A REASONABLE approach to the Bible

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]What's your point? That God's Word can't be trusted? Seems that's the intent of your post.

My point or the point of the author of the OP?

Matthew 5:18

What exactly leads you to believe that Jesus necessarily has BOTH the entirety of the OT and NT in mind? Given the context of Matthew 5-7 and the larger context of the words spoken b ...[text shortened]... rth it doesn't seem to make sense.

Or that He's saying that it should all be taken literally?[/b]

Does the phrase "while Jesus walked on earth" mean not the ultimate divine words and miraculous deeds ?

ie

1.) Jesus said to love one another in John 13. That was a saying of Jesus while He "walked on earth."

But when Jesus said "Rise, pick up your bed and walk" that is not a saying of Jesus "while He wallked on earth."

2.) When Jesus said " I am the light of the world " that is a saying of Jesus "while He walked on earth".

But when He said "I am the resurrection and the life", well, that is not a saying of Jesus "while He walked on earth."

In other words "while He walked on earth" means minus all miracles of Jesus in the New Testament or minus words and deeds pertaining to His authority as Divine.

Is that what I am suppose to think when you use the phrase "while Jesus walked on earth" ?

Originally posted by sonship
Does the phrase "while Jesus walked on earth" mean not the ultimate divine words and miraculous deeds ?

ie

1.) Jesus said to love one another in John 13. That was a saying of Jesus while He "walked on earth."

But when Jesus said [b]"Rise, pick up your bed and walk" that is not a saying of Jesus "while He wallked on e ...[text shortened]... e.

Is that what I am suppose to think when you use the phrase "while Jesus walked on earth" ?[/b]

Is that what I am suppose to think when you use the phrase "while Jesus walked on earth" ?

Part of the problem seems to be that you take words out of context and then decide what those isolated words might mean.

The phrase "while He walked the Earth" only denotes a time frame ("when" ). The preceding phrase "the words spoken by Jesus" denotes "what". Put them together - "the words spoken by Jesus while He walked the Earth" - and you have both the "what" and the "when".

Originally posted by Eladar
Quote from John Wesley

[b]If there be one falsehood in the Bible, there may be a thousand; neither can it proceed from the God of truth.”[/b]

Did you catch this suzi?

Originally posted by vivify
It seems that Christians who advocate non-literalism do so in order to justify to themselves believing in a religion that contradicts science or progressive modern-day beliefs.

I think you have this backwards.

It is the literalists who think the earth and everything on it was created in 6 days.

The literalists are the ones who do so in order to justify believing in a religion that contradicts science and progressive modern-day beliefs.

Originally posted by Eladar
Did you catch this suzi?

Did you catch that "the sky is blue"?

What is your point?

By the way, if you are going to have beliefs that are unbiblical, then you cannot point to your interpretation of the Word of God to "prove" your beliefs, because your interpretation is wrong.

Originally posted by josephw
What's your point? That God's Word can't be trusted? Seems that's the intent of your post.

Matthew 5:18
[b]For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

You're much too arrogant for your own good. I understand what it means from the context. Nevertheless I t ...[text shortened]... rves to throw doubt on the reliability of God's Word, and you're just fool enough to suck it up.[/b]

No, sorry. That is not what the "bozo" is saying in the article.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So when your god says a man is worth 50 shekels but a woman only 30, you have no problem with that and you therefore just assume it is ok to put women on a lower platform than men.

That was written about 3500 years ago.

You know, when a man was worth 50 shekels and a woman was worth 30. Whether I "have a problem with that" is moot.

Don't try to cram our modern sensibilities into something written 3500 years ago. It reflects the reality of the world 3500 years ago.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Did you catch that "the sky is blue"?

What is your point?

By the way, if you are going to have beliefs that are unbiblical, then you cannot point to your interpretation of the Word of God to "prove" your beliefs, because your interpretation is wrong.

That the person you say you follow believed the Bible was without error or wasn't of God at all.

Originally posted by Eladar
That the person you say you follow believed the Bible was without error or wasn't of God at all.

That [John Wesley] believed the Bible [either] was without error or wasn't of God at all.

No kidding.

That was your point? Really?

Thanks for wasting my time. That much was freakin' obvious.

Why bring it up then? What are you trying to say?

Do you think John Wesley was a "bozo" like josephw thinks?

If so, this quote is a horrible choice to prove your point.

Originally posted by Suzianne
[b]That [John Wesley] believed the Bible [either] was without error or wasn't of God at all.

No kidding.

That was your point? Really?

Thanks for wasting my time. That much was freakin' obvious.

Why bring it up then? What are you trying to say?

Do you think John Wesley was a "bozo" like josephw thinks?

If so, this quote is a horrible choice to prove your point.[/b]

That you believe the Bible is full of errors.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Is that what I am suppose to think when you use the phrase "while Jesus walked on earth" ?

Part of the problem seems to be that you take words out of context and then decide what those isolated words might mean.

The phrase "while He walked the Earth" only denotes a time frame ("when" ). The preceding phrase "the words spoken by Jesus" denote ...[text shortened]... words spoken by Jesus while He walked the Earth" - and you have both the "what" and the "when".[/b]

The phrase "while He walked the Earth" only denotes a time frame ("when" ). The preceding phrase "the words spoken by Jesus" denotes "what". Put them together - "the words spoken by Jesus while He walked the Earth" - and you have both the "what" and the "when".

Thankyou.

After His resurrection and just before His public ascension Jesus spoke these words :

" It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has set by His own authority.

But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1:7,8)

Then you believe that ALL words spoken up to this point are words while Jesus walked on earth ?

The next verse 9 records Him physically leaving the earth.

"And when He had said these things, while they were looking on, He was lifted up, and a cloud took Him away from their sight." (verse 9)

I take it then that you mean all words quoting Jesus after this moment are not words spoken by Jesus while He walked on earth ?

Are there words of Jesus recorded in the New Testament before the event of Acts 1:9 (His public ascension) which you definitely do not believe are words of Jesus ?

I'll narrow it down some. The words of Jesus from say Matthew 5:1 through 7:29 the so called "Sermon on the Mount". Do you take these as words of Jesus while He walked on earth ? I agree that these are words of Jesus not spoken while walking on the earth.

But I believe they are His words.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Found the following text imbedded in an article and found it to be well thought out, lucid and, well, a reasonable approach to the Bible.

Thoughts?

That being said: I do not believe that scripture is holy. I don't believe that it is perfect. I do not believe that it is free from errors. I believe, in the words of the founder of my particular ...[text shortened]... sent. And it tells us that scripture is neither perfect, nor literal.

- Will McLeod

This article states:

Scripture is not Holy.
It is not perfect.
It contains errors.
One cannot take scripture literally.
It's difficult to understand.
Has major problems.
Is inconsistent.
Disagrees with itself.
That the Bible should not be the center of Christian faith.
That the teachings of Jesus should be the center of faith (which come from the Bible).

If some of the Bible can be thought of in these ways, why does this article assume that the teachings of Jesus can be trusted, and may not be considered in the same ways as the items above?

Why does He believe that only the words of Jesus are perfect and true, when the rest of the Bible may not be?

It seems very biased, and contradictory.

Originally posted by sonship

The phrase "while He walked the Earth" only denotes a time frame ("when" ). The preceding phrase "the words spoken by Jesus" denotes "what". Put them together - "the words spoken by Jesus while He walked the Earth" - and you have both the "what" and the "when".

Thankyou.

After His resurrection and just before His public ascension Jesus ...[text shortened]... e are words of Jesus not spoken while walking on the earth.

But I believe they are His words.

You're not making much sense here jaywill.

For one, I'm not sure why you're still having so much trouble with the expression "while He walked the Earth" when we've discussed this before. Most people seem to understand it. It only includes the time until His death on the cross.

Then you believe that ALL words spoken up to this point are words while Jesus walked on earth ?

No. We've been over this before. I've tried to clarify and then you ended up taking my words out of context by removing a qualifying phrase which changed the meaning of the sentence.

I'll narrow it down some. The words of Jesus from say Matthew 5:1 through 7:29 the so called "Sermon on the Mount". Do you take these as words of Jesus while He walked on earth ? I agree that these are words of Jesus not spoken while walking on the earth.

But I believe they are His words.

What are you trying to say here? You don't believe that Jesus spoke the Sermon on the Mount while He walked the Earth? Why do you believe that?

Originally posted by chaney3
This article states:

Scripture is not Holy.
It is not perfect.
It contains errors.
One cannot take scripture literally.
It's difficult to understand.
Has major problems.
Is inconsistent.
Disagrees with itself.
That the Bible should not be the center of Christian faith.
That the teachings of Jesus should be the center of faith (which come from the ...[text shortened]... ect and true, when the rest of the Bible may not be?

It seems very biased, and contradictory.

The author makes a few key points:

1) The Bible is a "metaphorical and esoteric work". As such it should not be taken literally. "It has some pretty major problems if you take it literally..."

2) "it describes a code of laws designed to hold a society together in absolutely barbaric conditions". As such much of it was intended for a very different audience from today.

3) "it's got some problems here in there with internal errors and inconsistencies, where it disagrees with itself." That's just a fact whether many want to admit it or not. It is what it is.

When you add in translation issues, taking the Bible literally is foolish.

Be that as it may, he is saying that despite the above , the Bible is "sufficient" and "useful".

Why does He believe that only the words of Jesus are perfect and true, when the rest of the Bible may not be?

He doesn't say that they are "perfect and true". He says that they are "meant to be the center of the Christian faith".

If some of the Bible can be thought of in these ways, why does this article assume that the teachings of Jesus can be trusted, and may not be considered in the same ways as the items above?

I don't think he says, but I'll repeat what I wrote to you earlier:

By and large, I find the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth to be reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within themselves. What's more, I find much of what was attributed to Him to be remarkably deep and quite profound. As such, by and large, I find the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth to be "true".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

You're not making much sense here jaywill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I did cause some misunderstanding here:

The words of Jesus from say Matthew 5:1 through 7:29 the so called "Sermon on the Mount". Do you take these as words of Jesus while He walked on earth ? I agree that these are words of Jesus not spoken while walking on the earth.

That is a typo error.
My apologies. That is MY error. There was possibly a mechanical omission.

What I recall writing, which does not seem to appear, was that His words AFTER His ascension, ie. Revelation 2 and 3 and in the book of Acts after chapter one, were spoken by Christ AFTER the "when" of - "while Christ walked on earth".

But I believe they are His words.


Let me phrase it this way:

What are the bounds of the "when" which delineate the time "while Jesus walked on earth" ? Are those bounds recorded in the New Testament ?

If you believe that "when" is terminated by His crucifixion ?
Or do you believe that "when" was terminated by His ascension ?