06 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioI am just trying to ascertain if you think ANYTHING in the Bible should be taken literally? I mean, it seems to me that there are two extremes here. One is to say that EVERYTHING should be taken literally and other that say that NOTHING should be taken literally. As far as my own beliefs, I take it as it comes depending on the topic at hand and try not to assume things.
Nice way to dodge the question.
Why do you care about what I believe? If I said I believed in the literal Resurrection, would that make
me more or less credible? If I said I believed that Jesus didn't exist, would that make you more
likely to disbelieve me?
How is this question even relevant to the discussion of inerrancy. Suffice it to say that I ...[text shortened]... prepared
to defend their faith or poke holes in my examination of it.
Nemesio
As for the resurrection of Christ, I think this a vital teaching that ALL of the canonized books in the NT teach, thus, perhaps it is important in terms of us being considered "Christian". I view it as such.
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyTo be clear:
I often wonder what people think of the resurrection of Christ on these boards. Was it a midrash? Was it a consensual midrash among all of the authors of the NT?
St Paul makes no distinction between Jesus' being raised and His ascension. That is, it seems that
if St Paul knew about Jesus' post-Crucifixion tenure on earth, he made no comment about it.
St Mark makes no comments about the Jesus' post-Crucifixion activities, merely that the tomb was
empty and the women were afraid.
St Matthew, writing at least half a generation after St Mark (and using St Mark as a point of
departure) merely has the 'Great Commission,' as Jesus' sole activity after His greeting of the Disciples.
St Luke, writing slightly after St Matthew (and evidently unaware of him and also using St Mark as
a
point of departure), likely reacting to some proto-Gnostic Docetists about Jesus' physical body being
an illusion, made sure that Jesus interacted with the Disciples in a more intimate way, especially in
24:39-43, culminating in the eating of fish.
St John, which is the latest of the four by far, which you will remember ends at chapter 20, with
the last chapter as some appendix added at a later date, continues this with the 'doubting Thomas' bit.
This progression is not a coincidence; this shows an evolving understanding of the theological significance
of the Resurrection by the people who believed that Jesus was the Christ, just like the Creed was
the natural outgrowth of believing that Jesus was God.
Nemesio
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyYes: Love your neighbor.
I am just trying to ascertain if you think ANYTHING in the Bible should be taken literally?
What else matters?
Of course I think a great deal of the Gospel accounts reflect real events. I mean, I don't think it's
super relevant if Jesus was attributed with saying, 'Please come here,' and He really said, 'Hey folks,
come over here.'
That having been said, I don't think it's necessary to believe that any of it is literal in order to have
a spiritually fulfilling relationship replete with a so-called 'God-centered' existence.
But, as I said, I am not going to entertain a confessional here. My relationship with the Divine is
our business alone, and to some degree the business of my spiritual counselors (those religious authorities
to whom I turn in moments of spiritual confusion).
Nemesio
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodey
As far as my own beliefs, I take it as it comes depending on the topic at hand and try not to assume things.
You assume that the Bible has recorded things accurately, otherwise you wouldn't be rationalizing
that the clear writing of the lineages actually reflect something they don't say (that is, that one of
them is Mary's). You assume that Midrash is 'making stuff up.' You assume that historical recounting
is a critical aspect of spiritual validity.
As for the resurrection of Christ, I think this a vital teaching that ALL of the canonized books in the NT teach, thus, perhaps it is important in terms of us being considered "Christian". I view it as such.
Ahem. All? Not quite. Without spending a lot of time trying, can you find a discussion whatsoever
of the Resurrection in the Letter of Saint James?
Anyway, the question is do you and 'Christian X' have to agree on precisely what the Resurrection means
in order to be brothers in faith? Or, more clearly, what is the minimal necessary requirements
about the Resurrection that one must believe in order to be a Christian?
Nemesio
P.S., I'm not sure, but I think KellyJay only requires that an individual confess that 'Jesus Christ is
Lord' (with his heart and soul and mind and so forth). I believe he doesn't require that such an
individual believe in a literal Resurrection or that Jesus did any miracles or ascended or anything,
although he would opine that such a confession would likely lead to such conclusions. Again, I'm not
sure, but I'm inferring based on what I think I've understood him to say.
06 Jul 07
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioMark 16:9 "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it to the residue; neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared to the 11 as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And Jesus said to them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized will be saved, but he that does not believe shall be damned. And these signs will follow them that believe; In my name will they cast out devils; they will speak with new tongues. They will take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover. So then after the Lord had spoken to them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. A-men."
St Mark makes no comments about the Jesus' post-Crucifixion activities, merely that the tomb was
empty and the women were afraid.
So St. Mark has nothing to say about the post-crucified activities of Christ? Hmm. If you notice, once they had seen Jesus resurrected, it sparked the great commision of them going into all the earth to proclaim the good news. This is what this thread is all about. This is what it means to be a "Christian". This is what they gave their lives for. Naturally I am sure you do not agree.
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyNo offense, but do you even own a critical version of the Bible?
Mark 16:9 "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two ...[text shortened]... "Christian". This is what they gave their lives for. Naturally I am sure you do not agree.
St Mark ends at 16:8. The verses the follow are significantly later additions by another author some
seventy or eighty years after, and are missing in both the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
There is no reason to defend this ending as authentic.
Nemesio
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyI'd appreciate it if you'd tone down the hostility. If you think I'm mistaken, then ask me. I've
So St. Mark has nothing to say about the post-crucified activities of Christ? Hmm.
studied this stuff quite a bit and I tend to write pretty carefully, so before you embarrass yourself
with misplaced sarcasm, I think you'd be better off just enquiring politely about my statements.
Nemesio
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyI don't think any Christians take everything in the Bible as literal. There are many parts of the Bible that are clearly not literal, like verses that speak of God's hands and eyes. There are analogies, parables, and many of the prophecies use symbolic language.
I am just trying to ascertain if you think ANYTHING in the Bible should be taken literally? I mean, it seems to me that there are two extremes here. One is to say that EVERYTHING should be taken literally and other that say that NOTHING should be taken literally. As far as my own beliefs, I take it as it comes depending on the topic at hand and try not to assume things.
As a rule of thumb, I think it is best to assume something is meant literally unless context and other text requires otherwise. If something is a parable, we don't have to consider the story to be a literal true event. But when it is clearly a historical event being described, then it should taken literally unless that would conflict with other text.
There are many practical rules for Bible hermeneutics such as letting Scripture interpret Scripture, and considering the immediate context, and historical context. Secondary sources can be considered, but always with less weight, and never in contradiction where the meaning of the Bible is clear by itself.
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaI would be surprised to find a Christian who take everything in the Bible literally.
You would be surprised.
I haven't met one yet.
Nor do I know of any denomination that does.
Even the ones that assert they "take the Bible literally", do no take everything in the Bible as literal. I can easily point them to passages that they do not take as literal.
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by ColettiI believe everything in the bible is literally true.
I would be surprised to find a Christian who take everything in the Bible literally.
I haven't met one yet.
Nor do I know of any denomination that does.
Even the ones that assert they "take the Bible literally", do no take everything in the Bible as literal. I can easily point them to passages that they do not take as literal.
Obviously not everything in the bible is literal.
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by ColettiIf by 'let Scripture interpret Scripture' you mean taking into account the
There are many practical rules for Bible hermeneutics such as letting Scripture interpret Scripture...
importance of Moses when interpreting St Matthew's Gospel, then naturally
I agree.
If you mean by using II Peter to interpret the Gospels, well that's
just plain silly, since the former was written after the latter texts. In fact,
it's a bad hermeneutical principal to use the text by one author to
'interpret' the text of another unless it's demonstrable that one utilized
the other, or at least was familiar with it.
A person who takes the stance that 'God oversaw the writing of Scripture'
approaches the table with a lamentable a priori assumption which will
necessarily compromise the interpretation, as I've mentioned several times
before.
Nemesio
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephwHow, then do you address the lineage question? Did Joseph have two
I believe everything in the bible is literally true.
Obviously not everything in the bible is literal.
fathers?
How, then do you address the Acts contradiction?
Originally posted by Nemesio
The key Greek words in Acts 9:7 are:
...akouontes men tes phones medena de theopountes.
...hearing the voice but no one seeing.
The key Greek words in Acts 22:9 are:
...ten de phonen ouk ekousan tou lalountos moi.
...but the voice they did not hear speaking to me.
The verb in both case is 'to hear' and the noun in both case is 'voice.'
How can both of these cases be literally true? In the first they heard the
voice, in the second they did not hear the voice.
Nemesio
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioI already answered that. I think you would rather strain at a knat and swallow a camel.
How, then do you address the lineage question? Did Joseph have two
fathers?
How, then do you address the Acts contradiction?
Originally posted by Nemesio
The key Greek words in Acts 9:7 are:
...[b]akouontes men tes phones medena de theopountes.
...hearing the voice but no one seeing.
The key Greek words ...[text shortened]... ? In the first they heard the
voice, in the second they did not hear the voice.
Nemesio[/b]
If I want to believe that there are no errors in the bible, then I will.
Saying there are errors in the bible, to me, is the same as saying that God isn't perfect.