mercurydime
Gangster of Love
Let us prey.
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.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?
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.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.
Why is this undeniable fact valuable evidence of truth?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?
Diggler may be among the most thoughtful posters on these here tunnels.while I share your skepticism, a few points in history lead me to believe that the Bible is generally true:
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.
- 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
we literally have one of them scholars of the ancient near east on these rjkarl boardsThere 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.
and figuratively if you include all of the armchair expertswe literally have one of them scholars of the ancient near east on these rjkarl boards
we literally have one of them scholars of the ancient near east on these rjkarl boards
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 scrutinyWhy is this undeniable fact valuable evidence of truth?
Yeah but who made more money?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.
Didn't only two of Matthew Mark Luke and John actually ever meet Jesus?
- 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?
Probably notDidn'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.
couple of things on this (and none of this comments on veracity of faith or anything like that, just a discussion of provenance)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.