|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should we accept that all scripture is to be accepted as truth?
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
After the exhaustion of the structural options, it really is all we have left.
I think you'll find that not all agree that the "structural options" are exhausted yet.
I agree - I think after a while, though, I get to feel like this about their single-minded pursuit.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Single-minded? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Clearly you don't have much experience of Orthodox Christians.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Single-minded? Clearly you don't have much experience of Orthodox Christians.
True. Is it good to be multiply-minded? I mean, how do you know which you is you? Only asking.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't understand what you're asking.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Lookee here!!!
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Lookee here!!!
I seem to have totally lost the trail here. What is being discussed right now?
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I don't understand what you're asking.
Sorry - my posting was oblique and ironic! I'm glad for your implied confirmation that Orthodoxy is broad and encompasses much more than a single minded view of anything. Including the truth of scripture and its relationship to the authority and responsibility of the church. I haven't quite got your knack with short postings.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
quote:
My second point is a bit of biblical argumentation. Much has been made of the link between "God-breathed" (a reasonable textual interpretation) and "infallible", a classic conservative evangelical tenet and also an unjustifiable assumption. Here is an argument which occurred to me recently. In John's Gospel, the resurrected Jesus breathes on the disciples and gifts them with the Holy Spirit. So, in effect, the disciples also become "God-breathed". Did this make them infallible? Clearly the answer to this is "no".
I have to disagree with you here, the disciples in no way become "God-breathed" by this occurence - they become breathed on by God, but that's a very different thing from being breathed out by God.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But, does "God breathed" mean "breathed out but God" or "breathed into by God"? The first is heading towards direct verbal inspirations (which, at the rarely held extreme, has the authors as merely human type writers). The second is more akin to the Genesis account where God breathes into the man made of mud to give him life. I'm often attracted to the second view as it makes Scripture fully the work of men and yet God somehow has given it life.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, does "God breathed" mean "breathed out but God" or "breathed into by God"? The first is heading towards direct verbal inspirations (which, at the rarely held extreme, has the authors as merely human type writers). The second is more akin to the Genesis account where God breathes into the man made of mud to give him life. I'm often attracted to the second view as it makes Scripture fully the work of men and yet God somehow has given it life.
I think that the thrust of the passage is that God is the initiator - he's the one from whom scripture comes, I find John Piper's arguments at http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/84/022684.html quite interesting, he ties it in with the passage on Prophecy in 2 Peter.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I've got no problem with God initiating prophecy or the writing of Scripture. After all, in my analogy to the creation of Adam it's God who forms the man out of the dust and breathes into him. I am uncomfortable with the idea of God putting the actual words, or even just ideas, into the brains of the writers. I see it as a far more subtle process than that. Could it be that God inititiated Paul writing his letters by allowing others to mislead the churches to the point where Paul needed to write? Could it be that God worked through people in conversation to convince Luke that it would be a good idea to form an orderly account of the life of Christ?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've got no problem with God initiating prophecy or the writing of Scripture.
I don't understand what you are saying then Alan. That God initiated the words, allowed them to be written and then breathed life onto them?
Isn't that stretching any possible meaning of "God breathed"?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I've no idea what quite I mean to be honest. I like the idea of "God breathed" to be a description of what Scripture is - alive with the Spirit of God (and hence useful for teaching etc). I'm not as comfortable with it meaning God wrote it, or was directly involved in writing it. It just doesn't quite "fit" with what we have, to me at least. Initiating something doesn't really need to imply direct involvement at any stage. It's not unusual for something posted here to get someone else thinking along a tangent and come up with something profound - it seems perfectly proper to say that the initial comment initiated that profound thought, but the person who said that wasn't involved in developing that profound statement. But s/he could then use that profound statement for his own purpose afterwards.
Now I'm sure I'm not making sense. But I find that the exact nature of Scripture, how it was writen and acts today is a bit of a mystery.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've got no problem with God initiating prophecy or the writing of Scripture. After all, in my analogy to the creation of Adam it's God who forms the man out of the dust and breathes into him. I am uncomfortable with the idea of God putting the actual words, or even just ideas, into the brains of the writers. I see it as a far more subtle process than that. Could it be that God inititiated Paul writing his letters by allowing others to mislead the churches to the point where Paul needed to write? Could it be that God worked through people in conversation to convince Luke that it would be a good idea to form an orderly account of the life of Christ?
OK, I guess I have less of a problem with this, I see it as being to do with the indwelling of the holy spirit within the minds of the writers and his' ensuring that what he wanted written was written (although I don't go for the word by word dictation idea). He carried the process through rather than just initiating it - he was there at every stage.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
Scripture is God breathing (inspiring) not quite the same as "God speaking." When God speaks, a thing becomes. This makes truth kind of a big, fat "Duh" when we keep that in mind. (i.e. God says "Let there be light" and there is. How can He lie when He doesn't merely describe things, He speaks them into being, reality, truth?)
God breathes to convey spirit (life). If the scriptures are inspired (breathed) then their purpose it to give life, which is well-served by teaching, exhortation and all the rest.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
So, to be clearer, the POINT of the scriptures (why they are at all, and why they are described as "inspired") is that they exist primarily to convey life more than truth.
Not saying they aren't true, but you get grace and truth because of and through Jesus Christ. You get quickened and inspired by reading scriptures.
You could theoretically have a relationship with Jesus for a year, without ever opening the scriptures. If you read the scriptures daily, but had no relationship with Jesus, however, you'd not come away from your reading with a handle on grace and truth. You would hopefully come away from them inspired to seek him out.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
samara
Shipmate
# 9932
|
Posted
Taken from a post in Purgatory on the "struggling with a demon" thread
quote:
Originally posted by Dubitante:
The big question is, how do I decide which bits apply to me and which do not?
. . .
So just how do I decide which is right and which is 'wrong'? If any of it is true, which bits are and how can you tell?
This, minus the implication that people just arbitrarily "pick and choose" is the crux of a question I am struggling with. All I know about reading the Bible is ways I don't want to do it: randomly turning to a page and force-fitting what I read there to fit my experience, selectively explaining away a passage I don't like, selectively using a passage to condemn behaviour I don't like, expecting modern science and mind-control revelations.
I am firmly convinced that the Bible is not magically exempt from the "problems" that affect all human communication, and especially cross-culture literature. That is, through no fault of the author or text, parts may be refering to knowledge I don't have and written in genres I have no experience with (gematria, for example). I also am fairly convinced that the Bible is the Word of God, inspired, and/or God-breathed, or however you would like to put it.
How then, do I study it? Taking a brilliant Science & Religion class reclaimed the Bible from the literalists for me, leaving me hope of staying within the fold, but I miss the certainty of having one place to look. And I do hestitate to draw conclusions from what I read, being mostly overwhelmed by my ignorance.
[ 22. August 2005, 03:52: Message edited by: samara ]
--------------------
Bookworms will rule the world (after we finish the background reading).
Courtesy of Trouble in China
Posts: 439 | From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think deciding in the end is a matter of both community and conscience. Reviewing my own personal history, my behaviour and understanding have both changed as a result of membership of a Christian community which worships together, serves together and derives a lot of its understanding about hwat it means to be Christian because one of its community values is belief in the authority and inspiration of scripture.
If there is stuff I find difficult, I talk it over with friends (one of the ways you can tell who your friends are in this situation is by the way they treat your doubts and questions).
As a result of thirty years as a Christian, living in this environment, I hope to have got a bit wiser. In the end, your conscience is yours. It is a big mistake to pretend to agree to something for the sake of harmony, of being thought more "communitaire" as a result.
In one of the Adrian Plass books (which may not have reached Canada - if so, that's a shame) a non-conformist church leader asks a Roman catholic monk to deliver the sermon. The author's quote about the congregational attitude is classic.
"We were all looking at (the church leader's) reactions to see if we approved of what (the catholic priest) was saying".
Our values and beliefs are both individual and communal - and are worth sharing dynamically. Differences in understanding are normal on our journey together because we are in different places on the road. And it is not always true that those who have been journeying longer see more clearly. Difficult experiences sometimes bend folks out of shape for a while.
I take communion regularly with people who know I have a different take on the authority and inspiration of scripture to them and, for example, am an evolutionary Theist when it comes to understanding creation. Some may disapprove for all I know, but they haven't told me so.
I love this beautiful scripture. It is good to be reminded that the treasure we carry in our hearts is carried fallibly, in "jars of clay". Thats me, thats you, thats everyone.
[ 22. August 2005, 08:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by samara:
I am firmly convinced that the Bible is not magically exempt from the "problems" that affect all human communication, and especially cross-culture literature...I also am fairly convinced that the Bible is the Word of God, inspired, and/or God-breathed, or however you would like to put it.
How then, do I study it? Taking a brilliant Science & Religion class reclaimed the Bible from the literalists for me... And I do hestitate to draw conclusions from what I read, being mostly overwhelmed by my ignorance.
I can certainly relate to what you say here. Let me offer some rather fuzzy points that have been useful to me. First, I fully share your basic view: the Bible is, in some way that is not true of literature generally, the inspired Word of God, while at the same time, it is sufficiently foreign to us that we need a lot of help just to understand its surface meaning. I would add that, further, the deep sense was not even evident to people in Palestine two millenia ago. So the divine Word of God will take a lot of work on our part to hear.
Second, I believe that the Bible speaks a truth that we need not fully understand in order to understand in part. That is, the Bible reveals itself to us over time, in ways that mostly build upon what we have understood so far.
Third, while scholarship is extremely important for fully understanding the meaning and context of scripture, the main way that scripture is understood is through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That is, God reveals His Word to us. The Congregationalists had a wonderful image of reading scritures "illuminated by the Holy Spirit." We need to study, but we also need to prepare our souls to hear the Word that God is speaking to us.
One thing that follows from the idea that scripture's truth is revealed to us is the idea that we come to know God's Word (at least in part) separately from the text of scripture. Like the RCA dog, we know our Master's voice. I visualize this as a consequence of our being made in God's image.
We need to take this inner light seriously as we approach scriptures. There is no shortage of people who will try to trip you up, and lead you into the vision that they want you to derive from scripture, rather than helping you hear the Word that God has for you. So an important part of our growing in the faith is refusing to be led astray by false prophets. Sometimes, we need to hold on to the partial truth that has been revealed to us, as others try to argue us out of the only light we have received so far. For me, being stubborn has been a very important part of being faithful.
It is a hard, and rather mysterious, thing to be led by the Holy Spirit to grow in the knowledge of God through scripture. There is no one way to do it, but I think that the Church plays an important part in this. When the Church manages to resist its impulse to "push doctrine," and instead takes its role as the conduit of the wisdom of the saints through the ages seriously, the Church can be the most reliable faith companion you will find.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I used to be a very literalist, 6-day creationist fundie. This is an issue I do struggle with, because I'm rather afraid of swinging unreasonably far the other way in reaction to my fundie days.
On the Purg thread, I posted this:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubitante:
My firmly held belief is that you either accept all of it or none of it.
Do you apply the same approach to historical documents? Bede is either wholly accurate or wholly false?
To clarify: I do have a higher regard for Scripture than I do for Bede. The point is, though, that assuming a "worst case scenario" where the Bible is just another example of human literature, we still have procedures for extracting truth from fallible documents that amount to more than just "pick and mix".
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
samara
Shipmate
# 9932
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I used to be a very literalist, 6-day creationist fundie. This is an issue I do struggle with, because I'm rather afraid of swinging unreasonably far the other way in reaction to my fundie days.
. . .
The point is, though, that assuming a "worst case scenario" where the Bible is just another example of human literature, we still have procedures for extracting truth from fallible documents that amount to more than just "pick and mix".
Ricardus, I appreciated you raising this point on the other thread, and wish more of the discussion could move here as I am learning much from what everyone has to say (the last page of the inerrancy thread here in Dead Horses has some brilliant stuff from Psyduck, too). Reacting against a literalist interpretation myself (focussed on Genesis) I am trying to recover a sense of how to approach God through the Bible. tclune and Barnabas62's points about community and the act of the Spirit are good reminders that I don't need to reduce it to "just" a literary study.
I'm glad to have finally registered and to participating in a community here, because I do believe understanding it is beyond one person's abilities. It is inspiration to find a church again, especially one where I can be honest about my view of "God-breathed." And to remember I believe in an active, loving God who wants to be known.
How do you read the Bible? Do you have resources that aid in the literary study? Do you find yourself still able to approach it to experience God, to look for instruction, or do you critique it in a dryer way? (I don't think there's anything wrong with approaching it in from a solely literary stand point - sometimes that's all we can do. And if God cares for us to see it differently, surely He will help.)
I'm looking for clues. I've gone from being a "read your Bible pray every day" person to not being able to open it for shear frustration. "The prostitute was cut into 12 pieces, each sent to the 12 tribes. From this we are supposed to learn to . . . be hospitable?!? Or that His eye is on the sparrow?" (Thinking of a teen Bible commentary I had ages ago)
--------------------
Bookworms will rule the world (after we finish the background reading).
Courtesy of Trouble in China
Posts: 439 | From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by samara:
How do you read the Bible? Do you have resources that aid in the literary study? Do you find yourself still able to approach it to experience God, to look for instruction, or do you critique it in a dryer way? (I don't think there's anything wrong with approaching it in from a solely literary stand point - sometimes that's all we can do. And if God cares for us to see it differently, surely He will help.)
I'm looking for clues. I've gone from being a "read your Bible pray every day" person to not being able to open it for shear frustration.
Let me recommend a book that I am still struggling with that is blowing me away -- The Scapegoat, by Rene Girard. He starts by discussing a middle-ages account of the persecution of a Jewish community, through the eyes of one of the persecuters. He discusses all that we can know with certainty about what happened and why -- which is not identical to what the author says happened, but we can be sure of what was going on anyway.
The discussion is a tour de force that drives a spike through the literalists' insistence that we must take every sentence of scripture at face value or we cannot know anything.
Prof. Girard is massively more subtile than I can be, so I will not even try to summarize what he has to say. But this is well worth a read.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by samara:
How do you read the Bible? Do you have resources that aid in the literary study? Do you find yourself still able to approach it to experience God, to look for instruction, or do you critique it in a dryer way?
I don't know. I think most of the "history" in the OT is myth or legend, but where the literalists go wrong is in assuming that myth is automatically a bad thing. It's just the dominant form of literature in OT times - but not living in OT times, I'm not sure how to read it.
I think it is worthwhile to look to Holy Tradition - how the Church has tended to understand things, given that the Holy Spirit is presumably still speaking. We can't be the first Christians, for example, to think " ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) ! Chopping prostitutes into twelve pieces!", so we can look at how other Christians through history have dealt with problems like this. The Church Fathers seem to have been very allegorical in the way they read the Bible - IIRC the description of the temple in Ezekiel is seen as symbolic of the Virgin Mary.
Of course there are problems attached to Holy Tradition as well - there's the risk of just replacing one form of fundyism with another - but it does at least provide another, very significant voice in discerning what is truth.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by samara:
I'm looking for clues. I've gone from being a "read your Bible pray every day" person to not being able to open it for shear frustration. "The prostitute was cut into 12 pieces, each sent to the 12 tribes. From this we are supposed to learn to . . . be hospitable?!? Or that His eye is on the sparrow?" (Thinking of a teen Bible commentary I had ages ago)
Samara, this is a good question.
I think of passages like these:
quote:
Psalm 101:6 My eyes shall be on the faithful of the land, That they may dwell with me; He who walks in a perfect way, He shall serve me.
Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.
Hosea 2:19 “ I will betroth you to Me forever; Yes, I will betroth you to Me In righteousness and justice, In lovingkindness and mercy;
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
And wonder what to make of them. There are no easy answers.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I find the statement by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the US really encapsulates my approach to Scripture.
ELCA.org: Do ELCA Lutherans believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God?
Essentially is says:
1) Christians believe that the Bible is inspired by God.
2) But it also contains a human quality which means that it occasionally can provide differing and even contradictory testimonies to God's ways and will for us. Also, not all books and verses have the same value in faith formation. We need to use the life and ministry of Christ to evaluate the rest of scripture.
3) This human quality doesn't detract from the overall testimony of Scripture but enhances it.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
I suppose in some ways I have a fairly liberal view of scripture.
By this I mean that individual Bible passages must be compared with the thrust of the whole book (library), which I see as the story of salvation as recorded by human authors inspired (but not dictated to) by the Holy Spirit. Some things that are set forward by the Bible ("when your guests are confronted by rapists, offer your daughters instead") are clearly not acceptible today. Of course, the Church must prayerfully attempt to navigate what falls under this category and what doesn't (witness the sexuality debates in the Anglican Communion) but in that work I think we can but entrust ourselves to God.
On the other hand, I guess I have a fairly conservative view of the Gospels. I believe that the Resurrection and miracles were historical events. My orthodox streak has landed me in debates with my parish's asst. priest. Odd, between two liberals. But I guess my "Rowan Williams" liberalism and her "Jack Spong" variety are different enough to trigger some debate.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Crab
Apprentice
# 12250
|
Posted
At the risk of sounding like something from Animal Farm, I must say that if all Scripture is inspired, some is surely more inspired than other parts. As my old (left wing Baptist) minister used to say, "Context. Context. Context." For example, the words of Job's comforters are indeed in Scripture, yet God Himself rebukes them. Yet I have heard Christians quote their words as "promises of God." Not surprising, since their attitudes are pretty good reflections of the Book of Proverbs and certain of the Psalms. Which passages are the truly inspired?
And when it comes to the NT, I suppose all Christians would agree the quoted words of Christ are supreme, since He alone is the founder of our faith. Why then, do so many believers quote Jesus and Paul, often in the same breath, as though implying Christianity had TWO infallible founders? If it comes to that, why did Jesus spend so much time teaching the apostles, when there is relatively little heard of them after His death and Resurrection? Did they fail in their task, so it was necessary to give Paul, who'd never known Jesus in the flesh, special divine revelations? I have a ton of questions about what it means to say the Scriptures are true, but have been asking them for a long time and not got any satisfactory answers. It seems like a lot of people here are asking the same questions, so I hope you will be patient with a new deckswabbing apprentice.
Posts: 10 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Crab:
Why then, do so many believers quote Jesus and Paul, often in the same breath, as though implying Christianity had TWO infallible founders?
I agree with that sentiment. I take the gospels to be the infallible Word of God. I take the epistles to be the mostly correct thoughts and teachings of the early church. Christianity does not have two founders.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
2Timothy 3:16 Says All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching,for reproof,for correction,for training in righteousness.
2Peter1:20 But know this first of all,that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation.
21.for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
I do not see that we have authority to just pick out those sections that we like,and reject the parts that we may dislike.
What think Ye?
All the best Jim
I am visiting this thread for the first time, and with so many takers since it was begun, I cannot read through all of it.
Yes, all Scripture is divinely inspired, but not all divinely inspired scripture is literal truth. A right understand of the three-fold "cord" of Scripture, Tradition and Reason should put things into their right perspective.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Crab:
For example, the words of Job's comforters are indeed in Scripture, yet God Himself rebukes them. Yet I have heard Christians quote their words as "promises of God." .
I think that sensible fundamentalists and literalists understand all that. But there are too many who don't.
"The fools says in his heart 'there is no God'"
Hey, the Bible says there is no God!
When the inspired word of God repirts the speech of oordinary humans we can have confidence in the report, not the content of the speech. We have to pay attention to who is talking. Especially important in Job, Psalms, Proverbs...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
2Timothy 3:16 Says All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching,for reproof,for correction,for training in righteousness.
2Peter1:20 But know this first of all,that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation.
21.for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
I do not see that we have authority to just pick out those sections that we like,and reject the parts that we may dislike.
What think Ye?
All the best Jim
I am visiting this thread for the first time, and with so many takers since it was begun, I cannot read through all of it.
Yes, all Scripture is divinely inspired, but not all divinely inspired scripture is literal truth. A right understand of the three-fold "cord" of Scripture, Tradition and Reason should put things into their right perspective.
if the authority of scripture depends on the church then the church must be infallible or our faith in the scriptures would be less than certain
but the church in itself without the scriptures is not infallible , Crusades Pogroms Inquisitions etc - that is shown throughout history and hence scripture stands alone as infallible
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
2Timothy 3:16 Says All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching,for reproof,for correction,for training in righteousness.
2Peter1:20 But know this first of all,that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation.
21.for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
I do not see that we have authority to just pick out those sections that we like,and reject the parts that we may dislike.
What think Ye?
All the best Jim
I am visiting this thread for the first time, and with so many takers since it was begun, I cannot read through all of it.
Yes, all Scripture is divinely inspired, but not all divinely inspired scripture is literal truth. A right understand of the three-fold "cord" of Scripture, Tradition and Reason should put things into their right perspective.
if the authority of scripture depends on the church then the church must be infallible or our faith in the scriptures would be less than certain
but the church in itself without the scriptures is not infallible , Crusades Pogroms Inquisitions etc - that is shown throughout history and hence scripture stands alone as infallible
At what point in either of these arguments do you escape from petitio principii (begging the question) though?
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
2Timothy 3:16 Says All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching,for reproof,for correction,for training in righteousness.
2Peter1:20 But know this first of all,that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation.
21.for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
I do not see that we have authority to just pick out those sections that we like,and reject the parts that we may dislike.
What think Ye?
All the best Jim
I am visiting this thread for the first time, and with so many takers since it was begun, I cannot read through all of it.
Yes, all Scripture is divinely inspired, but not all divinely inspired scripture is literal truth. A right understand of the three-fold "cord" of Scripture, Tradition and Reason should put things into their right perspective.
if the authority of scripture depends on the church then the church must be infallible or our faith in the scriptures would be less than certain
but the church in itself without the scriptures is not infallible , Crusades Pogroms Inquisitions etc - that is shown throughout history and hence scripture stands alone as infallible
Why the need for certainities? Surely faith is all about uncertainty but trust.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why the need for certainities? Surely faith is all about uncertainty but trust.
The bible says that we have a sure hope, on what authority can we base it on - the best is God's own word.
quote:
by Cusanus
At what point in either of these arguments do you escape from petitio principii (begging the question) though?
I suppose what I am trying to highlight is that it is my belief God's word is not subservient to the church and tradition but it should be the other way given how the church has behaved over the years - ie operating with a flagrant disregard to the Bible.
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why the need for certainities? Surely faith is all about uncertainty but trust.
The bible says that we have a sure hope, on what authority can we base it on - the best is God's own word.
quote:
by Cusanus
At what point in either of these arguments do you escape from petitio principii (begging the question) though?
I suppose what I am trying to highlight is that it is my belief God's word is not subservient to the church and tradition but it should be the other way given how the church has behaved over the years - ie operating with a flagrant disregard to the Bible.
So what made the church's discernment of what was scripture infallible, when nothing else it did is? Taking into account that it was only in the 16th century that the discernment process about scripture was complete (I'm assuming that you come from a background that does not give authority to the Apochryphal books).
[eta: and just for the record, "God's word" is a loaded term around here -- many of us think if refers to Jesus, the Christ, not to a bunch of writings about him. No one disputes that he's infallible, even if we doubt the literal infallibility of some of the bits of the Bible]
John
[ 16. March 2007, 20:12: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why the need for certainities? Surely faith is all about uncertainty but trust.
The bible says that we have a sure hope, on what authority can we base it on - the best is God's own word.
quote:
by Cusanus
At what point in either of these arguments do you escape from petitio principii (begging the question) though?
I suppose what I am trying to highlight is that it is my belief God's word is not subservient to the church and tradition but it should be the other way given how the church has behaved over the years - ie operating with a flagrant disregard to the Bible.
No - it's based on a relationship. Relationships move tentatively.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why the need for certainities? Surely faith is all about uncertainty but trust.
The bible says that we have a sure hope, on what authority can we base it on - the best is God's own word.
quote:
by Cusanus
At what point in either of these arguments do you escape from petitio principii (begging the question) though?
I suppose what I am trying to highlight is that it is my belief God's word is not subservient to the church and tradition but it should be the other way given how the church has behaved over the years - ie operating with a flagrant disregard to the Bible.
So what made the church's discernment of what was scripture infallible, when nothing else it did is? Taking into account that it was only in the 16th century that the discernment process about scripture was complete (I'm assuming that you come from a background that does not give authority to the Apochryphal books).
[eta: and just for the record, "God's word" is a loaded term around here -- many of us think if refers to Jesus, the Christ, not to a bunch of writings about him. No one disputes that he's infallible, even if we doubt the literal infallibility of some of the bits of the Bible]
John
Let me reverse the question
would the church be infallible without the scriptures?
Also as you have pointed out Christ is the Word - in part the summation and the crux of what the bible is all about - was His infallibility based on the churches?
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why the need for certainities? Surely faith is all about uncertainty but trust.
The bible says that we have a sure hope, on what authority can we base it on - the best is God's own word.
quote:
by Cusanus
At what point in either of these arguments do you escape from petitio principii (begging the question) though?
I suppose what I am trying to highlight is that it is my belief God's word is not subservient to the church and tradition but it should be the other way given how the church has behaved over the years - ie operating with a flagrant disregard to the Bible.
So what made the church's discernment of what was scripture infallible, when nothing else it did is? Taking into account that it was only in the 16th century that the discernment process about scripture was complete (I'm assuming that you come from a background that does not give authority to the Apochryphal books).
[eta: and just for the record, "God's word" is a loaded term around here -- many of us think if refers to Jesus, the Christ, not to a bunch of writings about him. No one disputes that he's infallible, even if we doubt the literal infallibility of some of the bits of the Bible]
John
Let me reverse the question
would the church be infallible without the scriptures?
Also as you have pointed out Christ is the Word - in part the summation and the crux of what the bible is all about - was His infallibility based on the churches?
I'd rather you give me an answer to my perfectly sincere question.
But as you ask -- Christ's infallibility came from the Father. It tends to be a characteristic of being God. It would be true if there were no scriptures and if there were no church. The church recognizes it, in the same way it discerns what is and what is not scripture, but that recognition/discernment isn't what it's based on and certainly doesn't create it.
Now, back to my question...
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why the need for certainities? Surely faith is all about uncertainty but trust.
The bible says that we have a sure hope, on what authority can we base it on - the best is God's own word.
quote:
by Cusanus
At what point in either of these arguments do you escape from petitio principii (begging the question) though?
I suppose what I am trying to highlight is that it is my belief God's word is not subservient to the church and tradition but it should be the other way given how the church has behaved over the years - ie operating with a flagrant disregard to the Bible.
So what made the church's discernment of what was scripture infallible, when nothing else it did is? Taking into account that it was only in the 16th century that the discernment process about scripture was complete (I'm assuming that you come from a background that does not give authority to the Apochryphal books).
[eta: and just for the record, "God's word" is a loaded term around here -- many of us think if refers to Jesus, the Christ, not to a bunch of writings about him. No one disputes that he's infallible, even if we doubt the literal infallibility of some of the bits of the Bible]
John
Let me reverse the question
would the church be infallible without the scriptures?
Also as you have pointed out Christ is the Word - in part the summation and the crux of what the bible is all about - was His infallibility based on the churches?
I'd rather you give me an answer to my perfectly sincere question.
But as you ask -- Christ's infallibility came from the Father. It tends to be a characteristic of being God. It would be true if there were no scriptures and if there were no church. The church recognizes it, in the same way it discerns what is and what is not scripture, but that recognition/discernment isn't what it's based on and certainly doesn't create it.
Now, back to my question...
John
initially I would point out the OT was selected by the church in the OT ie the Jews - they excluded the Apochrypha for example because of the inaccuracies and contradictions with God's inspired word but basically all scripture is God's.
With respect to the the authority of the bible
it is with God not the church - or do you not accept that? Is it the inspired word of God or the church?
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
initially I would point out the OT was selected by the church in the OT ie the Jews - they excluded the Apochrypha for example because of the inaccuracies and contradictions with God's inspired word but basically all scripture is God's.
With respect to the the authority of the bible
it is with God not the church - or do you not accept that? Is it the inspired word of God or the church?
No. "The Jews" did not exclude the apochrypha -- it was part of the scriptures when Jesus walked on the earth and excluded long after his resurrection and ascension. There was already a christian church functioning, teaching (using aprochrypha) and witnessing before the exclusion by the rabbis. I rather thought the authority had passed from Judaism to the church as the body of christ at the time of Pentecost -- well before that happened. If we want to be faithful to Jesus and what he knew as scripture, it's in. And it was accepted by all christians as in until the time of Luther -- and still is accepted as in by the large majority of CHristians. Was Luther infallible in excluding it? Because if he was, a lot of Christians haven't heard about that.
As for your question (and you still haven't answered mine about why the church was infallible in discerning scripture but not before or after), I reject your dichotomy. The bible witnesses to God, and so does the church. LIke the church's witness, the bible's witness is sometimes flawed -- at least if you take it literally. I'm pretty certain that neither perfectly reflects God's reality, or even what God wanted each to be.
John
[ 17. March 2007, 14:31: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Who excluded the apocrypha. RCs and Orthodox treat it as scripture. Anglicans include it in the lectionary as sort of 2nd class edification.
I think the church of the Old Testament ie the Jews who were around a lot earlier than "the church" excluded the Apochrypha and still do. Probably because they knew some of the blatant errors such as the Book of Judith where even RCs accept problems with its accuracy regarding history not exactly God breathed see historicity.
The Jewish Bible interestingly enough they have less than the 39 books we have - but that is because they do not split Chronicles and merge some of the prophets together.
But an example I would give is when Jeremiah came to the king with the word of the Lord telling him the grave consequences of disobedience and the "established" church of the time rejected it - was God's word still true?
(from Jeremiah chpt 27, 28 & 29)
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
No. "The Jews" did not exclude the apochrypha -- it was part of the scriptures when Jesus walked on the earth and excluded long after his resurrection and ascension. There was already a christian church functioning, teaching (using aprochrypha) and witnessing before the exclusion by the rabbis.
That's not true. The apocryphal books were not in the Scriptures used in the synagogues in Jesus's time.
It has been argued that not all the "writings" were either. Chronicles was probably in by thenm but the five Megilloth ( Ruth, Lamentations, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther) seem to have been added only when the festivals with theich they are associated becme popular, and no-ones quite agreed when that was. There was certaily debate ion the status of Esther and the Song after Jesus's time.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Not true that the Jews excluded the apocrypha.
Different communities had different scriptures (as did the early Christians). The synagogue service, as now, had a portion from the Torah and then a prohetic writing (Nevi'im). You may as well argue that they excluded the Wisdom literature too, on that basis.
The Maccabees were certainly included because the story forms the rationale for the lsser festival of Hannukah.
They did not form a 'canon' until a council (of Jamnia?) round about the time that the Christians formed a canon.
[ 17. March 2007, 17:27: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not true that the Jews excluded the apocrypha.
Different communities had different scriptures (as did the early Christians). The synagogue service, as now, had a portion from the Torah and then a prohetic writing (Nevi'im). You may as well argue that they excluded the Wisdom literature too, on that basis.
The Maccabees were certainly included because the story forms the rationale for the lsser festival of Hannukah.
They did not form a 'canon' until a council (of Jamnia?) round about the time that the Christians formed a canon.
Does not even look that a writer himself believed he was writing inspired words
quote:
[38] If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do.
2 Maccabees 15 v38
Even those who advocate including the apochrypha cannot agree on the books to include
2 Esdras
This is conjecture but the 24 books referred to in 2 Edras 14 v 45 - is it coincidental that that agrees with the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible ie our Old Testament.
quote:
[45] And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, "Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them;
quote:
you still haven't answered mine about why the church was infallible in discerning scripture but not before or after
As I have highlighted above not all the churches that hold to the apocryha are in agreement still re 2 Esdras
I would also point out that Jerome only included 2 Apochrypal books and other church fathers rejected them all. Some probably had more.
It is the Holy Spirit that assists us in discerning what is scripture and being God, She does not tend to make historial inaccuracies.
quote:
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.
John 16 v 13
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And Luke thought he was doing a better job than the others - that dosn't mean Matthew and Mark weren't inspired.
and historical inaccuracies do not reflect on whether it is inspired or not?
and do you think that scripture teaches you can buy peoples way into heaven as proposed by
quote:
But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
2 Maccabees 12 43 - 45
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There are loads of historical innacuracies and contradictions in the books that made it into the canon, including words placed on Jesus's own lips.
But surely a book that suggests you can buy salvation is contrary to what Jesus taught and therefore its authority is suspect.
I am not aware of any historical inaccuracies in the canon as I know it - and would be interested in you alluding to them.
I understand that different writers wrote with different perspectives and that is how we do not get 4 carbon copy gospels for example.
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
This is really a kerygmania issue but:
Jesus made mistakes – or the gospel writers did
Mk. 2;25—26 Jesus says .Abiathar was high priest when David told soldiers to eat temple bread; I Sam 21;l—6 states that it was Ahimelech. Mt. 12 and Lk. 6 tell the same story but omit the name — they maybe realised Mark had got it wrong.
Mt. 23;35 Zechariah was son of Barachiah according to Jesus; II Chron 24;20—2l he was son of Jehoiada. (Another Zechariah was the son of Berechiah — Zech 1;l but this is not the ne who Jesus referred to as being murdered in the sanctuary.
Mark l;l—3 quotes Isaiah — but the quotation actually comes from Mal 3;l and Ex 23:20
Matthew 2:6 'But you, Bethlehem, [in] the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah This is ostensibly quoting Micah 5.2, which says the opposite: Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, [Though] you are little among the thousands of Judah,
God changes his mind?
Gen 2;17 In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’ (The’surely’ in Hebrew is emphatic, it is never used to refer to ‘spiritual death’) — yet Adam lives 930 years (Gen 5;5) We get a picture of God. who is not a static person but one ho responds to event modifying his plans. (Ezek. 20;13f)
Jude quotes Enoch as belonging to scripture — vi,. 5,7,9,11 & 17 — Enoch is not now regarded as part of scripture by either catholics or protestants yet it was by Jude; for him it was inspired prophecy — so there can be inspiration outside the canon.
Divergences
Gen 1:11 - on the third day God orders the earth to bring forth vegetation and other plants. He doesn't create humans until the sixth day. Reasonable conclusion from this: there was vegetations on the earth before human beings.
Gen 2:4b-7a, however, states that God made man from the dust of the earth when "no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up". In fact, the presence of the vegetation seems to be dependent on there being human beings to till the soil.
Exodus 6:3 says that God was not known by His name to Abraham, but Genesis 13:4 and 15:7 has Abraham knowing God's name.
Mt. 21 Mk.ll and Lk. 19 locate Jesus’ cleansing of the temple at the end of his ministry — either on the Sunday or the Monday before his death; John 2; 13ff. locate it at the very beginning, before he chose disciples.
In Mat. 4, Jesus is tempted to turn stones into bread; jump off temple pinnacle and worship Satan; Luke 4 reverses the order of the second and third of these.
Matthew implies that Joseph and Mary were living in Bethlehem before Jesus birth ( the magi visit them at a house (Mt 2:11)), then they go to Egypt and then set off back for Bethlehem but, being hearing that Archelaus is king of that region, go to Nazareth to set up a home there instead (see Mt 2:23). Luke, in contrast, has J & M living in Nazareth, then going to Bethlehem where Jesus is born, then to Jerusalem, then back to their home in Nazareth (with no time for a trip to egypt). They can't both be right. What we learn from these passages is how M saw the birth of Jesus as fitting in with OT prophecy. We don't have to take the passages as historically accurate.
Matthew has Jesus born under Herod the Great (i.e before 4 BC). Luke has him born when Quirinius was legate of Syria and Cilicia (i.e after 6 AD).
who killed Goliath, David or Elhanan? See 1 Sam 17:50-51; 2 Sam 21:19; and I Chron 20:5-6. Again one of these passages must be in error.
What is the reason for keeping the sabbath day? Because the Lord rested on the seventh day, according to Exodus 20:11. Because the Lord delivered the people from the land of Egypt by his outstretched arm according to Deuteronomy 5:15.
How much did David pay for the land on which he planned to build the temple? 50 shekels of silver (for which he got the land and some oxen) according to 2 Samuel 24:24 or 600 shekels of gold according to 1 Chronicles 21:25.
Did Mary and Joseph take Jesus to Egypt shortly after his birth? Yes, according to Matthew 2:14. No according to Luke 2:39.
Was Jesus crucified on Passover day or the day of preparation for Passover? Passover day according to Luke 22:13 and the other synoptics. The day of preparation according to John 18:28 and John 19:31.
Did one of the thieves believe in Jesus at the end? No according to Mark 15:32 and Matthew 27:44. Yes according to Luke 23:39-43.
What was the last thing Jesus said from the cross? "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" according to Luke 23:46 or "It is finished" according to John 19:30.
Who discovered the empty tomb? Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, according to Matthew 28:1. Mary Magdelene, Mary the Mother of James, and Salome acording to Mark 16:1. Mary Magdelene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and another unnamed woman according to Luke 24:10. Mary Magdelene (and Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved?) according to John 20:1
"I tell you this, brethren: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. " I Cor. 15:50 vs. "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have." Lk 24:19
Does God change his mind…or not?
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind..." (Numbers 23:19).
"Remember not the former things, nor consider the things of old. Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?" (Isaiah 43: 18, 19)
Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people.
1Sam.15 [11] [God says:] "I repent that I have made Saul king; for he has turned back from following me, and has not performed my commandments."
[29] [Samuel says:] "And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent." [35] And Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
1Chr.21:15; And God sent the angel to Jerusalem to destroy it; but when he was about to destroy it, the LORD saw, and he repented of the evil; and he said to the destroying angel, "It is enough; now stay your hand."
Two traditions
In Ex. l5;5 the Egyptians are drowned by waves flooding over them; in Ex 14;29 the eater goes back like walls yet the chapter 15 account talks of chariot wheels being ‘clogged’ — more like the Sea of Reeds than the Red Sea (no vowels in the original text so it could be either Yam Suph or Yam Siph — the sea of reeds fits in to the geographical details of the rest of the story and this was a marsh, not a great
Exaggerations
David slew 700 chariot fighters of the Arameans, in I Chron 19;18 he slew 7,000
II Sam 24;9 Joab numbered 800,000 Israelites and 500,000 Judeans; in I Chron 21:5 it is 1,100 000 and 470,000 respectively.
Paul made mistakes
Ex. 12;40—4l The sojourn in Egypt was 430 years. For Paul, the same time covers much more time — it stretches from Abraham until the Exodus (Gal 3;17) There is 215 years between Abraham and the entry into Egypt (he was 75 on entering Canaan Gen. 12;4; 100 at Isaac’s birth — Gen 2l;5 Isaac was 60 at birth of Jacon — Gen 25;26 and Jacob was 130 when he went to Egypt Gen 47;9 — that makes 215 years — interestingly it is half of the 430 figuire — is this historical accurac or a number theme which Kabbalists play with?) Was it 430 years or 645. Did the divinely inspired inspired Paul get it wrong?
Misquotations
Heb l0;5 ‘Sacrifices and offerings...but a body hast thou prepared for me’ Cf. Ps. 40;6 ‘Sacrifices...but thou hast given me an open ear’.
Two stories?
Did Noah get animals two by two — Gen 6;21 or in pairs of sevens — Gen 7;2?
Who bought Joseph? Was it the Ishmaelites or the Midianites — there seem to be two stories edited together (badly) — the Hebrew style changes from verse to verse to suggest a clumsy assembly of texts) — thus Gen.37;27 the brothers decide to sell Jo to Ishmaelites, v. 28 Midianites take Joseph, then they sell him to Ishmaelites; but v.36 Midianities sell him (again?) in Egypt.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
