Ship of Fools: Which bits of the Bible MUST be included and which left out?

Thread: Which bits of the Bible MUST be included and which left out? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023198

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Raeding this article in the Chattanooga Times Free Press about a Baptist preacher and his gay son, I was struck by the question the preacher is described as asking (fourth question in the quote):

quote:
But here Matt was, swallowed by questions.

How was a man supposed to read Scripture? What else did the church get wrong? Can you toss out certain parts of the Bible and not others? Why were divorce and premarital sex and greed -- all condemned in the Bible -- overlooked but not homosexuality?

He had watched Stephen die, holding on to God with one hand and the hand of his partner with the other -- unapologetic to the end.

How does one decide to choose the proof-texts that dominate your life? Does one have to choose those that damage other people?

And, subsidiary to that, why are so many of the proof-texts chosen from the OT - which tend to stretch if not actually oppose Jesus' teaching - rather than the teachings of Jesus? (I'm speaking of North American evangelicalism, including the fundies of the Harper government, and also RC bishops as the most public of these choosers)

Why are heavier jail sentences, however unproductive, the desire of the fundies? Why is capital punishment so delightful to the Christians of the US? Why is divorce OK, despite being repudiated by Jesus, while marriage is not allowed for those fornicatin' gays (who wouldn't fornicate if they were allowed to become paertners)? Why are gluttons and greed merchants so popular in churches (see: prosperity gospel)?

At the risk of making this a "gay" thread, I'll link to a favorite post of Josephine's from seven years ago, posing the same question. Thanks to Slacktivist for the main link, and to Josephine for the other.

[Removed stray capital I in Bible. It was annoying me - Tubbs]

[ 27. June 2012, 15:52: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Interpretation and how one chooses to 'wield' passages is just as important as the actual text.

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

What Orfeo says -- and more and more biblical scholars are now including the insights of reader reception theory, that we read any literary or religious text through the prism of our cultural background and context. There may be more awareness of the prejudices and expectations we bring to that text and the memory of how we have been taught within our church or academic context to approach the text.

In many traditions we may have been taught how to read the Bible against ourselves, not how to appropriate biblical texts to affirm a particular struggle, how to apply a hermeneutic of suspicion to texts traditionally used to exclude or vilify particular groups or minorities. This requires another kind of exegesis informed by experiences of oppression or exclusion.

And key texts may be viewed as battlegrounds for competing interpretations -- Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus is largely only quoted in the context of gender debates or by LGBT scholars as a defence against sexist or homophobic arguments.

One of the most popular texts used in South African churches throughout the 19th century was the infamous Romans 13 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters, only ever used by slave-owners, never by those who were slaves. The slaves themselves preferred Galatians 3:28, as recorded in the writings of Louis Leipoldt travelling through farms of the Cape Colony.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

Nothing should be left out, but it's possible that some bits have no direct relevance to the here and now. Everything in the Bible should be taken in the context of everything else that's in the Bible, so jumping to conclusions on the basis of a single passage is generally unwise.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Read the lot. But dont always add "This is the word of the Lord" when you have read it.

Some bits are very clearly not the word of the Lord.

[ 27. June 2012, 12:12: Message edited by: shamwari ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Read the lot. But dont always add "This is the word of the Lord" when you have read it.

Some bits are very clearly not the word of the Lord.

I can't agree with you, but I appreciate what you mean. If you hold the Bible as a whole to be the Word of God, that's OK by me. I would never describe a few words or phrases as being the words of God, because you cannot take any verse, book or even testament separately from all the others. You can, legimately, treat a verse as a starting point when preaching or leading a study, but you must do so fully aware of the whole of scripture.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Some bits are very clearly not the word of the Lord.

Some bits are very clearly the words of Darius, or Herod, or the Sons of Korah, or the fool who said in their heart "there is no God". But it is the word of the Lord that those are words of Darius, or Herod, or the Sons of Korah, or the fool.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Some bits are very clearly the words of Darius, or Herod, or the Sons of Korah, or the fool who said in their heart "there is no God". But it is the word of the Lord that those are words of Darius, or Herod, or the Sons of Korah, or the fool.

So you would say that it is the Word of the Lord that Christ is the Word of the Lord, not scripture?

--Tom Clune

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
So you would say that it is the Word of the Lord that Christ is the Word of the Lord, not scripture?

I would say that you are using the word "word" in two different ways in that sentence.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The Old Covenant is dead, fulfilled. So NONE of it applies to Christians APART from that which is redeemed, transcendent, amplified, deconstructed, distilled to its spirit essence in the New.

Not that the New invalidates the Old retrospectively in any way. Time travel doesn't work that way.

We can only go forward. Only reach out from the New.

With open arms on the narrow way between the extremes of modernist left and right, which are natural responses to our desperate brokenness.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

What I meant ( and thought was obvious,) was that you dont read "The Lord said to Samuel 'Now go and smite Amalek.....' and then follow it by "This is the word of the Lord"

As the meerkat would say 'Simple'.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I agree that it's not about "leaving bits out," but rather reading all the texts in a contextual way. The "all or nothing" fundamentalist mentality is, IMHO, either just lazy thinking or else a developmental limitation of people who have difficulty with anything other than concrete thinking.

I'd encourage the individual being quoted to actually read biblical commentaries by real biblical scholars in order to develop a more contextual understanding of Scripture. And to follow what they taught us in class about engaging with Scripture: What does the text say? What does the text mean? What does the text mean for me/my faith community at this time? That methodology keeps Scripture alive and dynamic, not a dead letter "book of regs."

Oh -- and I'd also encourage that person to study Scripture from a Jewish perspective -- a far more fluid and lively/less angsty engagement than many Christians can manage with our own canon.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
...link to a favorite post of Josephine's from seven years ago...

That post of Josephine's, seven years on, remains one of the best things I've read on SoF.

Perhaps this is annoyingly pedantic, but in the 1979 BCP the readers says, "The Word of the Lord" at the end of the lesson, not "This is the Word of the Lord."

And, the meerkat would be simple and wrong.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Perhaps this is annoyingly pedantic, but in the 1979 BCP the readers says, "The Word of the Lord" at the end of the lesson, not "This is the Word of the Lord."

But there is a pond difference here, I think. On this side of the Atlantic, where the 1979 BCP is not officially used, Anglicans, and those Methodists who use a liturgical response to the reading would normally use "This is the Word of the Lord."

Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :

Pass.

I think I've got Marcion's mobile phone number somewhere if that would help...

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

Given the amount of tacit support for slavery in the bible, start with the idea that you need to repudiate parts of it or you need to support slavery.

Then follow Jesus' advice. "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" Use that as the lens to read the bible through.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Just quickly:

I don't think you have to repudiate parts of the Scriptures because of "tacit support for slavery", the writers (particularly NT) weren't addressing the justice of it, but the Christianity of the slave so held, or even the slave holder. 'Twas a different world.

I like Josephine's legendary post as well, but would like to add that love requires us to confront the sin of another, while ever mindful of our own; both Christ and the writers of the epistles command it and talk about how to do it. It requires a relationship of trust, and of willingness to receive correction. Active love is always looking for a way to make solid, trusting, loving relationships in which the "building up of one another" can take place in an atmosphere of support and accountability - not feeling like you are someone's "mission field", but are actually, fully loved in SPITE of your sin, however minor or major, venial or mortal...!

That the church is lax in confronting some behaviors doesn't excuse others. Further, condemning a person's sin is not condemning the person, though often it feels that way or is done indelicately and actually IS that way... the old saw, "if you find a perfect church, don't join it, you'll ruin it" applies here.

And, when it comes to the church Gossip, when s/he attempts to pass along a juicy tidbit, a gently loving correction is often just to ask, "Why are you telling me this?"

Blessings,

Tom

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
And, when it comes to the church Gossip, when s/he attempts to pass along a juicy tidbit, a gently loving correction is often just to ask, "Why are you telling me this?"

I believe "purely for prayer" is the accepted response (sometimes delivered pre-emptively).

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

I always like to remember that the sequence is:
Jesus => disciples => followers => community => bible written down. (You can reorder it a bit or insert more things in the sequence, but it does start with Jesus always.) Nothing of this is original with me, and if I've strayed with how I'm writing this, someone can please set it to rights.

Where the catholic positions (small c here, inclusive of RC but not exclusive of lots of others) have it right is that we must consider the person of Christ in all ways transmitted to us: book, tradition, wise teachings over time. None of these necessarily get precedence, and nothing is ahead of Jesus in the understanding. Thus, persuasive ideas with proof texting and textual criticism must not be jumped into as factual or something to follow no matter how appealing to either intellect or feeling. Thus, I see myself as potentially open to consider everything, but thinking about something and even enjoying the ideas does not mean accepting them.

Thus, there are possibilities of interpreting stories within the bible as contrary to what we know of the person of Jesus, and we must be careful not to take Jesus out of our minds for even an instant when reading and deciding what is true.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you hold the Bible as a whole to be the Word of God, that's OK by me. I would never describe a few words or phrases as being the words of God, because you cannot take any verse, book or even testament separately from all the others. You can, legimately, treat a verse as a starting point when preaching or leading a study, but you must do so fully aware of the whole of scripture.

This sounds a lot more reasonable than it seems to be in practice. For example, it provides the basis for those foul interpretations of the two competing nativity stories in Matthew and Luke as really being one story -- "we must take the scriptures as a whole, so Luke just failed to mention that the Holy family fled to Egypt to avoid the uninteresting detail of the slaughter of the innocents." ISTM that insisting on taking the collection of views that scripture represents "as a whole" forces one into a wildly distorted view of what each of the Biblical writers is actually saying.

--Tom Clune

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
And, when it comes to the church Gossip, when s/he attempts to pass along a juicy tidbit, a gently loving correction is often just to ask, "Why are you telling me this?"
I believe "purely for prayer" is the accepted response (sometimes delivered pre-emptively).

HA! Yeah, I can sure understand you there. So next step would be a little more pointed, such as "How do you think "X" would feel about me knowing this?" Ya gotta make'em squirm a bit; love isn't always easy...!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you hold the Bible as a whole to be the Word of God, that's OK by me. I would never describe a few words or phrases as being the words of God, because you cannot take any verse, book or even testament separately from all the others. You can, legimately, treat a verse as a starting point when preaching or leading a study, but you must do so fully aware of the whole of scripture.
This sounds a lot more reasonable than it seems to be in practice. For example, it provides the basis for those foul interpretations of the two competing nativity stories in Matthew and Luke as really being one story -- "we must take the scriptures as a whole, so Luke just failed to mention that the Holy family fled to Egypt to avoid the uninteresting detail of the slaughter of the innocents." ISTM that insisting on taking the collection of views that scripture represents "as a whole" forces one into a wildly distorted view of what each of the Biblical writers is actually saying.

--Tom Clune

If people want to put a spin on scripture to suit their nefarious purposes we can't do much about that. In history we regularly handle multiple sources and we should do the same with scripture. Moreover, when considering the scriptures that appear to directly contradict each other, usually by omission, we still need to be aware of the rest of scripture.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

@ Tom Clune,

I'm not sure why you think that the interpretation you describe is "foul". I'm no inerrantist, but the accounts read to me like those of two different "witnesses" (or probably reportage of two different witnesses) of the same events. Any two witnesses of that same event will recall those details that stood out at the time, or those to which subsequent events have given added significance. That's what human memory does; we shouldn't be surprised.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

The only problem in this instance is the only first hand witness to the nativity left (that we know of) was his mom. How would she put aside from her memory either the visit from the shepherds or the flight to Egypt? Okay, maybe while she was recovering from the birth, the shepherd's visit was a blur, but surely it became one of those family legends since Joseph was there, too.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
@ Tom Clune,

I'm not sure why you think that the interpretation you describe is "foul".

Well, it was the one I was raised on, and I believe that it blinded me to the meaning of much of scripture before it finally dawned on me that there was nothing sacred in that hermeneutic. If the church were to recognize that there are many ways to open up the scriptures, and present alternative hermeneutics, it would do a great service to the people in the pews. I am not opposed to the "unified theory of scripture" any more than I am opposed to inerrantism. What I do find a serious stumbling block is the way that an arbitrary hermeneutic is lifted up as the way, the truth, and the life.

--Tom Clune

[ 27. June 2012, 17:52: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Yesterday's Morning Prayer reading was about the story of the sons of Korah being swallowed alive by the earth, along with their wives and their little ones.

What exactly pray tell, is the lesson? To not question the religious leadership, i.e. Moses? I hardly think that that lesson is edifying in today's context where we have many religious leaders engulfed in scandal.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Yesterday's Morning Prayer reading was about the story of the sons of Korah being swallowed alive by the earth, along with their wives and their little ones.

What exactly pray tell, is the lesson? To not question the religious leadership, i.e. Moses? I hardly think that that lesson is edifying in today's context where we have many religious leaders engulfed in scandal.

It's all a matter of perspective. Whether that lesson is regarded as "edifying" depends a great deal on whether you're behind the pulpit or in front of it.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The Old Covenant is dead, fulfilled.

Hmm. Are those last two words synonyms?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you hold the Bible as a whole to be the Word of God, that's OK by me. I would never describe a few words or phrases as being the words of God, because you cannot take any verse, book or even testament separately from all the others. You can, legimately, treat a verse as a starting point when preaching or leading a study, but you must do so fully aware of the whole of scripture.
This sounds a lot more reasonable than it seems to be in practice. For example, it provides the basis for those foul interpretations of the two competing nativity stories in Matthew and Luke as really being one story -- "we must take the scriptures as a whole, so Luke just failed to mention that the Holy family fled to Egypt to avoid the uninteresting detail of the slaughter of the innocents." ISTM that insisting on taking the collection of views that scripture represents "as a whole" forces one into a wildly distorted view of what each of the Biblical writers is actually saying.

--Tom Clune
If people want to put a spin on scripture to suit their nefarious purposes we can't do much about that. In history we regularly handle multiple sources and we should do the same with scripture. Moreover, when considering the scriptures that appear to directly contradict each other, usually by omission, we still need to be aware of the rest of scripture.

Sorry, I don't see how omission can result in direct contradiction (and I didn't when tclune suggested it before you, either). If a passage says B, another passage can only contradict it by actually saying 'not B', not by failing to mention B at all.

If one gospel says the Holy Family fled to Egypt, then a second gospel failing to mention Egypt isn't a contradiction, without more. The second gospel has to say "they never left the country", or provide a chronology that has no gap large enough in it for a flight to Egypt.

It's a basic point of logic that doesn't seem to get much traction these days, and I don't just mean with the Bible. The media CONSTANTLY bombards us with juicy stories where 2 different sources said different things, and pitches it as some kind of disagreement or contradiction (X said this... BUT Y said this... OMG WE HAVE A STORY!) when in fact the 2 different statements are entirely capable of both being true.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If one gospel says the Holy Family fled to Egypt, then a second gospel failing to mention Egypt isn't a contradiction, without more. The second gospel has to say "they never left the country", or provide a chronology that has no gap large enough in it for a flight to Egypt.

You mean like saying that Jesus was presented at the temple after His birth and then the family went back home to Nazareth? If only we could find an account like that...

--Tom Clune

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I was intending to point out the principle of logic, not argue the specific event. Whether the particular example passes or fails the test isn't what I was focusing on.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Sorry, Tom, still don't see the contradiction. As I said, I'm not an inerrantist, but it seems to me that the most likely timeline is that, after the birth, Jesus is presented at the Temple on the way back to Nazereth, they lived there for a year or so, (the visit of the Magi probably takes place during this period; they visit Jesus in a house, not an inn), a bit later the Family flee to Egypt. There must have been a considerable passage of time here, else why would Herod order the death of toddlers, not newborns, according to the time he (Herod) had learned from the Magi (Matthew 2:16 .

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Referring back to the OP, this is an example of how we (as lay-people), or even clergy, cannot be trusted to interpret the Bible as individuals.

IMO we have to trust the interpretation of the Church (eg. the Church Fathers), otherwise we could end up swinging towards one of two extremes:

Bigotry à la Westboro Baptist Church, where we pick on particular sins and blow them out of all proportion, whilst minimising other sins.
Extreme liberalism, where we pick-and-mix from the Bible and other sources, ending up with nothing remotely like the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

^ Yes, true. I've certainly heard it pointed out a number of times that it's highly unlikely the Magi were actually turning up at the manger, regardless of the nativity plays you might have seen. The text clearly indicates that Herod is killing 2-year-olds, which simply doesn't fit with the 'Three Wise Men' rocking up shortly after the shepherds.

[X-post. Dammit Mark Betts, how did you get in there?! [Biased]

]

[ 28. June 2012, 07:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Tom, JJ & Orfeo

During the second year of my Chemistry degree I managed to persuade the Dean of the Science Faculty to let me read Theology as my subsidiary for the year. (Long story and it seems a long time ago now. I doubt if you could get away with it today.)

Anyway, doing a year of theology in a secular university was fascinating for a young evangelical such as myself. It was a small course mostly consisting of history and english students who were vaguely curious. The majority would not have called themselves Christians but were there purely out of academic interest. There were only two of us on the course who would identify as evangelical. I really enjoyed it and learnt a lot.

One seminar on the differences between the Lord's Prayer in Matthew and Luke is lodged in my memory. Our lecturer lost his temper with us (kept calling us Quakers which he seemed to think was some kind of insult) because we did not accept his premise that the differences must prove that the two gospels directly contradicted themselves.

Very few of the class were inerrantists (if any). There was certainly no great support for any evangelical reading. It was just that the students had a healthy scepticism of the Professor's scepticism. I'd say the same about the birth narratives.

Tom, I think JJ and Orfeo are simply asking you to apply the same level of scepticism to your own reconstruction.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[X-post. Dammit Mark Betts, how did you get in there?! ]

No no, not at all! I'm quite enjoying the Nativity tangent!

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

None of it should be discarded; as Mark Betts has said, 'the foaming fundagelical' and the 'Godless librul' are alike guilty of their own particular pick'n'mix'n'discard approach to Scripture. But sound exegesis and hermeneutics must be applied to all Scripture too. [Biased]

(=of course, there let the debate as to what constitutes sound exegesis and hermeneutics begin...!)

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

I think one of the fundamental principles in interpreting scripture is to understand that it is not a "manual for Godly living", nor a theology textbook, or any other modernist ideal, but rather a place where the living God chooses to meet with us. We wrestle with the text, not so much that we might understand it (though that is a part), but that, in the process, we might get to know Him, the living word. It is in the process of engaging with the text that God reveals himself. As the scripture says, "All scripture is inspired....", that is, it is inspired in the reading as much as in the writing.

This is not to say that we can't derive theology or ethics, for example, from the Bible, only that if that is all we do, we miss the central truth that the main purpose of the written word is to bear witness to the Living Word.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Sorry, Tom, still don't see the contradiction. As I said, I'm not an inerrantist, but it seems to me that the most likely timeline is that, after the birth, Jesus is presented at the Temple on the way back to Nazereth, they lived there for a year or so, (the visit of the Magi probably takes place during this period; they visit Jesus in a house, not an inn), a bit later the Family flee to Egypt. There must have been a considerable passage of time here, else why would Herod order the death of toddlers, not newborns, according to the time he (Herod) had learned from the Magi (Matthew 2:16 .

Anyway, back to Nativity theology, I rather like this view and it makes perfect sense to me. To my knowledge, Luke's and Matthew's accounts have always been understood by the Church to comprise of One Nativity story.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

My own suspicion - not my own original idea of course but one that I find persuasive from the text - is that the two nativity stories are written round each other, the author of one already knew the other and deliberately filled in the gaps. Like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead [Biased]

Of course if that's true one must have come first. Everybody's always assumed that Matthew is the older Gospel but it could just as well have been the Luke story.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I agree that it's not about "leaving bits out," but rather reading all the texts in a contextual way. The "all or nothing" fundamentalist mentality is, IMHO, either just lazy thinking or else a developmental limitation of people who have difficulty with anything other than concrete thinking.

I think this is a bit unfair. Fundamentalists and literalists and inerrantists and evangelicals don't believe the things they believe because they are stupid or have some sort of mental disability.

Anyway, preachers and commentators and scholars from that side of the fence often stress the importance of reading the whole of a text rather than snippets, and of reading different kinds of writing - poetry, prophecy, history and so on - in the appropriate way, and warning against proof-texting (not that everyone takes heed of the last one) Its part of their cultural tradition of reading the Bible.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Another point to note is that the Matthean account comes from the perspective of Joseph (presumably by way of James, the Lord's brother), whereas the Lucan account traces Mary's story, presumably via either herself or John the evangelist.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Sorry, Tom, still don't see the contradiction.

And that's exactly the point -- if it were anything other than Holy scripture and anyone read these two separate accounts and said that they were so much as talking about the same thing, they would be placed on medication.

The real point isn't that one or the other of the Gospels "got it wrong," but that the notion that they were relaying history is indefensible. ANY examination of the plausibility of EITHER version demonstrates that there is overwhelming eveidence that neither story could possibly be accurate. But the Church seems to demand that we swallow this crap as proof that we are "faithful," which seems to be a synomym for "stupid."

Instead, we can look for other ways of reading these accounts. It makes perfect sense to me to see both Gospel accounts as "overtures" to their respective Gospels -- Matthew is arguing exactly what the hymn says: that Christ is "king and priest and sacrifice," and foreshadows that with his birth narrative. Luke sees a totally different Christ, and has Him come from humble origins (poor Mary & Joseph who can only afford the pigeon scarifice, only the scum of society show up to His birth, etc.)

The violence done to what the GOSPEL WRITERS are trying to say by demanding the stupidest posssible distorting of their narratives is not faithful -- at least not faithful to the Gospels -- it is an act of blind obedience to a willful and often evil institution. If people actually come to believe that inerrancy or uniformity are the principles that best suit their appreciation of the scriptrues, fine. But these hermeneutics don't grow organically out of the Gospels -- they grow organically out of the fetid soil of Church politics. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

@Tom Clune
Sorry, but you do seem to be saying that anyone who doesn't subscribe to this newfangled interpretation is stupid. No-one is saying that you are not allowed to hold these views, but they are certainly not suddenly the only acceptable intelligent interpretation in this day.

I would not call you stupid for believing you are right, but I would beg to differ.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
And that's exactly the point -- if it were anything other than Holy scripture and anyone read these two separate accounts and said that they were so much as talking about the same thing, they would be placed on medication.

The real point isn't that one or the other of the Gospels "got it wrong," but that the notion that they were relaying history is indefensible. ANY examination of the plausibility of EITHER version demonstrates that there is overwhelming eveidence that neither story could possibly be accurate. But the Church seems to demand that we swallow this crap as proof that we are "faithful," which seems to be a synomym for "stupid."

I don't remember my theology Professor having a 'merican accent, but it was a long time ago.

So you moved and changed your name. What else is new?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
How does one decide to choose the proof-texts that dominate your life? Does one have to choose those that damage other people?

Short answer: you don't. The use of proof texts is one short step away from bibliomancy. But if you're asking the very different question you asked in the thread title:

quote:
Which bits of the Bible MUST be included and which left out?

My answer is you must include the whole thing in your thinking. The good and the bad. The stuff that makes your heart soar and the stuff that makes your stomach heave. You include every bloody dot and every bastard tittle. And then you wrestle with it. Wrestle with it like Jacob wrestled with the angel, and as if your life depended on it. Because it does.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I would not call you stupid for believing you are right, but I would beg to differ.

FWIW, I don't have any opinion on your intelligence whatsoever. But you might enjoy reading each Gospel account through individually all at one sitting, and see what you think. It isn't easy to step back and let the text speak without the overlay of interpretation we have all received, but it can be an intriguing exercise.

One of the great disservices the Church does to the nativity story is insist on retelling the story by merging the two accounts into one "lessons and carols" mish-mash. We have been fed on this for so long we actually don't usually know what story came from which Gospel -- and the stories are stunningly different, even if you ultimately decide that they are in some way really saying the same thing.

--Tom Clune

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Adeodatus [Overused]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Aye Orfeo, they're synonyms - dead, fulfilled, obsolete, null and void, settled, the decree is absolute, it's over.

Which raises the question, assuming one doesn't just Enlightenedly, liberally, modernly, rationalize it all away, as to the nature of the killer God who ruled Israel with a rod of iron and who surrendered to the culture He had forged to transcend it by letting it kill Him on our behalf all ways.

What's the metanarrative ? That DOESN'T merely rationalize and take an evolutionary view, explaining away the horrors as our projection and leads to liberal projection, typified by the great Tutu, now.

As the OC is dead, it cannot be used paradoxically legalistically by liberals to rebel against the narrow way of Christ. We cannot justify sexual liberalism biblically by saying that the Jews couldn't eat shellfish or wear mixed fibres.

Modern, selective, incomplete, legalistic interpretations of divorce aren't shared by postmodern conservative believers either and can't be used to say that because Christians are 'liberal' on divorce they must be about sexual expression.

We have to work this out anew.

And you're spot on about the unnumbered Magi, there may have been 2 or 15 of them: they didn't show up at the manger but much later, after six weeks and less than two years.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
originally posted by Tom Clune

And that's exactly the point -- if it were anything other than Holy scripture and anyone read these two separate accounts and said that they were so much as talking about the same thing, they would be placed on medication.

No they wouldn't. They'd be thought to have read them as two separate accounts of the birth of a Child called Jesus to parents called Mary and Joseph in a town called Bethlehem. You'd pretty much be prescribed meds if you suggested that they did not refer to the same event, however accurately or inaccurately.

Now I understand your main point about not forcing the facts to fit the theology, but to try to cite two eminently complementary accounts in the service of making that point seems to me to be somewhat forced.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Yesterday's Morning Prayer reading was about the story of the sons of Korah being swallowed alive by the earth, along with their wives and their little ones.

What exactly pray tell, is the lesson? To not question the religious leadership, i.e. Moses? I hardly think that that lesson is edifying in today's context where we have many religious leaders engulfed in scandal.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. And you, a "Seminarian and Postulant." For shame. You ought to be reading and wrestling a little harder with the text than that.

It appears that the entire chapter is read out at the office in the BAS lectionary in three successive days, (Num 16:1–19; Num 16:20–35; Num 16:36–50), so it's fair to discuss the entire episode.

First, to say "sons of Korah" mishandles the text. The incident opens with

quote:
Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben

an apparent alliance between elements of the Levites and the Reubenites.

Second, as far as the incident teaching unquestioned following of the religious leadership, Korah is of the religious leadership, but they seem to want more.

Third, it wasn't just Korah. Dathan and Abiram and their wives, children, and little ones that were swallowed alive into Sheol, it was a total ritual destruction, everything that appertained unto them, respecting the notice that the metal of their censers was picked out of the blaze to be hammered into plates as a covering for the altar as a holy memorial of who gets to do what at divine service.

Fourth, it is Moses, the apex of religious leadership who fall on his face—twice—once at the initiation of the rebellion and a second time, with Aaron, at its denouement to avert the remaining rebels from being consumed in a moment by plague.

These are just a few aspects of the affair, or matter, of Korah; and, these basic elements are much richer than the cartoon you drew.

There is plenty here to build up and edify the church, especially when many religious leaders are engulfed in scandal. It just takes a little basic spadework and a little reflection.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Wow! Adeodatus. But our lives, ULTIMATELY, don't depend on it. Our lives NOW do, which is more important of course. But not our eternal lives.

Even if we rationalize, even if we remain modern liberals, demanding that God is in our image, as Korah, Dathan and Abiram did, that doesn't make us irredeemably Satanic (not even he is yet), reprobate.

Any more if we're traditionalists, damnationists or any other flavour of heretic. All theology is heresy after all.

As long as we're not stepping over dying beggars.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard shares:
Even if we rationalize, even if we remain modern liberals, demanding that God is in our image, as Korah, Dathan and Abiram did...

I should know better, but having called out somebody else on this pericope, there's no reason you should get off the hook. MPCn&SBio how do you read that Korah, Dathan, and Abiram sought to remake God in their own image? Or, are you just whipping out a reference to the ur-sin?

quote:
Aye Orfeo, they're synonyms - dead, fulfilled, obsolete, null and void, settled, the decree is absolute, it's over.

You're just messing with us when you say a biblical fulfillment is death, obsolescence, nullity, and voidness? Right?

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

I think I have nattered on about this elsewhere, but here goes:

A Jewish friend of mine and I were talking about the difficult bits of the Testaments and what value should be ascribed to them. He said, all of the passages are holy. All of the passages are made holy by groups of people talking about them and struggling with them to seek a better understanding of God.

Another friend of mine is a lectionary preacher. She believes that skipping the parts of the Bible that make us uncomfortable misses out on a large part of what is important in the Bible.

Both assertions struck me are true and important.

So, like Adeodatus and others, I believe we need the whole thing.

If for nothing else, we can then go and win bar bets about she bears and bald prophets.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:

Another friend of mine is a lectionary preacher. She believes that skipping the parts of the Bible that make us uncomfortable misses out on a large part of what is important in the Bible.

Both assertions struck me are true and important.

So, like Adeodatus and others, I believe we need the whole thing.

Complete agreement here. Its the bit you don't like that are the problems. What are your least favourite books of the Bible? Maybe those are the ones that are telling you the things you need to know. (I sort of hope not because I really don't like them...)

I am sorely tempted to start a thread on that.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

I am sorely tempted to start a thread on that.

So I did

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The Silent Acolyte - I'm projecting. That's what I do. That's what we all do. All of our theologies are heresy. All of our self-images of God are idolatry. Korah, Dathan and Abiram KNEW that were right, KNEW that God was on their side.

I would have done. If I were them. Trying to put myself in their position. And of course, they'd have been right. Moses was flawed. A bad communicator. Impulsively violent when at the end of his tether. A patrician alien from the oppressor class, married to a beautiful black princess, God's spokesman - like Ben in Lost being Jacob's.

But he was God's friend. The Lord's anointed. A dread example had to be made. God backed him up all the way. Perhaps he should have asked for a 'nicer' miracle. But the Bronze Age didn't do nice.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0