Bible discussion thread

[TownieDeac]

I guess the cynical atheist in me takes your analogy and says people 1000 years in the future find a work of fiction like 1984 and then another work of fiction like Brave New World and then another work of fiction like Farenheit 451 and start to piece together a decent picture of 20/21st century life without otherwise reliable historical accounts. Or in other words, the bible as sort of dystopian fiction rather than historical document.

Agree with dmcheat though, it's a treat to discuss with you.

 

[RevDeac06]

I guess the cynical atheist in me takes your analogy and says people 1000 years in the future find a work of fiction like 1984 and then another work of fiction like Brave New World and then another work of fiction like Farenheit 451 and start to piece together a decent picture of 20/21st century life without otherwise reliable historical accounts. Or in other words, the bible as sort of dystopian fiction rather than historical document.

Agree with dmcheat though, it's a treat to discuss with you.

Point taken, and that would be a huge concern if we didn't have multiple, independent, but corroborating narratives. In the NT, we have at least, Paul, the "Q" document, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John all writing about Jesus from a different point of view. In some ways, the dissonance between them strengthens the case that something happened in Palestine between the years 30-100 CE. But we also have Roman histories that might not back up the claims of the gospels, but they are more independent sources that at least give us further insight into the culture of the time, plus archeology. In your example, they wouldn't find any evidence (outside of those books) much evidence to support the premises of those books.

The other level though is the Christian claim that God still acts through the Holy Spirit (which I get that as an atheist, you're not going to go there with me), so it's not like we're just relying on books, but experience and the witness/experience of others as well.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[RJKarl]

An interesting situation is the Vatican has an astronomer and the position of the Holy City is that life on other planets is almost assured and that this does not diminish their position on God. Other Christian denominations fear the concept of other life in the universe as it challenges their Garden of Eden myth.

Roman Catholics, most Jews, Anglicans (it appears) and some other Christian denominations believe The Bible (especially the OT) is an allegory. If you think about it, this is perfectly logical. To get people who currently believed in poly-theism with gods of mythical strengths to believe in one God, this deity would have to have similar or greater powers. Thus such stories were absolutely necessary.

 

[RevDeac06]

An interesting situation is the Vatican has an astronomer and the position of the Holy City is that life on other planets is almost assured and that this does not diminish their position on God. Other Christian denominations fear the concept of other life in the universe as it challenges their Garden of Eden myth.

Roman Catholics, most Jews, Anglicans (it appears) and some other Christian denominations believe The Bible (especially the OT) is an allegory. If you think about it, this is perfectly logical. To get people who currently believed in poly-theism with gods of mythical strengths to believe in one God, this deity would have to have similar or greater powers. Thus such stories were absolutely necessary.

Exactly. The stories point towards something, but they do it in a way that makes a strong case to the audience. So the Bible as history doesn't work, but it does as theology.

And I'm down with life on other planets. Of course, parts of theology would have to be re-examined, but it certainly isn't a threat to rational and orthodox (meaning historical, not rigid/conservative) Christianity.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[jccdeac]

Just wanted to chime in here & say that I am THOROUGHLY enjoying this thread. I have learned a lot from both Townie & Rev who are both well versed in their biblical history. Thank you both & others who have contributed to push the conversation forward.

 

[sailordeac]

The time was ripe? Honestly, that's the sort of question without an answer, because you're essentially asking to know God's thought process. That being said, there was an early church heresy (which weren't really that bad. For the most part, heretics were just the losers in the earliest theological debates. It would be as if the "losers" on this thread were exiled.) known as Adoptionism that suggested that Jesus was adopted as God's Son at his baptism. So they might argue that Jesus wasn't "sent" at any specific time, but rather, God anointed/called/ordained Jesus for this ministry since he was the right person for the job in the right cultural context. Not sure that I'd agree with it, just throwing that out there. Many Christians refuted this, which is clearly seen in John's (gospel) prologue "in the beginning was the word (logos)..."

You say "to share all the information necessary for salvation of the entire human race..." I wouldn't agree with that. The reason why the Holy Spirit was given was because there was more work to be done.

Rev, adopted or sent seems irrelevant to the question of why then and there. Just a thought.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough with that statement on "all of the information necessary for the salvation of the entire human race." I am certainly not trying to denigrate the efforts of the Holy Spirit or question your admirable knowledge of theology and expertise in the context of the early church. On the other hand, it seems to me that for Christians the Bible and especially the New Testament, which is complete by the end of the first century AD, is supposed to contain all of the information necessary to reach heaven. If not, what further infromation, what further divine disclosures are necessary to be saved?

 

[sailordeac]

oh now i understand completely. like the allegory of the cave. i hadn't thought about faith from the paridigm of plato's allegory. now that you point that out that is interesting. for some reason it doesn't make religion more appealing to either of us though. perhaps because it's not parsimonious.

it does seem to suggest that science will never be able to 100% disprove religion, but then again scientists have always known that. As you obviously realize, science makes only two assumptions: that the ultimate mechanics of the universe are knowable, and that our senses can be relied on to discern those mechanics. there are definitely some reasons to question both assumptions. the uncertainty principal (and to a lesser extent chaos theory) comes to mind for the former assumption.

this thread is really academic so i don't expect many people will participate.

I really don't think that the role of science is to disprove the existence of God, and trying to use science to prove that God does not exist would appear to be a futile misuse of science.

 

[TownieDeac]

Not to mention the philosophical problem of trying to prove a negative.

 

[sailordeac]

Billy Graham? I don't know about him. I'm sure that he is effective with many people and means well and all but he just does not do anything for me. I'd much rather read the OT or NT or St. Augustine, or St. Thomas, or Luther when it comes to Christianity or God. The Lord works in mysterious ways, I guess.

 

[sailordeac]

Mark, John, and Paul didn't really care about the birth because it didn't advance their point. And that is important to remember, the gospels were written for particular communities and had to fit with their theologies. So Mark sees Jesus as a healer and vanquisher of evil, the birth narrative doesn't really advance that point. But Luke sees Jesus more as the new Elijah, in line with OT prophecies, so the birth narrative does indeed matter in that context. John sees Jesus as one with the Father, so he has a highly developed Christology that begins with a birth narrative on the cosmic scale. That Borg and Crossan book is quite good if you want a short and easy to read into into the development of the birth narratives.

Very well stated.

 

[RevDeac06]

Rev, adopted or sent seems irrelevant to the question of why then and there. Just a thought.

especially the New Testament, which is complete by the end of the first century AD, is supposed to contain all of the information necessary to reach heaven. If not, what further infromation, what further divine disclosures are necessary to be saved?

So to point #1, agreed. Sent/adopted doesn't really affect why then/there. But as I said, that's just one of those questions that we'll have to ask when we get to the other side. I'd have to ponder it some more, but for now, I'd just stick with "the time was ripe." The prophets weren't working, Israel had been reestablished after Exile and thinks were at a tipping point, so the time seemed right.

On point #2, that the NT contains all information necessary to reach heaven. This is a MAJOR theological sticking point. I'd argue that this is perhaps the #1 misunderstood part of Christianity. Jesus very rarely spoke of the afterlife or salvation in the sense that we mean it today. What Jesus does preach the most about is the Kingdom of God/Heaven (depends which gospel you're reading on whether it's God or Heaven). And what Jesus says and tells parable about is how the Kingdom of God (KoG) is a present reality. The KoG is something that exists here and now, not after death. It has yet to achieve it's fullest end (telos), so that is why we pray "thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven." To the writers of the NT and in Jesus' teachings we see that salvation is more of a present reality as opposed to a future promise. It has elements of both, but is, as many theologians have said "the already, but not yet." And the obsession with salvation and heaven and life-after-death has to stop because that wasn't Jesus' message, and it isn't the teaching we are to glean from the Bible.

 

[Deacfreak07]

Rev, adopted or sent seems irrelevant to the question of why then and there. Just a thought.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough with that statement on "all of the information necessary for the salvation of the entire human race." I am certainly not trying to denigrate the efforts of the Holy Spirit or question your admirable knowledge of theology and expertise in the context of the early church. On the other hand, it seems to me that for Christians the Bible and especially the New Testament, which is complete by the end of the first century AD, is supposed to contain all of the information necessary to reach heaven. If not, what further infromation, what further divine disclosures are necessary to be saved?

Kind of hard to argue with the ROI for picking Jesus of Nazareth in 1st Century Palestine. Though I guess the same could be said for Muhammed, the Buddha, and other human leaders of successful religious movements from a revisionist perspective.

 

[RevDeac06]

I really don't think that the role of science is to disprove the existence of God, and trying to use science to prove that God does not exist would appear to be a futile misuse of science.

Agreed, but see Dawkins, Hitchens, Hawking, et al as examples of people that do use science to disprove God.

I think science and religion go hand in hand, two views of the same reality, each informing and being informed by the other.

 

[Shorty]

I think Billy Graham has generally been a force for good, even though there is a fundamentalist element to him that doesn't appeal to me. For the most part, he does a good job in downplaying much of that, though, like his views on homosexuality. I once heard him say in an interview that while he believed homosexuality was wrong, it is a minor issue and that there are far more important messages for us to draw from the Bible.

I'd rather he'd simply be accepting of gays, but that's better than most fundamentalist preachers.

 

[Deacfreak07]

I think Billy Graham has generally been a force for good, even though there is a fundamentalist element to him that doesn't appeal to me. For the most part, he does a good job in downplaying much of that, though, like his views on homosexuality. I once heard him say in an interview that while he believed homosexuality was wrong, it is a minor issue and that there are far more important messages for us to draw from the Bible.

I'd rather he'd simply be accepting of gays, but that's better than most fundamentalist preachers.

He came off pretty bad in the Nixon tapes.

 

[TownieDeac]

Agreed, but see Dawkins, Hitchens, Hawking, et al as examples of people that do use science to disprove God.

I think science and religion go hand in hand, two views of the same reality, each informing and being informed by the other.

I do take semantic umbrage with the ongoing use of "disprove" here, because you don't use science to prove and disprove things, you create hypotheses and design experiments to gather data to support or not support those hypotheses. And I don't really think Dawkins, Hitchens et alia really even tried empirical approaches towards disproving or discrediting God. I think in Dawkins and Hawking's case, there's a lot of "the statistical unlikelihood of a creator" talk, and Hitchens attacked the bible and a lot of quack theologians head on. I also think it's semantically important to note that most scientists are far more concerned with the observable, knowable world, whereas use of empiricism is a fairly large obstacle for most theologians.

Otherwise, I generally agree.

 

[TownieDeac]

I think Billy Graham has generally been a force for good, even though there is a fundamentalist element to him that doesn't appeal to me. For the most part, he does a good job in downplaying much of that, though, like his views on homosexuality. I once heard him say in an interview that while he believed homosexuality was wrong, it is a minor issue and that there are far more important messages for us to draw from the Bible.

I'd rather he'd simply be accepting of gays, but that's better than most fundamentalist preachers.

Sad commentary in and of itself. Simple acceptance is a pretty far cry from loving embrace of all of God's children. I'm a big fan of Hebrews 13.

1 Let brotherly love continue.

2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

 

[RevDeac06]

Sad commentary in and of itself. Simple acceptance is a pretty far cry from loving embrace of all of God's children. I'm a big fan of Hebrews 13.

1 Let brotherly love continue.

2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Need to spread some pos rep before giving it to you again, but amen.

 

[RevDeac06]

I do take semantic umbrage with the ongoing use of "disprove" here, because you don't use science to prove and disprove things, you create hypotheses and design experiments to gather data to support or not support those hypotheses. And I don't really think Dawkins, Hitchens et alia really even tried empirical approaches towards disproving or discrediting God. I think in Dawkins and Hawking's case, there's a lot of "the statistical unlikelihood of a creator" talk, and Hitchens attacked the bible and a lot of quack theologians head on. I also think it's semantically important to note that most scientists are far more concerned with the observable, knowable world, whereas use of empiricism is a fairly large obstacle for most theologians.

Otherwise, I generally agree.

Point taken. But especially Dawkins and Hawkings come off rather brazen and the latter said something to the effect of "science makes God unnecessary," which I get isn't the same as "disprove" but many "evangelical" atheists are just as idiotic, close-minded, and annoying as regular (many, not all) Evangelicals.

 

[Shorty]

I really don't think that the role of science is to disprove the existence of God, and trying to use science to prove that God does not exist would appear to be a futile misuse of science.

I agree. In trying to understand the universe, I think scientists and theologians are ultimately searching for the same thing.