• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The religious right's hypocrisy now on full display

There are exactly four ways of interpreting the bible, and the literal / historical one traditionally has been considered the least valuable for Christian theology. It's interesting that for someone like diggler it's potential for truth claims would be more persuasive than these other categories of interpretation.

Why should digging up a contemporary iron age city or treating as authoritative the biography of a man like Paul who survives only in a narrative account be more valuable evidence for a Christian in search of truth than the undeniable fact that people have taken these documents as a guide for living and for how to understand the future for two thousand years and more?
 
wakephan09 said:
There are exactly four ways of interpreting the bible, and the literal / historical one traditionally has been considered the least valuable for Christian theology. It's interesting that for someone like diggler it's potential for truth claims would be more persuasive than these other categories of interpretation.

Why should digging up a contemporary iron age city or treating as authoritative the biography of a man like Paul who survives only in a narrative account be more valuable evidence for a Christian in search of truth than the undeniable fact that people have taken these documents as a guide for living and for how to understand the future for two thousand years and more?
Click to expand...
My religion teacher in high school, the Rev. Cogan, former Princeton lacrosse goalie, was an excellent professor in helping us learn to interpret the bible. Things like, Adam and Eve weren't the first humans, they were the first people to wonder who the creator was, otherwise there would be no reason to mark Cain to protect him from other people. The bible had multiple writes and editors, otherwise why would God be El-Ohim in one chapter and Yahweh in the next. The first part of the bible that was actually written down was most likely the part after the jews escaped Egypt, everything before that was probably retconned. He was pretty progressive for an old reverend, and he taught me that the bible isn't necessarily to be taken literally word for word but interpreted. The thing went through several editors who changed things and moved stuff around, and all that needs to be in context with the written word.
 
TimmyClutch said:
My religion teacher in high school, the Rev. Cogan, former Princeton lacrosse goalie, was an excellent professor in helping us learn to interpret the bible. Things like, Adam and Eve weren't the first humans, they were the first people to wonder who the creator was, otherwise there would be no reason to mark Cain to protect him from other people. The bible had multiple writes and editors, otherwise why would God be El-Ohim in one chapter and Yahweh in the next. The first part of the bible that was actually written down was most likely the part after the jews escaped Egypt, everything before that was probably retconned. He was pretty progressive for an old reverend, and he taught me that the bible isn't necessarily to be taken literally word for word but interpreted. The thing went through several editors who changed things and moved stuff around, and all that needs to be in context with the written word.
Click to expand...
There are thousands of years of biblical scholarship from some really brilliant minds. Then there are people standing on a well lit stage between two projector screens wearing designer jeans telling you to disregard it.
 
deacdiggler said:
while I share your skepticism, a few points in history lead me to believe that the Bible is generally true:
  • Paul's conversion. Why would a man who was well regarded in his society give it all up?
  • Gospel accounts of what morons the disciples seemed to be, constantly bickering. Why wouldn't they improve on their stories and make themselves look less idiotic unless they were attempting to tell the truth?
  • Death of martyrs - who would go to death for something that wasn't true?
  • Sure, some of these things might not be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt in court, given the skepticism of "hearsay," but it's hard for me to conceive of how this tiny religion that teaches humility and servanthood could have really taken off without God really being behind it.
  • Creation itself - I will never be able to believe that existence appeared out of nothingness spontaneously
I'm sure these aren't persuasive to you, but these are the things fall back on when faced with a lack of faith in my own heart and mind.
Click to expand...
Diggler may be among the most thoughtful posters on these here tunnels.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
There are thousands of years of biblical scholarship from some really brilliant minds. Then there are people standing on a well lit stage between two projector screens wearing designer jeans telling you to disregard it.
Click to expand...
we literally have one of them scholars of the ancient near east on these rjkarl boards
 
Shooshmoo said:
Why is this undeniable fact valuable evidence of truth?
Click to expand...
I don't believe it is, personally. But faith is at the center of the Christian worldview and a believer is better served trusting in two thousand years of exegetical hermeneutics than they are subjecting the bible to literal scrutiny
 
I feel like this is the exact meeting point of @deacdiggler's interests

defector.com

The Apostles, Ranked | Defector

My Catholicism is a little rusty, but I believe we’re currently in Peak Apostle Season. There was that whole business with the crucifixion of their lord and savior over the past few weeks, and pretty soon they’re going to see (and possibly believe) signs of Jesus’s resurrection. It’s a huge time...
defector.com defector.com
 
660cf8d7ea013.image.jpg
 
Deacfreak07 said:
There are thousands of years of biblical scholarship from some really brilliant minds. Then there are people standing on a well lit stage between two projector screens wearing designer jeans telling you to disregard it.
Click to expand...
Yeah but who made more money?
 
deacdiggler said:
  • Gospel accounts of what morons the disciples seemed to be, constantly bickering. Why wouldn't they improve on their stories and make themselves look less idiotic unless they were attempting to tell the truth?
  • Death of martyrs - who would go to death for something that wasn't true?
Click to expand...
Didn't only two of Matthew Mark Luke and John actually ever meet Jesus?

I hate to put it like this, but suicide bombers do it all the time. What someone believes to be true can be a very powerful motivator. It is in no way evidence of actual truth.
 
wakelaw13 said:
Didn't only two of Matthew Mark Luke and John actually ever meet Jesus?

I hate to put it like this, but suicide bombers do it all the time. What someone believes to be true can be a very powerful motivator. It is in no way evidence of actual truth.
Click to expand...
Probably not

Mark - the first written. Attributed to Mark, a disciple of Peter, but this name wasn't attached to the gospel until 168 CE. Probably written between 40-70 CE (and most likely on the latter side). Textual evidence points to an early non-Jewish Christian

Matthew - traditionally attributed to the disciple Matthew (tax collector), but most likely not. Was written later than Mark and draws on it as source material. Most likely a compilation of Jesus' teachings that was then drawn together narratively and most likely by a non-Palestinian Jew. Probably written around 80-90 CE (shows up as quoted literature around 110)

Luke - attributed to a colleague of Paul, many think written after his arrest and awaiting trail in Rome as a defense of his life (especially when taken as Luke-Acts being Part 1 and Part 2 of the Story of Paul - sorry @WindyCityDeac. Scripture didn't clearly market Acts as Part 2 of one cohesive story (unlike Dune). This would place the book around 61-62 CE. The name Luke wasn't attached to the text until around 180, but the profile of Luke does match textual markings of the author. The author was educated and had either was Jewish or had a good understanding of Jewish culture. Date is a wide range, probably somewhere between 80-110. Definitely post-Mark.

John is the hardest to date as it is such a departure from the synoptics. Traditionally attributed to john with a date of around 60 EC - this is almost assuredly incorrect. Most likely the latest gospel as some of the beliefs around divinity of Jesus and some other aspects of ecclesiology that were points of interest come from a later date.
 
Last edited:
None of the NT refers to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. This is a pretty big event to not mention if it was written after 70 CE.
 
awaken said:
None of the NT refers to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. This is a pretty big event to not mention if it was written after 70 CE.
Click to expand...
couple of things on this (and none of this comments on veracity of faith or anything like that, just a discussion of provenance)

First, for a text to not mention an event that has no bearing on the subject at hand doesn't necessarily mean the event hasn't happened yet, just that the event isn't pertinent to the purpose of the writing. All history has an agenda (much more so ANE histories) and the gospels have stated agendas (Mark - to proclaim the good news that Jesus is the Messiah, the Sone of God; Luke - to present in orderly account of happenings to Theophilus; John - So that you might believe in Jesus). The destruction of Jerusalem isn't necessarily important in the telling of the life of Jesus (which ends in 30 or 33 CE) through the above lenses/purposes. Similarly, A history of the civil rights era, including a biography of Malcolm X, MJK Jr., or even Fred Hampton written in the early 2000s (about the same distance Mark would have been from the life of Jesus) doesn't mention 9/11, even though that is a defining moment in the history of the US.

Further, Mark, Luke, and John all record Jesus prophesying concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. Whether those words were inserted into Jesus' mouth knowing the act occurred, or that those words become more salient (compared to other sayings) because of knowledge of the destruction of the Temple, it's conceivable that the prophesies are enough of an allusion to the event to give credence to the story of Jesus being told.

Either way, the absence of the mention of the event doesn't lend definitive evidence toward dating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top