaches that believers are not "of" this world, so the have the "worlds" label on christianity means nothing to them. Because you say so doesn't make everyone agree with you. I think it comes down to a simple disagreement. I disagree with your labeling and history of "Christianity" and I dont forsee anything changing that. You disagree with mine and I dont foresee anything changing that.....what are we to do?

Almost all of the Torah in its Hebrew form has been discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is easily verified.

Your point?

I'm sorry if you're having issues with this, but the overwhelming majority of Christian Churches use the Septugaint for their 'Old Testament'. In the Synoptics, whenever Jesus cites the Torah, he is quoting from the Septugaint. The Septugaint is the background text the authors had in mind here.

Again, there are some exceptions to this --- like the Syrian Peshitta --- but these are the exception to the rule.

Do you mean the Septuagint? If so, that would be considered "heresy" by the bible as "additional and variant material" would be considered a "jot and tittle" I believe.

How exactly would you knowwhat was in the minds of the writters? Because you said so? I know, there is a multitude of "historical evidence" to show this, yet nothing factual.

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of 'Christians' of the first two centuries CE are excluded by this literalist definition. Justin Martyr is the first 'Christian' we know of that would inequivocably fall into this categorization.

Yes, your right, adn I understand that.....therein lies our difference of views on "Christianity".

The problem here is that 'the Bible' as we have it is largely a post-Nicene work. None of the books we have inherited date before the 300's.

Ergo, it is fallacious to claim it unqualifiably represents the 'original usage' of anything.

What does that prove exactly? Your basis of truth is rooted in history, but thats a pretty tight minded view.

So, God's fine with forgery??

Furthermore, God's fine with later apologetics putting into Paul's mouth ideas that he most assuredly taught against in his authentic letters (i.e., a literal 'physical' resurrection)??

Sorry, not buyin' it.

I dont think "believers" would agree with your definition of forgery in this sense.
I would be interested to see what teachings you are refering to from Paul's letters against a "physical" resurrection.

1. well we have 3 choices....ambivalent, benevolent, malevolent. god being the perfect omnipotent being that he is can never decide if he accepts humanity for all of their faults.

According to the bible ("Gods word") he does accept humanity for all their faults, he just doesn't allow them into his "house".

2. wanting fellowship and chosen worship is what everyone wants.....unless you are a complete anti-social maladroit.
what he did "create" was the biblical equivalent of lord of the flies.
if he created us with freedom of thought......he should be accepting people for who they are no matter what they do (OT), instead we have the story of an omnipotent creator that wants us to give him our undivided attention and follow every order, lest we get turned into a pillar of salt.

Then your post was incorrect according to you? huh? Your pulling things out of context to fabricate some ideal about who god is. Its not about doing what he says, but not doing what he says not to do...there is actually a difference, and no where has the bible threatened a pillar of salt for those who do not obey.

Only if you presume the Bible to be inerrant.

Exactly, suppose for a moment I do....how would you convince we otherwise?

Its allready been done...hence the heresies and 2000 years of inter-Christian theological strife.

C'mon, moer logical fallacies? Because of theological strife, we need not show biblical contraditions? I dont agree with most of them...so then the strife is moot to me.

Poor analogy. My wife loves me, but not because I threaten her with pain and death...nor would I were she to withdraw her affection or leave me for another man. The nut-job who blows his wife and her lover away out of jealousy is far closer to the Old Testament accounts of God and his wrath.

Extend the analogy further and we find the New Testament God killing his child in order in order to appease his own anger at the transgressions of the wife. Now that the kid is dead, she has a new chance to come home to him and all will be well. If she chooses not to, she then faces an eternity of punishment.

Is it love, or coercion?

If you read the bible you will see that after creation, there was no threat of pain or death, that came later you see.

I'm suprised that this one was virtually left alone. You are using the very logical fallacies you warn us against. PROVE the bible to be error free first before you use it's own claims as proof. The "circular argument" (Petitio Princippi, in Latin) takes in this form the idea that the bible is truth, therefore everything in it must be true, including the statement that all others sources are false. However, there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to accept the bible as truth other than because "it said so". It's this reasoning that's false, not the bridge we build when discussing it. In fact, the bridge is the concrete means to defeat this false logic.

That would be a good point except that if you read my posts I was addressing the discussion from the view of a "born again believer" who would view the bible as truth. To claim logical falasy means nothing to someones "faith".
If the bible is not true, prove it. Who does the burden of proof fall upon? I guess people would disagree.

How about faulty arguments when trying to protect the bible? Do those bother you too?

Yup. Your implication is incorrect here, I'm not trying to protect anything.

Not anymore, right? The bible is no longer an unimpeachable source as demonstrated through the study of logical fallacies. Therefore, the comment must now read :

"This person or movement (X) being biblical in nature and backed up by historical precedent, disproves the bible (Y) because they clearly contradict". ALSO, even though the bible (Y) allready refutes the person or movement (X), we must hold the bible(Y) and it's statements to the same standards of documentation and historical support, and to date it (Y) has been unable to effectively muster either."

You believe the fallicy exists in accepting the bible as truth, others may not. You can't just say, "My side is right, so your using faulty logic". You must show proof that their laogic is faulted by showing proof that their acceptance of the bible as truth is invalid.

7sm

 

[7starmantis]

Part of the problem, of course, is that there is hardly a clear-cut definition of what is or is not 'Christian' in the Bible. Not only is the Bible subject to a series of different levels of interpretation, but it is also internally contradictory as pertaining to positions taken from book to book.

Internal contradiction in the bible do not exist, your incorrect.

This makes sense, of course, in that the individual 'books' that make up the New Testament were never intended to be taken altogether. They are generally believed to be a representative work from a particular pre-Nicene school of 'Christian' thought. As such, we see various different 'schools' or 'philosophies' of Christian thought alongside one another in a single literary anthology. Collapsing the context presented in one 'book' with that presented in another can lead to some pretty 'fuzzy' interpretations.

Intended by whom? "Generally believed" by whom?

Take, for example, the famous Christian dictum from the Gospel of John: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father, but by Me." Well, gosh golly. That's the end of it. Jesus Christ is the only route to salvation --- anyone that says, believes, or does otherwise is basically screwed!!

But, wait!! Context!! That's right! Y'see... at the very beginning of said Gospel of John, the author makes it very clear that 'Jesus Christ' is an incarnation, embodiment, or manifestation of the eternal Logos (Word): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was, yadda yadda, so on, etc". Well, now, that's a whole 'nudder bag of potato chips right there!

Context is right. Your now getting into debates on the trinity. Being an incarnation of the word and being 100% human, while also being 100% "God" is what the bible teaches.

Y'see, the Logos is a very old Hellenistic philosophical concept, dating as far back as Heraclitus in the 6th century BCE. Most likely, the author of the Gospel of John was heavily influenced by the writing of Philo Judaeus, a Pythagorean Jew writing around 10 to 15 CE, who made extensive references to the eternal Logos as the 'Son of God' in his works.

The funny thing is the Logos is supposed to be an eternal, universal, perennial philosophical principle --- it isn't exclusive property of any time, place, or person. Even if that 'person' is good ol' Jesus. Heraclitus describes the "Logos shared by all" and even the Gospel of John describes the Logos as "the light of all men that enter the world".

The fact that the author used a recognized term such as "logos" doesn't immediately change what he/she meant by using it. Take just the greek word "logos" without the historical conitations...different altogether isn't it. "The Logos" was used quite heavily in the bible to refer to "God" himself.

Well, now! That changes everything!! No longer is Mr. Maybe-Lived-And-Died-And-Resurrected-Two-Millenia-Ago the solitary route to 'salvation'. Rather, as the living incarnation of the Logos ("the Word made flesh"), that particular Gospel is telling is the Logos, the Word, the I AM is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" --- which, well frankly, is true.

Unless of course you believe in the trinity of the Godhead.

But, the other funny thing.... Jesus never makes these 'I am' speeches in any other Gospel but John. Coincidentally --- okay, we know by now it ain't coincidence --- its also the only Gospel he is literally identified with the Logos. That means --- dun dun dun!! --- if you skew the context of Logos Jesus onto all those 'books' that don't even mention the Logos, you horridly warp the meaning.

I'm guessing your refering to the english usage of the term "word" and not actual greek text using the word "logos"?

Also, who understands the meaning enough to say anyone is horridly warping it?

7sm

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The Bible has no internal contradictions?


So...answer me the following:

How did Judas die?

What was Jesus given to drink on the cross?



We could go on with this for days, you know. Start with those...and we'll take it a little further.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Marginal]

Exactly, suppose for a moment I do....how would you convince we otherwise?

I cannot as they then dive headfirst into an inane, "The Bible is inerrant! LALALALALALALALALALALA!!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" circular argument regardless of textual support, historical background, a time machine etc.

 

[Ray]

The Bible has no internal contradictions?

So...answer me the following: How did Judas die?

Judas hung himself on a tree overlooking the potter's field, the rope broke and his bowels burst asunder as he hit the rocks.

However, I don't believe the Bible to be inherently inerrent.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Judas hung himself on a tree overlooking the potter's field, the rope broke and his bowels burst asunder as he hit the rocks.

However, I don't believe the Bible to be inherently inerrent.

Show me where it says the rope broke.


One account says he fell and his bowels burst asunder, another says he hanged himself. Neither account mentions any detail of the other. This explanation you've provided is a common one, and a typical example of the lengths pop apologists (like Josh McDowell) go in order to harmonize difficult passages. People accept it at face value even though it insults one's intelligence...and they accept it because they've made up their mind not to question anything that is in scripture. Marginal's description of Christian denial of the contradictions is accurate. Inerrantists can not handle the cognitive dissonance brought on by such questions.

It shakes their faith.

We're left then with other questions. Who witnessed the event? Was it God alone, and he later gave the information of Judas' suicide to the apostles? If so, how did the two accounts diverge? Did the apostles gather bits of data from others who found Judas' body and then apply some crude forensic reasoning? Why did an omniscient and omnipotent God allow two such contradictions to appear in what was to be a Holy work, knowing it would cause us to question it?

So too with the robe. Matthew says the robe was scarlet, John says the robe was purple.

One might say the blood from the scourging stained a purple robe red or a red robe purple...but neither account says that this was so. We are also left with the question of why they would ruin what was no doubt an expensive garment. Purple dye was extraordinarily expensive in those times. Ever try to get blood out of clothes? Whose robe was it? Why did the robe's owner permit it to be sullied with the blood of a man who had just nearly been flayed alive?

We best apply reason and understand these accounts were drafted decades apart by men who never knew Jesus, likely didn't know anybody that ever knew Jesus, and were synthesized from oral accounts passed on through the years. The authors borrowed passages freely from other Gospels, but then took artistic license and changed the stories to best fit the versions their own Christian traditions needed--or to suit their literary tastes and theological inclinations.


Regards,


Steve

 

[terryl965]

We best apply reason and understand these accounts were drafted decades apart by men who never knew Jesus, likely didn't know anybody that ever knew Jesus, and were synthesized from oral accounts passed on through the years. The authors borrowed passages freely from other Gospels, but then took artistic license and changed the stories to best fit the versions their own Christian traditions needed--or to suit their literary tastes and theological inclinations.

Hardheadjarhead, of course nobody alive or there grandfather or his grandfather would have known Jesus we all no that, but your comment about what authors borowed from gospel and then translate that into there beliefs is accurate to me. I'm not christian base, I'm Jewish and I have my beliefs about religion I do not talk about it for it is a no win scenaio for me atleast.
But I did like this statement of yours that is why I posted.
Terry

 

[arnisador]

The Synoptics certainly contain contradictions. For the reasons mentioned by terryl965, it's no surprise and doesn't mean they're entirely unreliable.

 

[Ray]

Show me where it says the rope broke.

It says it in my posting. (I know you want a biblical ref). But you know that Matthew 27:5 says he hung himself; and that Acts 1:18 says he fell headlong, he ripped open his abdomen and his guts burst out.

This explanation you've provided is a common one, and a typical example...to harmonize difficult passages. People accept it at face value even though it insults one's intelligence

I hope I didn't insult you too badly. Personally, I'm not an inerrantist. I know that there are difficult passages in the bible as well as other writings that I hold sacred.

However, it is not the writings that have caused faith to grow within me. From 18 to 42 years old, I was something of an atheist myself; using reason and logic {probably not as well as heretic though} to make my way. The experiences that have happened to me since "getting religion" are either true or I've lost my mind. If they are true {reality, not imagined}, then it could be co-incidental or misinterpretation of a natural course of events. If I've indeed lost my mind, then all the reason in the world won't cure me (and as long as I'm no danger to others, it's okay).

I do recognize that when I give an account of an incident, whether an everyday occurance or an extraordinary occurance, that each time I repeat it it may be told slightly different. In my day to day conversation I do not speak with the intent that I will be held to a scientific scrutiny. Neither do I expect that some of my experience can be repeated on demand so that scientists can verify the truthfulness.

I also realize that the "reasoned" approach to analyzing actions and words doesn't always work, ask a kid why they did something and they may be likely to say "I dunno..." I've seen some of this type of reasoning used where it probably shouldn't be (e.g. one of the gospels mentions that Judas was misappropriating funds and a bible scholar says that the only reason the writer put that in the gospels was to make Judas seem worse...upon what logic that conclusion was drawn from I cannot fathom. I saw that on a TV program and can't quote the exact wording nor name the program).

Nevertheless, I agree that there are many difficult passages. And I respect the differing opinions of others.

It shakes their faith.

Yes, and there are those who loose their faith; still others who had no faith that find it.

We're left then with other questions. Who witnessed the event? Was it God alone, and he later gave the information of Judas' suicide to the apostles? If so, how did the two accounts diverge? Did the apostles gather bits of data from others who found Judas' body and then apply some crude forensic reasoning?

Tough questions. Too bad we must reconstruct history from the writings and unintentional clues given. There are other historical "facts" besides religion that I wonder about.

Why did an omniscient and omnipotent God allow two such contradictions to appear in what was to be a Holy work, knowing it would cause us to question it?

You'll have to ask Him. He does seem to put fallible people into positions of great responsiblity, doesn't he.

Ever try to get blood out of clothes?

Nope, but my wife seems to complain about it and spaghettit sauce.

We best apply reason and understand these accounts were drafted decades apart by men who never knew Jesus, likely didn't know anybody that ever knew Jesus, and were synthesized from oral accounts passed on through the years.

It can be difficult to reconstruct history. Here's a case in point: In 1989, I was promoted to black belt by my instructor at a tournament. I got the actual certificate in 1996 {before I moved away from the area, it was dated 1996 and it says "black belt" not 1st degree, not 1st dan}...that belt has three strips on it and hangs in my studio; I now wear a belt that I recently purchased, it has no stripes. Not that I'll ever be famous enough for anyone to want to reconstruct my history, but I'll bet the supportors and detractors would have a field day.

 

[mantis]

Judas hung himself on a tree overlooking the potter's field, the rope broke and his bowels burst asunder as he hit the rocks.

However, I don't believe the Bible to be inherently inerrent.

Judas was crossed

 

[mrhnau]

The Judas question was kind of silly... from my understanding of the Hebrew is an idiom. Don't have my Hebrew books handy, but I was taught that one of them is an idiom.

for instance: Joe kicked the bucket. Joe offed himself. Joe committed suicide.

did he really kick a bucket? Does joe have an on/off button? They are all saying the same thing, and none of them are incorrect. The first two are idioms though.

If any Hebrew experts are in the house, please correct me if I'm wrong. This is something I learned quite a while ago.

MrH

 

[Ray]

Judas was crossed

So says some; just as unreliable evidence as the bible is said to be.

 

[mantis]

So says some; just as unreliable evidence as the bible is said to be.

thank you, exactly my point
anyone can say anything!
well, if this problem is present in catholicism and christianity, does it exist in Judism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism?
i mean the problem of unauthentic references, and unreliable documentation?

 

[Ray]

thank you, exactly my point
anyone can say anything!

And even though I've made your point, and I am a "person of faith" I still think that historical, scientific and scholarly inquiry into religion should continue. {Unless heretic agrees with that in which case I would just take a ridiculous and diametrically opposite position }

 

[7starmantis]

One account says he fell and his bowels burst asunder, another says he hanged himself. Neither account mentions any detail of the other. This explanation you've provided is a common one, and a typical example of the lengths pop apologists (like Josh McDowell) go in order to harmonize difficult passages. People accept it at face value even though it insults one's intelligence...and they accept it because they've made up their mind not to question anything that is in scripture. Marginal's description of Christian denial of the contradictions is accurate. Inerrantists can not handle the cognitive dissonance brought on by such questions.

Good logical point. However, you are refering to ommisions and not contradictions. The two stories do not contradict each other. For example:
When hurricane Katrina hit New Orleasn, I heard early reports of the flooding that occured because the storm surge went right over the levees and that was the reason for flooding. Then a bit later on from closer sources I heard that the levees were breaking and that was accounting for the flooding. One simply offers more information than the next. Is one incorrect? Water did flood New Orleans from coming over the levees, but most came from the breakage. One source simply had more firsthand experience and knowledge. I dont see the contradiction that one author had more information than the other.

Ommisions, these passages contain, but contradictions are not present.

We're left then with other questions. Who witnessed the event? Was it God alone, and he later gave the information of Judas' suicide to the apostles? If so, how did the two accounts diverge? Did the apostles gather bits of data from others who found Judas' body and then apply some crude forensic reasoning? Why did an omniscient and omnipotent God allow two such contradictions to appear in what was to be a Holy work, knowing it would cause us to question it?

We dont really know, thats true. However, questions of "Why" are a whole different discussion. Possibly, and I mean possibly, he expected us to be intellegent enough to understand that the books were written by different people who would have had different experiences and different views, angles, and understandings of events. However, questions of 'why" raise a whole other debate.

I dont think the questions of why a robe's owner would allow his robe to be used in such an event is really a major basis of biblical theology. :wink:

EDIT: I would however, love to see your points and views on the other contradiction you mentioned.

7sm

 

[mantis]

We dont really know, thats true. However, questions of "Why" are a whole different discussion. Possibly, and I mean possibly, he expected us to be intellegent enough to understand that the books were written by different people who would have had different experiences and different views, angles, and understandings of events. However, questions of 'why" raise a whole other debate.

im missing something, who do you mean by "he" in "he expected us to be intellegent.."?

 

[7starmantis]

im missing something, who do you mean by "he" in "he expected us to be intellegent.."?

"god" or "God". HHJH asked why would God allow that. I was offering a suggestion.

 

[mantis]

"god" or "God". HHJH asked why would God allow that. I was offering a suggestion.

Oh, i see..
i was just wondering but there's lots of thoughts and questions present in this thread, and im trying to keep up with you guys and understand what's going on.
well.. how about God would send a prophet after this event that explains what happened in previous events?
Sometimes in religion there is information that does not increase or decrease your faith, and it doesnt have any impact on your life or your religion, and i think Juda's death could be, to some people, from that kind of information..
like for me, if im to believe or disbelieve in God this matter wouldnt at all depend on knowing what went with that particular event... please correct me if im not yet on the right track with this thread

 

[hardheadjarhead]

It says it in my posting. (I know you want a biblical ref). But you know that Matthew 27:5 says he hung himself; and that Acts 1:18 says he fell headlong, he ripped open his abdomen and his guts burst out.
I hope I didn't insult you too badly. Personally, I'm not an inerrantist. I know that there are difficult passages in the bible as well as other writings that I hold sacred.

Nah, you didn't insult me at all. I appreciate being able to refute the attempt to harmonize it. When I say it insults the intelligence, it does so in such a way that a thinking person isn't comfortable with that incredible leap of speculation...and hence rejects it.

7Star suggests that there are omissions, and not contradictions. Where then, is the evidence of the omission? There is none to be had in this case, and the omission is purely speculative. If there were an omission-and we have no reason to believe there is-then shame on God for allowing it. So too with Biblical errors, which are explained away by "translation problems."



Regards,


Steve

 

[mantis]

Nah, you didn't insult me at all. I appreciate being able to refute the attempt to harmonize it. When I say it insults the intelligence, it does so in such a way that a thinking person isn't comfortable with that incredible leap of speculation...and hence rejects it.

7Star suggests that there are omissions, and not contradictions. Where then, is the evidence of the omission? There is none to be had in this case, and the omission is purely speculative. If there were an omission-and we have no reason to believe there is-then shame on God for allowing it. So too with Biblical errors, which are explained away by "translation problems."



Regards,


Steve

no.. if there are omissions then shame on the poeple who omitted parts of it. God is not the one who omitted. you say for allowing it? is it His fault that people commit all kinds of crimes? He has forbidden those crimes, but people still make them. Now, think if God is to stop each crime right when it happens or before it happens then what is the purpose of this life?!