Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[Ouroboros]

In part I agree with this, as I have said. But again, the liberal scholarship that chooses to de-mythologize it is not doing so entirely on faith. It's very difficult to be intellectually honest when you apply textual criticism and accept that it reveals, for one example, that books which claim to be written by one author in fact are not. That's looking at evidence, not just faith. All I'm saying is that even though they still took a myth and tried to update it, they did so by attempting to use methods that acknowledged discoveries gleaned through critical scholarship. Critical scholarship is one that attempts to set aside biases.

Very true. They at least try to be less subjective in their analysis. Because they live in a modern world, and know the dangers better than the bishops 1700 years ago. However, the material they're working from might be less. There might be a lot of cultural insights and knowledge we can't have today, which was an obvious backdrop to the difference councils.

 

Jesus seminar aside, what of the social interest theory that I've been referencing? To me this is not about supporting a faith at all. It's about trying to create a model of explain based on what we know from anthropology, ethnology, archeology, etc that answers what data we have. Like anything within the sciences, the model of explaination that works most consistently is generally seen as the most likely scenario. Considering when we apply what we've learned from other cultures regarding the role of religion to the West's own Christian religion, it seems the puzzle pieces fit quite nicely and make a whole lot more sense in the light of human creations. It's all a matter of setting aside the Gospels to treat them on a social level. This is quite different than updating the myth, IMO. Far more informative.

Also true. But we can't deny that even in the Jesus seminars, how hard they ever try, they will be influenced by their own biases, and we all are.

[freeday]

These are all good points. Can we be certain of the portrayal the Gospels give us? Even I will admitt that we can not be certian. Maybe we like it to fit to our ideas and our convictions. Maybe this is OK. I feel sure the Author of the bible would not be angry at a person interpreting it differently than another, that is, along as it is congruent with the whole bible. The bible lends itself to interpertation because of its sometimes vagueness.

 

Antlerman,

 

The problem I have with Mack's view is that he takes the same extreme position that the fundies do; just on the oposite end.

[Ouroboros]

These are all good points. Can we be certain of the portrayal the Gospels give us? Even I will admitt that we can not be certian. Maybe we like it to fit to our ideas and our convictions. Maybe this is OK. I feel sure the Author of the bible would not be angry at a person interpreting it differently than another, that is, along as it is congruent with the whole bible. The bible lends itself to interpertation because of its sometimes vagueness.

Thank you, thank you, thank you... now we're getting somewhere.

[Antlerman]

These are all good points. Can we be certain of the portrayal the Gospels give us? Even I will admitt that we can not be certian. Maybe we like it to fit to our ideas and our convictions. Maybe this is OK. I feel sure the Author of the bible would not be angry at a person interpreting it differently than another, that is, along as it is congruent with the whole bible. The bible lends itself to interpertation because of its sometimes vagueness.

In which case it can't be authoritative.

 

Antlerman,

 

The problem I have with Mack's view is that he takes the same extreme position that the fundies do; just on the oposite end.

What?? How so? I'm one to recognize and reject with passion someone who is fundamentalist in their views, secular or otherwise, which is why I dislike Richard Dawkins for one. I'm more than confident I would immediately recognize that in Mack, which I certainly do not, having read several of his books so far. In fact it is because of his depth of actual scholarship and fair treatment that I consider him a great resource and worthy of my respect I'm not attracted to fundis, those who just reject other ideas because they don't like them personally. Strong opinions on one's views does not alone qualify them as fundamentalist, and I feel he has a formidable wealth of knowledge on which to base those opinions. You do know that Mack is a Christian, right?

 

So specifically how do you see him as a fundamentalist? Are we talking about the same person here? Would you call me a fundamentalist too because of my strong opinions?

[Ouroboros]

Would you call me a fundamentalist?

Oh, come on, you know you're an atheist fundamentalist who eat little babies and is the main cause to tornadoes and tsunamis. We all know it, so just admit it...

[Antlerman]

Would you call me a fundamentalist?

Oh, come on, you know you're an atheist fundamentalist who eat little babies and is the main cause to tornadoes and tsunamis. We all know it, so just admit it...

Just because I base my views on mystical revelations and deny others legitimacy, regardless of the labors of their research; moreover fantasying of their ultimate doom in the pit of infinite punishment for threatening my special knowledge received direct from the true God, doesn't make me a fundi. Does it?

 

Well... if I'm one, you're one too.

[Ouroboros]

Just because I base my views on mystical revelations and deny others legitimacy, regardless of the labors of their research; moreover fantasying of their ultimate doom in the pit of infinite punishment for threatening my special knowledge received direct from the true God, doesn't make me a fundi. Does it?

You're absolutely a Fun-da-mentalist. Lots'a fun and lot's a mental activity up da' head.

 

Well... if I'm one, you're one too.

Hush... it was a secret...

 

 

[mwc]

Messiah (Christ) was used as an epithet for some kings in the OT.

Actually... (you knew it was coming)

 

Anyone anointed with the special oil was a "messiah" thus it's meaning "anointed" (or "anointed one," etc.). So kings and (high) priests were all "messiahs." Lots and lots of messiahs running around.

 

Then you have those special messiahs that have the extra-special goodness of getting anointed by a prophet. Can't be a really good messiah without a crazy guy, who claims to be god's mouthpiece, rubbing up on you. This gives you messiah superpowers. These were more rare than the other messiahs.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Actually... (you knew it was coming)

 

Anyone anointed with the special oil was a "messiah" thus it's meaning "anointed" (or "anointed one," etc.). So kings and (high) priests were all "messiahs." Lots and lots of messiahs running around.

Actually, I did know that. I just make simplified statements sometimes, because I've been accused of being superfluous with words. (Me? A chatterbox? ... well, it's not for nothing the punishment for my kids is to "sit down and have a talk with dad." Maybe that's why God never answered my prayers? I talked him to death?)

[mwc]

Actually, I did know that. I just make simplified statements sometimes, because I've been accused of being superfluous with words. (Me? A chatterbox? ... well, it's not for nothing the punishment for my kids is to "sit down and have a talk with dad." Maybe that's why God never answered my prayers? I talked him to death?)

Heh. At least you seem coherent. I just usually ramble on aimlessly...

 

And it's funny you mentioned talking god to death in prayers. I remember having a lot of "Oh yeah. Well, back to why I started this whole thing" type of crap in my prayers. I got sidetracked in my own head more times than I could count during any given prayer. I'm sure old god was quite interested in my take on every bit of minutia that came to mind. I'd literally fall asleep some prayers took so long and I still never got to the damn point. Then I'd wake up and have to pray for forgiveness for falling asleep in the middle of the last long-ass prayer.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Heh. At least you seem coherent. I just usually ramble on aimlessly...

Hah! That's pure chance. I'm using a sling-thrower technique of words, and see what sticks!

 

And it's funny you mentioned talking god to death in prayers. I remember having a lot of "Oh yeah. Well, back to why I started this whole thing" type of crap in my prayers. I got sidetracked in my own head more times than I could count during any given prayer. I'm sure old god was quite interested in my take on every bit of minutia that came to mind. I'd literally fall asleep some prayers took so long and I still never got to the damn point. Then I'd wake up and have to pray for forgiveness for falling asleep in the middle of the last long-ass prayer.

 

I also remember how difficult it was to keep the focus in prayer. I remember one prayer meeting (or prayer day) when the whole church met to pray and fast for a whole day, because we wanted the city to repent and come to Jesus. Man, I prayed for so long that my lips where numb. And in that church it was practice to pray on your knees if you really, really wanted to impress God. They actually had prayer pillows! For the knees. No shit. But they weren't thick enough, so after a few hours, the kneecaps were ground to pulp.

[freeday]

These are all good points. Can we be certain of the portrayal the Gospels give us? Even I will admitt that we can not be certian. Maybe we like it to fit to our ideas and our convictions. Maybe this is OK. I feel sure the Author of the bible would not be angry at a person interpreting it differently than another, that is, along as it is congruent with the whole bible. The bible lends itself to interpertation because of its sometimes vagueness.

In which case it can't be authoritative.

 

Antlerman,

 

The problem I have with Mack's view is that he takes the same extreme position that the fundies do; just on the oposite end.

What?? How so? I'm one to recognize and reject with passion someone who is fundamentalist in their views, secular or otherwise, which is why I dislike Richard Dawkins for one. I'm more than confident I would immediately recognize that in Mack, which I certainly do not, having read several of his books so far. In fact it is because of his depth of actual scholarship and fair treatment that I consider him a great resource and worthy of my respect I'm not attracted to fundis, those who just reject other ideas because they don't like them personally. Strong opinions on one's views does not alone qualify them as fundamentalist, and I feel he has a formidable wealth of knowledge on which to base those opinions. You do know that Mack is a Christian, right?

 

So specifically how do you see him as a fundamentalist? Are we talking about the same person here? Would you call me a fundamentalist too because of my strong opinions?

 

"They are not the mistaken and embellished memories of the historical person, but the myths of origin imagined by early Christians seriously engaged in their social experiments."

 

This is about as far left as it comes. Now I didn't read the book. If he came to this conclusion logically with evidence then I am OK with this statement. Just having access to this paragraph alone, this is an opinion without substance. You darn fundy!!!!

[Antlerman]

So specifically how do you see him as a fundamentalist? Are we talking about the same person here? Would you call me a fundamentalist too because of my strong opinions?

 

"They are not the mistaken and embellished memories of the historical person, but the myths of origin imagined by early Christians seriously engaged in their social experiments."

 

This is about as far left as it comes. Now I didn't read the book. If he came to this conclusion logically with evidence then I am OK with this statement. Just having access to this paragraph alone, this is an opinion without substance. You darn fundy!!!!

Well, then you should be OK with it. He does come to it logically and with more than ample evidence. He satisfies my expectations. But you wouldn't know that, having judged without having read it, would you? Personally, I wouldn't call this left either. I would call it scholarship that isn't interested in either the left or the right. Left being "progressives", trying to fit the Jesus symbol to modern society. Mack seems more interested in what the data indicates, and let the chips fall where they may. The left doesn't seem to be all that interested in doing that, as they themselves have an agenda.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that understanding that whoever the real Jesus may have been is probably lost forever to the sands of time, means that there is no value whatsoever in the Christian myth. Those are actually two entirely separate matters, as difficult as they may be to put into context. Realistically, for all intents and purposes as far as the myth goes, "Jesus" is the Jesus of the narrative Gospels because that is the myth we have inherited.

 

When someone talks about Jesus Christ, that's who he is. The cosmic martyr, sin sacrifice, baby in a manager born of a virgin girl, visited by 3 wise kings with precious gifts, etc, myth. It seems true to you, because of its emotional connections with your culture. This is why you see me mostly focused on understanding how that works in humans. It where the power of the myth lays, why we create them, how they influence us, how we use them, why we use them, etc.

 

When I read of the work done to examine this myth, this myth of our culture that we ourselves "believed in" (used), it provides a wonderful insight into the artful complexities that drive us in our search to relate ourselves to our worlds and one another. I see this as valuable, not to destroy the symbols of ones' god, but to move us beyond them to an understanding of one another as the gods themselves, in as much as we make them.

 

Jesus is a god of human's making. Understanding that doesn't necessarily mean it has no value (after all it was created for some powerful enough reason to bring it to this point). But what it does do is free the myth from those who would make it a limited to their set of doctrines, thus negating its nature as myth, and removing themselves from the greater whole of the world. I see no value, no truth, no life, love, or beauty to be gained through creating territories.

 

Maybe that's the entire problem with Christianity, particularly Evangelical Christianity, is that this world, our society does not need people who declare war against it, but rather needs people to participate in it and with it. We are all valuable, but the Christian insists on being the special elect. In order to understand this, in order to appreciate this, you have to be able to set aside doctrines held as immutable truths. You can't begin to understand others, without being able to evaluate your own self and your own myths. Setting aside these marriages to a belief as immutable truth, is the first necessary step to seeing others. And through seeing others, you see yourself.

 

We are not better than others. We are all the same. You can call that "left", but I call it honoring truth, yourselves, and others. How was this phrased in the Christian myth? The greatest commandment is to "love God, and love your neighbor as yourself." How do you suppose that happens when you're unwilling to see yourselves as others?

[Badger]

I have just one question for Christians to answer. Why must the bible be the 100% literally true and perfect, inerrant word of god for the bible to have any value to it?

I believe the Bible is the word of God, but still I'm open to the possibility there may be errors. Actually, this question has never bothered me. I don't know why. What bothers me is sceptics who attacks against the Biblical inerrancy by taking verses out of the context and claiming they are inconsistent with each other; this is exactly what SWIM did here. As it is said: a text without a context is just a pretext.

[freeday]

So specifically how do you see him as a fundamentalist? Are we talking about the same person here? Would you call me a fundamentalist too because of my strong opinions?

 

"They are not the mistaken and embellished memories of the historical person, but the myths of origin imagined by early Christians seriously engaged in their social experiments."

 

This is about as far left as it comes. Now I didn't read the book. If he came to this conclusion logically with evidence then I am OK with this statement. Just having access to this paragraph alone, this is an opinion without substance. You darn fundy!!!!

Well, then you should be OK with it. He does come to it logically and with more than ample evidence. He satisfies my expectations. But you wouldn't know that, having judged without having read it, would you? Personally, I wouldn't call this left either. I would call it scholarship that isn't interested in either the left or the right. Left being "progressives", trying to fit the Jesus symbol to modern society. Mack seems more interested in what the data indicates, and let the chips fall where they may. The left doesn't seem to be all that interested in doing that, as they themselves have an agenda.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that understanding that whoever the real Jesus may have been is probably lost forever to the sands of time, means that there is no value whatsoever in the Christian myth. Those are actually two entirely separate matters, as difficult as they may be to put into context. Realistically, for all intents and purposes as far as the myth goes, "Jesus" is the Jesus of the narrative Gospels because that is the myth we have inherited.

 

When someone talks about Jesus Christ, that's who he is. The cosmic martyr, sin sacrifice, baby in a manager born of a virgin girl, visited by 3 wise kings with precious gifts, etc, myth. It seems true to you, because of its emotional connections with your culture. This is why you see me mostly focused on understanding how that works in humans. It where the power of the myth lays, why we create them, how they influence us, how we use them, why we use them, etc.

 

When I read of the work done to examine this myth, this myth of our culture that we ourselves "believed in" (used), it provides a wonderful insight into the artful complexities that drive us in our search to relate ourselves to our worlds and one another. I see this as valuable, not to destroy the symbols of ones' god, but to move us beyond them to an understanding of one another as the gods themselves, in as much as we make them.

 

Jesus is a god of human's making. Understanding that doesn't necessarily mean it has no value (after all it was created for some powerful enough reason to bring it to this point). But what it does do is free the myth from those who would make it a limited to their set of doctrines, thus negating its nature as myth, and removing themselves from the greater whole of the world. I see no value, no truth, no life, love, or beauty to be gained through creating territories.

 

Maybe that's the entire problem with Christianity, particularly Evangelical Christianity, is that this world, our society does not need people who declare war against it, but rather needs people to participate in it and with it. We are all valuable, but the Christian insists on being the special elect. In order to understand this, in order to appreciate this, you have to be able to set aside doctrines held as immutable truths. You can't begin to understand others, without being able to evaluate your own self and your own myths. Setting aside these marriages to a belief as immutable truth, is the first necessary step to seeing others. And through seeing others, you see yourself.

 

We are not better than others. We are all the same. You can call that "left", but I call it honoring truth, yourselves, and others. How was this phrased in the Christian myth? The greatest commandment is to "love God, and love your neighbor as yourself." How do you suppose that happens when you're unwilling to see yourselves as others?

 

I always hate to appear judgemental, as I ussualy am percieved; it is never my point to say I am right and you are wrong. I might want to check out this book, I love just the facts type books without the opinions.

 

You raise an interesting point, Jesus is a God of human making and myth folklore. This is a difficult concept for me personally to accept of which I will explain.

 

Although I have read that martyrdom was rampant in Jesus's time, I am not sure I am willing to accept the fact that Jesus was just a nut job that wanted the martyrdom attention. First, Jewish tradition wanted another Judge to bring them back to thier prior social status. This them of good faith in God results in prosperity is spread throughout the OT. This just begs the question of why they would think of such an outlandish theology that the "Kingdom of God" is in thier hearts and not a physical nation they wanted or expected. Second, sociology confirms that we are inherently egocentric people; therefore, why would we creat a religion that says for it's greatest commandment to love your nieghbor, of which, Jesus emphasized to love your enemy. These are not ideas that we, as a whole, think will benefit society. Look at our recent election and you will see the values that people want: equality, fairness, freedom of chioce, economic security, and socialized healthcare; not love your enemy.

 

Also, the word myth implies that there is no truth to the matter. I would think that even most secular historians would agree that Jesus was a real person that taught in the region. This is the far left position I was reffering too. I fully realize that it requires faith to believe in the miracles, trinity, and resurection, but I see no evidence to discredit the existence of Jesus as a person.

[rayskidude]

Sorry my brief response previously - I'm getting ready to visit missionaries in Israel, Kenya, and Kazakhstan from March 2 - 27; so I'll be out-of-touch for a bit. In addition to preaching the Gospel of salvation thru Jesus, these missionaries also operate Children's homes for orphans and nomadic familes, soup kitchens for the elderly poor, work in mission medical stations, teach in schools, publish magazines for children and youth, etc. I say this only because many believe that Evangelical Christians care nothing ofr this life or this world - but that is simply not true.

 

Confirmation Bias seems to have the same definition as "group think." And this is certainly a danger to be avoided. I myself was born/raised Catholic even being taught in parochial schools for 11 years with no concern for Biblical teaching - yet now I am an Evangelical believer, who studies the Bible regularly. And within Evangelicalism, I have moved from my initial Arminian beliefs to a more Reformed theology concerning salvation. So, I am happy to examine some pre-concieved notions I have regarding religion.

 

But I certainly would not jettison the basic belief in God's existence - no more than any scientist would jettison gravity as he/she interprets data or sets up experiments. We still do not know what gravity actually is or how it operates - but we see its effects, we can measure its intensity, calculate its power - we know gravity exists!!! That knowledge - along with applying the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics - allows us to have & further develop a correct understanding on our physical world.

 

So Christians operate this same way when it comes to approaching Bible study and interpreting its truths. So, therefore, when people deny God's existence and other basic truths - then the approach being used - though couched under the guise of scholarship - is simply akin to a scientist denying basic physical truths - it amounts to quackery. And in opposition to your assumptions about what I mean by this term and how I use it - this an not an emotional response of name-calling. This is using the Webster definition, "Characterized by pretentious claims with little or no foundation."

 

This is also in response to your statements of "I prefer the critical approach... suited better for me. I have a different set of interests... and hence why I feel it more than appropriate for me to choose an approach that works better with the goal of what this all is for me. My motives are the appreciation of life and the respect of knowledge... " All of this again demonstrates that you also have approached Scripture with a set of conditions or parameters. All I am asking is that you admit your own biases, which you cherish - and you know you have them - and I don't castigate you for having them. But you seem unwilling to admit what is obvious; that you've adopted some assumptions which have led you to your superior conclusions that are in keepng with your ideas.

 

And yet, you also criticize conservative scholars, because you say, "to me conservative scholarship is about providing support for its assumptions in the interest of preserving traditional views." Does this statement reveal respect and honor for conservative scholarship? And haven't you made an assessment of their motive? And yet, when I have read books and articles of conservative scholarship - there's plenty of critical thought about the true meaning of a particualr passage - and a willingness to challenge previously and widely-held interpretations of respected Christian scholars. So while there is certainly agreement in essentail Christian beliefs - there is diversity in secondary areas of doctrine & practice. In fact, we have a saying which you may have heard; "In essentials - unity; in non-essentials - liberty."

 

You want to saddle others with a criticisms of "group think" and of only desiring to support their assumptions - and yet that is exactly what the Jesus Seminar and the self-proclaimed "critical scholars" have practiced. It is a statement of faith to say that; "Why I prefer a critical approach to the conservative one is because its potential for yielding new insights is far greater. And with greater insights come a greater potential for effective understanding of the world..." This assumes new insights are better insights, or more correct insights. Lamarck provided new insights to the mechanism for Darwin's Theory of Evolution - did that give the world a greater understanding of the world? Of course, the answer is "No" - Lamarck was wrong to posit the ability of parents to pass along acquired characteristics.

 

You state; "It’s my worldview, that the world is multifaceted, multi-layered, multi-dimensional, brilliant and beautiful, sublime, and terrifying, and inspiring. The experience of this nature cannot be known while disregarding perspectives, including your own here, as “wrong”." Though you may not be able to see the world in this way while disregarding certain perspectives - does not mean others cannot. I believe that God's wisdom and intellect created this world with all its diversity of life and landscape, that He created the various people-groups which developed diverse cultures; that He gave us the ability to comunicate through spoken language, music, sex, sign language, etc. that in His image & likeness we create other people, music, art, technology, etc. And all the while - I am very comfortable with disregarding and discounting perspectives and belief-systems which are simply incorrect.

 

Is there anything in science which we know can certainly, or even plausibly, account for the diversity and abundance of life, beauty, harmony, love, etc?? The answer is "NO" - which is why respected scientists such as Dr Watson (of the Watson & Crick double-helix) have placed their stake on panspermy to explain the presence of life on Earth. So I also deny that life evolved spontaneously from non-life on Earth, because it's not true. But this doesn't lessen my appreciation of Earth or life on this planet.

 

However, an infinite God could - and did - easily design and create this world. And now I strive to understand how God is working, what is His purpose, how has He crafted this world to maintain itself by secondary causes (Physical Laws), how various peoples have chosen to interact with one another - and why; AND above all else - how is God going to take all the pain/suffering/cruelty and whatever else could be placed in this categry - and turn it around for ultimate good - and all for His Glory!!

 

But when you assume no God, ergo assuming the Bible is simply a human book, containing Massianic myths developed to accomplish a social experiment - then conclusions generated by such "critical" scholarship or gatherings like the Jesus Seminar are predictable.

 

And examining the lives of the progenitors of new philosophies and/or relgions or political systems is absolutely meaningful and valuable. How the founder of Judaism (Abraham) and Christianity (Jesus) and Mohammad (Islam) and Conficius, and Buddha, and Marx, and Satre, and L.Ron Hubbard, etc. are crucial to understanding the inherent value and efficacy of that particular worldview. If we cannot respect the life and character of the founder, how can we respect his system. Granted - followers of all systems have not been faithful and its easy to find evidence where professed followers have deviated severely from a myriad of systems. BUT to examine the life/character of the founder - absolutely fair game. Thus the encouragement to read "The Intellectuals."

 

And listing accomplishments of various religions is definitely confirmatory of the strength, efficacy, and/or truth of the leader and message. How do we know Napolean was a great political & military leader - look at the accomplishments of France under his reign. The same holds true for other leaders of various movements. The effect of a philosophy on its adherents - and in turn - its immediate surroundings and the world itself is a valid means of confirming the worth if the philosophy/religion. So a listing of what Christiuans have accomplished - good & bad - is fair game in assessing its worth & veracity. If your system is unwilling to make this case - it reveals a cowardice to be judged in real terms.

[Antlerman]

I always hate to appear judgemental, as I ussualy am percieved; it is never my point to say I am right and you are wrong. I might want to check out this book, I love just the facts type books without the opinions.

To be clear, I didn't say he doesn't state his opinion. But there is a very big difference between scholarly opinion and personal opinion. When Mack states his opinions about the scholarship of others missing the mark, that's not just ideological personal opinion (like Richard Dawkins or Ray's Paul M. Johnson opining on things outside their fields of expertise). He states his reasons why he see that as so, speaking as a scholar. In that context, I have never once seen him saying them in insulting manners, demeaning, belittling, etc.... unlike what I have heard others recently do referring to scholars like Ehrman with editorial comments such as calling them "their ilk", and whatnot.

 

As a footnote, not with Mack that I have seen to this point, but with others within their fields of expertise, you will see friendly jabbing at other scholars, such as in something else I read recently from the archeologist William Dever poking repeatedly at the archeologist Israel Finkelstein in some of his thoughts regarding ancient Israel. This too is not fundamentalist behavior, not stating biased personal opinion with passion, but stating scholarly opinion and stating scholarly reasons supporting this disagreement.

 

If however they don't accurately represent the other side in their criticisms, then they are in fact risking moving from scholarly opinion, to an ideological dispute. I've seen nothing to give that concern here.

 

You raise an interesting point, Jesus is a God of human making and myth folklore. This is a difficult concept for me personally to accept of which I will explain.

 

Although I have read that martyrdom was rampant in Jesus's time, I am not sure I am willing to accept the fact that Jesus was just a nut job that wanted the martyrdom attention.

Nor would I. I wouldn't see that any of that would have been a thought in any actual Jesus' mind, nor that a martyrdom itself even necessarily occurred. But to those who did imagine their Jesus as the martyr, did so to fit the Greek ideal of the "noble death". This imagining would be a response to their society's challenging or rejecting them, placing their founding figure in the role of martyr, thus responding by imagining him as vindicated, having died the noble death. They created a supporting myth for their group within the context of their immediate culture using its contemporary symbols.

 

First, Jewish tradition wanted another Judge to bring them back to thier prior social status. This them of good faith in God results in prosperity is spread throughout the OT. This just begs the question of why they would think of such an outlandish theology that the "Kingdom of God" is in thier hearts and not a physical nation they wanted or expected.

Well, this is a huge and difficult thing to address, but is doable.

 

First, what is this idea of the "Kingdom of God"? The idea of the "king" and "kingdom" emerges at that time in history in the Hellenistic culture with both the failings of the ancient Near-East temple-state and the Greek city-state under Roman rule. What happened under Roman rule is that these ideal states failed to follow the model, with power being handed over to foreigners instead of the people, who then ruled them by force. Philosophical schools responded by writings of Kings as good, and Tyrants as bad. According to Mack pgs. 136, 138

The ideal king would be the embodiment of (moral) law. …<snip>… An assessment of real society (where tyrants governed cities and empires) forced the elision of the

polis

in the archaic model and put the ideal

antrops

in direct relation to the "natural order" of the cosmos.

This encouraged the reduction of all the images of sovereignty to symbols of personal virtue.

As the Stoics said, "Only the wise man is King". Or, as Epictetus said, the Cynic's staff was his "scepter." Thus the language of rule or kingship came to be used as a metaphor for personal self-control. The term

king

no longer had to refer to a political domain. "King" became a metaphor for human being at its "highest" imaginable level, whether of endowment, achievement, ethical excellence, or mythical ideal. “Kingdom” became a metaphor for the “sovereignty” manifest in the “independent bearing,” “freedom,” “confidence,” and self-control of the superior person, the person of ethical integrity who could “rule” his “world” imperiously.

 

<snip>

 

Early Christians were fascinated with a social vision they called the kingdom (“rule” or “sovereignty”) of God. It was their own social vision, undeveloped in its first occurrences in the earliest layers of the “teachings of Jesus,” but soon to become

a distinctive concept that merged the social anthropologies fundamental to both the Jewish and the Greek cultural traditions

. On the one hand, it was rooted in the Jewish notion of theocracy and the concept of the people of God as a family, and on the other it drew upon the Greek notion of the individual living in accordance with nature; participating in a “kingdom” that was, in effect, an order of things prior to, displaced from, and in contrast to the kingdoms of the world. This vision created its own attraction, combining as it did the heady notions that any individual could “belong” to the kingdom and so become a “child” of God.

This combination of individual egalitarianism with the paternalistic notion of divine sovereignty was a winner, especially when experienced in the formation of groups that found themselves, quite by surprise, no longer defined along traditional lines.

So does this explain why, or how, they came to see this “outlandish” idea of the kingdom in the heart? You have to understand that they were not just some isolated Jewish kingdom, but were very much a part of their surrounding world. These ideas were not raw inventions of their own within the context of Jewish religion alone. They were a people of their time.

 

Second, sociology confirms that we are inherently egocentric people; therefore, why would we creat a religion that says for it's greatest commandment to love your nieghbor, of which, Jesus emphasized to love your enemy. These are not ideas that we, as a whole, think will benefit society. Look at our recent election and you will see the values that people want: equality, fairness, freedom of chioce, economic security, and socialized healthcare; not love your enemy.

Rather than taking the time to address this, as a challenge, within the brief context as was just described, and this itself being a product of sayings appropriate to that group within that society, how would you imagine it to fit?

 

You seem to suggest that this runs contrary to human interest (which assertion I would reject), thereby implying it may therefore have non-human, divine origins. This itself is part of a continuation of that whole mythmaking effort to take the status of the sayings and make them something authoritative. You are part of that myth making process, using a line of philosophical reasoning to support a belief with a created myth; just like those who created all the bits and pieces of myth that became collected into another layer of myth which became the traditional Christian religion.

 

It can be explained naturally, without the need to make it something supernatural. And if it can be explained well naturally, then why do you suppose we would favor the supernatural explanation instead? Could it have to do with how we humans need and use myth? My very point in all of this.

 

Also, the word myth implies that there is no truth to the matter.

Not at all. I use myth in the academic sense, not with the popular connotation. Myth is a category of story that involves gods. It’s an area of study. The story of the NT and the OT is mythological. It’s not to suggest it’s a “lie”, or “false”. Not at all. Myth operates on a different level than facts. It contains truth, even though the backdrop of the stories or the actual events or attributions themselves may contain fictions. They are still “true” on one level. And that’s the whole problem of the conservative, IMO. They want it to be true on a scientific level.

 

Say… here’s something I would love for you to read. It’s something written by a professor of comparative religion right here in my area. I think it might help to put things for you into the light of how I approach looking at myth. Tell me your thoughts… (Ray, you may wish to look this over as well): http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332

 

I would think that even most secular historians would agree that Jesus was a real person that taught in the region. This is the far left position I was reffering too.

Mack accepts the Jesus was real person; just not the Jesus as portrayed in the narrative Gospels as being historically factual. Same here.

 

I fully realize that it requires faith to believe in the miracles, trinity, and resurection, but I see no evidence to discredit the existence of Jesus as a person.

Maybe, but certainly as I’ve said before, even though there was likely some real person Jesus, who he was, the real him, is likely long lost to the sands of time, buried underneath layers of mythmaking in his name.

 

But then the question is, is the myth worth believing in? That at least should be the question. Not, proving Jesus was who the narrative Gospels make him to be to validate the myth. Myth is not about scientific validation. Again, read the link I just provided. To me, that is the pertinent discussion to be had. Yet the premise of the conservative, that belief rests in “authority” forces them to fight on a different front, one against the tools of discovery an age of enlightenment.

[Antlerman]

Sorry my brief response previously - I'm getting ready to visit missionaries in Israel, Kenya, and Kazakhstan from March 2 - 27; so I'll be out-of-touch for a bit.

Not a problem. I’m preoccupied with other matters as well, so I have no problem in our discussion being stretched out a bit. It gives me the luxury to come back to this without the pressure of time. I do appreciate the opportunity for this discussion with you.

 

You'll have to forgive the length of this response...

 

In addition to preaching the Gospel of salvation thru Jesus, these missionaries also operate Children's homes for orphans and nomadic familes, soup kitchens for the elderly poor, work in mission medical stations, teach in schools, publish magazines for children and youth, etc. I say this only because many believe that Evangelical Christians care nothing ofr this life or this world - but that is simply not true.

I would like to believe in the nobility of this, but sadly, perhaps through my own fault, I’m skeptical of the motives behind much of what comes out of the Evangelical camps of Christianity. Perhaps I’m wrong. I’d like to be wrong. My own experience has shown there’s always some hidden agenda: the conversion of souls behind these acts of altruism. Not all Christian charities are so driven, such as many of the Catholic charities, but my experience within the Evangelical world leaves me less than inspired. I might be wrong. I hope so, for the sake of humanity. I hate seeing people’s misfortunes being exploited. That is a nearly unforgivable sin, IMO.

 

Confirmation Bias seems to have the same definition as "group think."

There is a relationship, but I think they may operate in slightly different ways. In groupthink, one is motivated though a desire to fit into a group to block certain information, or to bias ones take on something in order to support their participation within that group. That could be towards acceptance within a culture; how they think others may perceive them as conforming or not conforming to their group.

 

But there is also the matter of personal anxiety based on personality. This is where I think confirmation bias has its greatest power. The individual may have a lower “EQ”, or “emotional quotient” to be able to face challenges to the programming of their culture, and seek support for themselves as an individual through irrational means. It’s not a clear line of distinction between the two, as they play off each other in some ways. Individuals are individuals in relation to their culture, so there is always an interplay happening.

 

And this is certainly a danger to be avoided. I myself was born/raised Catholic even being taught in parochial schools for 11 years with no concern for Biblical teaching - yet now I am an Evangelical believer, who studies the Bible regularly. And within Evangelicalism, I have moved from my initial Arminian beliefs to a more Reformed theology concerning salvation. So, I am happy to examine some pre-concieved notions I have regarding religion.

This of course is good. But honestly, how far actually are you willing to examine pre-conceived notions? Do you say this above to assure yourself of your openness, while the whole while working within a framework of comfort within what can be called “orthodoxy”? Are you willing to set aside all preconceptions?

 

If not, are you truly indeed happy to examine your pre-conceived ideas? If not, then I guess I’d like to ask you how this is truly faith? I’d like to believe. I honestly would, but not at the expense of denying the pursuit of understanding. Faith at that cost would be anything but fulfilling spiritually. Can you agree?

 

But I certainly would not jettison the basic belief in God's existence - no more than any scientist would jettison gravity as he/she interprets data or sets up experiments.

Any scientist who would not be willing to jettison any idea in favor of discovery is no longer pursuing science, but is being religious. Gravity is open to examination; is open to debate if warranted. Is God? Are you willing to question that?

 

We still do not know what gravity actually is or how it operates - but we see its effects, we can measure its intensity, calculate its power - we know gravity exists!!!

Huh? Quick reference to Wiki on Gravitity:

“Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, in which gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime, which governs the motion of inertial objects”

I think we know a great deal about gravity - more than God, actually. Exactly how do you think we plotted the courses of all our spacecraft?

 

That knowledge - along with applying the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics - allows us to have & further develop a correct understanding on our physical world.

 

So Christians operate this same way when it comes to approaching Bible study and interpreting its truths.

Oh surely not!! Physics is a measurable, testable field of science. Hermeneutics is like trying to compare the art of poetry with measuring the tensile strength of metals as equal! They have nothing to do with each other! Are you kidding?

 

These superficial comparisons created to give credence to religious preferences are best left unstated. They only serve to discredit it.

 

So, therefore, when people deny God's existence and other basic truths - then the approach being used - though couched under the guise of scholarship - is simply akin to a scientist denying basic physical truths - it amounts to quackery.

This sounds logical, but it’s not. First, someone questioning God’s existence is not the same as “denying God’s existence”. That is framing the argument to discredit someone who is open to not being beholden to a creed in favor of looking at truth wherever it may lead. I don’t deny God’s existence. Scientists should not deny God’s existence. Scholars should not deny God’s existence. No one should, if they hope to be objective in any way, shape, or form.

 

This is very unlike those who you cite who start with a premise that denies any possibility that God may not exist. You have stated so yourself. Who exactly is lacking objectivity here? Who exactly is being religious?

 

The rest you say about “quackery” is rejected, since your entire premise if flawed.

 

This is also in response to your statements of "I prefer the critical approach... suited better for me. I have a different set of interests... and hence why I feel it more than appropriate for me to choose an approach that works better with the goal of what this all is for me. My motives are the appreciation of life and the respect of knowledge... " All of this again demonstrates that you also have approached Scripture with a set of conditions or parameters.

Well, I will admit to approaching scripture with a certain point of view. This is certainly true. I wouldn’t call it a “set of conditions or parameters” however. I approached it with belief initially. Like you. I wanted it to be true. However, in the pursuit of understanding, of looking for truth within it; looking for confidence of faith, looking for strength, hope, love, and life itself as is promised, I found instead the flaws, inconsistencies, and all too human fallibilities that was all about me in the world we all live in.

 

My point of view about scripture was not the result of some sort of cultural predisposition towards it, like you have. But was in fact the result of finding it to not live up to the mythical status afforded it by the theologians, the conservative “scholars”, the preachers, Sunday school teachers, and who have you within the religion.

 

In looking at critical scholarship, I find a point of view that best explains it. It doesn’t lay a value judgment against it in my views. That’s much more a matter of how one chooses to see it in the light of knowledge. That is the religious choice. Personally, I see no reason someone can’t accept that the Bible is a creation of Bishops seeking to place the new-found Christian faith in some fictional Epic of intention of a god, and still have some connection with its myths. But that may be a bit much for your average “believer” to process. (Hence the rise of fundamentalism).

 

All I am asking is that you admit your own biases, which you cherish

This is weak, and I’m calling you on it. It’s a sly aside meant to discredit. I should say you are projecting here, but will resist. I don’t cherish my views. They are simply where I find myself on my road pursuing growth and understanding. They are subject to change with whatever information presents itself, which is why I left Christianity. Can you claim the same?

[Antlerman]

- and you know you have them - and I don't castigate you for having them. But you seem unwilling to admit what is obvious; that you've adopted some assumptions which have led you to your superior conclusions that are in keepng with your ideas.

What seems obvious to you is skewed by your biases. I don’t fit your expectations.

 

It seems to me you wish to simply swipe away my objections by claiming they are driven by my biases (let alone the sly aside calling them “superior conclusions” – I make zero conclusions). I’m finding myself wanting to call you a creator of straw soldiers, tailored to you to effectively do battle with. I’m not this soldier of straw you make.

 

And yet, you also criticize conservative scholars, because you say, "to me conservative scholarship is about providing support for its assumptions in the interest of preserving traditional views." Does this statement reveal respect and honor for conservative scholarship? And haven't you made an assessment of their motive?

Perhaps I am being unduly harsh. I will admit to some personal issues surrounding my former respect for those who offered support to me in my ‘groupthink’ biases. I had looked to them as a source of confidence in my adopted theologies, and having found the fruits of that to be flat, discovered the weaknesses and cracks in the pavement of their teachings to the point that the entire edifice collapsed around me; leaving me in the rubble of ruin.

 

Yes, I suppose I have a dislike for them. Having once had faith in it to find it built on sand… yes there is personal disappoint and a certain cynicism towards them. However I do make an effort to merely apply healthy skepticism instead.

 

How about you? Why your cynicism against critical scholars? Do you have personal history, or is it just bias protecting a “cherished belief”?

 

And yet, when I have read books and articles of conservative scholarship - there's plenty of critical thought about the true meaning of a particualr passage - and a willingness to challenge previously and widely-held interpretations of respected Christian scholars.

Yes, but only within the boundaries of “orthodoxy”. Not what I’d call objective scholarship.

 

So while there is certainly agreement in essentail Christian beliefs - there is diversity in secondary areas of doctrine & practice. In fact, we have a saying which you may have heard; "In essentials - unity; in non-essentials - liberty."

I’m familiar with this “tenant of faith”. It’s weak in its application, and also betrays its religious bias against testing a belief outside “orthodoxy”. You simply cannot claim to have evaluating your beliefs objectively and come to a conclusion that supported them. You simply cannot. You are bound to stay within prescribed boundaries.

 

This is in stark contrast with the pursuit of objective scholarship.

 

You want to saddle others with a criticisms of "group think" and of only desiring to support their assumptions - and yet that is exactly what the Jesus Seminar and the self-proclaimed "critical scholars" have practiced.

I have criticized the Jesus seminar as not being too far afield from the conservative scholar in their approaching their research beholden to certain religious ideals. Perhaps you missed my several paragraphs on that?

 

It is a statement of faith to say that; "Why I prefer a critical approach to the conservative one is because its potential for yielding new insights is far greater. And with greater insights come a greater potential for effective understanding of the world..." This assumes new insights are better insights, or more correct insights.

To a degree, yes it is a faith that with new knowledge “can” come greater insights. Certainly! How is this deniable??? It’s not a case of “all or none”! It frankly irritates me the intellectual dishonesty that resorts to exaggerations of extremes to rebuff a claim. Of course not all new ideas are good. I’m not ignorant. Yet… it my assessment, the conservative is all about knee-jerk reactions against any new idea that potentially challenges their traditional ideas. That is precisely in fact why they are called “conservative”. They are all about conserving the past!

 

To run you off at the pass, I would not say that being “progressive” is about rejecting the past. I’d say it’s about no feeling beholden to the past. And that is simply and ideological approach. You do recognize this?

You state; "It’s my worldview, that the world is multifaceted, multi-layered, multi-dimensional, brilliant and beautiful, sublime, and terrifying, and inspiring. The experience of this nature cannot be known while disregarding perspectives, including your own here, as “wrong”." Though you may not be able to see the world in this way while disregarding certain perspectives - does not mean others cannot.

Your wording is a little confusing here. I was saying that it’s my worldview that the world is multifaceted, etc… and that I can’t see how one can appreciate this when they are seeing perspectives other than their own as “wrong”. I’m not sure how you’re disputing this. Are you saying you do see it as multifaceted, and that you respect and embrace diversity as beautiful, instead of heretical and wrong? I’d love you to say that was true.

 

I believe that God's wisdom and intellect created this world with all its diversity of life and landscape, that He created the various people-groups which developed diverse cultures; that He gave us the ability to comunicate through spoken language, music, sex, sign language, etc. that in His image & likeness we create other people, music, art, technology, etc. And all the while - I am very comfortable with disregarding and discounting perspectives and belief-systems which are simply incorrect.

Simply incorrect. That smacks of presumption and arrogance – very unchristian. Simply incorrect from whose point of view?? I hope you don’t say God’s, because you are bound to only an interpretation of what that may be, and that therefore is you and your thoughts.

 

“Judge not, lest you be judged. For with which judgment you judge it shall be meted unto you.” Yes, there is value in scripture.

 

Is there anything in science which we know can certainly, or even plausibly, account for the diversity and abundance of life, beauty, harmony, love, etc?? The answer is "NO" - which is why respected scientists such as Dr Watson (of the Watson & Crick double-helix) have placed their stake on panspermy to explain the presence of life on Earth. So I also deny that life evolved spontaneously from non-life on Earth, because it's not true. But this doesn't lessen my appreciation of Earth or life on this planet.

And if it was true… then what? What happens to your faith then?

 

I’ll leave that at that, as I could easily dissect the errors of what you are saying above, but the most salient point is about how you approach faith. Would you believe if in fact, there was no miracle event that spawned life on this planet?

 

Please answer this for me. I would sincerely like to hear you honest answer.

 

However, an infinite God could - and did - easily design and create this world.

There’s no evidence of this; that this “God” did this. Behe’s irreducible complexity has been thoroughly discredited. Anyone better?

[Antlerman]

And now I strive to understand how God is working, what is His purpose, how has He crafted this world to maintain itself by secondary causes (Physical Laws), how various peoples have chosen to interact with one another - and why; AND above all else - how is God going to take all the pain/suffering/cruelty and whatever else could be placed in this categry - and turn it around for ultimate good - and all for His Glory!!

Ironically, in a way, so am I. Not in how you frame it, but I’m all about understanding what it is in humans that drives them to create God in their own image. Not in some sort of criticism of our “ignorance”, but quite the opposite! What it is in our natures that moves us beyond mere function to imagine ourselves above our physical natures. Why it is we imagine a God as the embodiment of our beings; a projection of ourselves on a cosmic scale.

 

These are ennobling pursuits, something that I find embracing the pursuits of science and reason as the ultimate ideals to leave us short of something that has and is very much a part of our human natures.

 

But when you assume no God, ergo assuming the Bible is simply a human book, containing Massianic myths developed to accomplish a social experiment - then conclusions generated by such "critical" scholarship or gatherings like the Jesus Seminar are predictable.

The Jesus Seminar didn’t draw on ideas of social interest.

 

I don’t assume the Bible is “simply a human book”. I see that it is the result of human enterprise to fit what the data is to be a far better model of explanation than that of “miracle”.

 

It’s the exact same thing with life on this planet. Magic, is unnecessary to explain it. Same thing with the Bible. “Magic” (or miracle if you prefer) fails to explain it very well. Natural causes, like the physical/biological world, has far greater explanatory powers than supernatural interventions from a spiritual realm, evidenced only through myth stories. Natural explanations work, and there is no need to conclude it defies explanation. Therefore, it’s not an assumption. It’s a desire to understanding it and find the best model of explanation. Magic is a part of faith, not a thing of evidence.

 

And examining the lives of the progenitors of new philosophies and/or relgions or political systems is absolutely meaningful and valuable. How the founder of Judaism (Abraham) and Christianity (Jesus) and Mohammad (Islam) and Conficius, and Buddha, and Marx, and Satre, and L.Ron Hubbard, etc. are crucial to understanding the inherent value and efficacy of that particular worldview.

Ahh.. I do believe it is meaningful to examine the origins of the religion, but I would argue that Jesus was not the progenitor of the Christian religion! Likewise I would argue against the stories of the ancient Hebrews as having been founded by a singular person, Abraham. No, not at all.

 

The value of understanding the origins of Christianity, and Judaism which Christianity co-opted as their epic, is to understand the underlying foundations of our culture today upon which emerged. The processes of mythmaking which created the Jewish Epic, and later the Christian Epic as well, stealing the Jewish one following the destruction of the temple and the demise of the temple-state upon which it had been founded, offers us insights into the place of the myth in our society today. What its relevance may be, how it may be harmful, what it informs us of ourselves.

 

So in a sense, we agree.

 

If we cannot respect the life and character of the founder, how can we respect his system.

Maybe it doesn’t have anything to do with the person the founding figure was created around, but more about the myth itself? I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on that, if you can allow yourself to consider that the Jesus you know is the production of mythmaking. I don’t see that it being a myth, necessarily means it has no value.

 

I’m really interested to hear if you can entertain thoughts like this, or if you will simply choose to reject thinking like this because it doesn’t fit within the borders you have laid down through ideological choices.

 

Granted - followers of all systems have not been faithful and its easy to find evidence where professed followers have deviated severely from a myriad of systems. BUT to examine the life/character of the founder - absolutely fair game. Thus the encouragement to read "The Intellectuals."

Nonsense. Sartre is not a founding figure like Jesus. This is like the Christian trying to discredit Darwin in their hope to dismantle the Theory of Evolution. This is merely a projection of the Christian belief in “authority”. The book you suggested merely works off that false premise. Not worth my time.

 

And listing accomplishments of various religions is definitely confirmatory of the strength, efficacy, and/or truth of the leader and message.

But not as evidence that it’s theologies is correct! There are lots of other explanations as to why it may offer positive things. This is completely lazy intellectually and false to suggest it validates in any way the belief that the narrative in the Gospel of Matthew is either factual history, or ordained directly from a god. That’s weak. There are lots of other entirely reasonable explanations that come long before – Miracle!

 

The effect of a philosophy on its adherents - and in turn - its immediate surroundings and the world itself is a valid means of confirming the worth if the philosophy/religion.

That’s a separate argument from validating the “historical accuracy” of the Gospels or that Jesus was the founder of a new religion. My argument would be the Christianity was the product of social formation that used the figure Jesus as the basis for their mythmaking enterprises.

 

That that myth has some positive qualities to it, would not come as much of a surprise in that it survived! It’s like saying a squirrel must have come from God because it effectively lives in its environment. No, that’s just the nature of “survival of the fittest”. The Christian myth is here, because humans created something that worked! Not much a miracle, beyond a testimony to human ingenuity and creativity.

 

Why is Islam still here? God?

 

 

 

Now that was long... even for me.

[Lady Wolf]

That's an invalid question, it assumes that a falsehood is true.

 

The bible is the "word of truth".

 

The "sword of the spirit" is the word of God.

OK so fine, the Bible is not all of the word of God. But that's not the question. Of this "word of truth", as you called it, as Neon asked, is it 100% necessary for it to be 100% literally factual for it to have value to Christians? In other words, if you found out that there never was a real Nicodemus who Jesus said you must be "born again" to, would the story cease to have value to you?

 

That's a pretty straight forward question. Any other Christians are also welcomed to offer their thoughts to this as well.

 

Ok...in that case, I'll jump in here. I say that it depends on what the canon of the 66 really is. In other words...define inerrant. By that I mean, inerrant by who's interpretation. For instance, if the canon of the 66 was given to us as symbolic examples of how to live our lives, is it innerant because it is merely alagorical or parabolic much like Jesus's teachings? Or is it innerant because it is a work of man, influenced by errant man? If the former, than I believe that it should be taken at face value for the symbolic lessons that it holds for us, but if the later, than no it should not be held as inerrant, but rather as one would hold any book of fiction. There may be a few grains of truth or knowlege to be gleaned from it, but it should not be held as gospel truth.

[Antlerman]

That's an invalid question, it assumes that a falsehood is true.

 

The bible is the "word of truth".

 

The "sword of the spirit" is the word of God.

OK so fine, the Bible is not all of the word of God. But that's not the question. Of this "word of truth", as you called it, as Neon asked, is it 100% necessary for it to be 100% literally factual for it to have value to Christians? In other words, if you found out that there never was a real Nicodemus who Jesus said you must be "born again" to, would the story cease to have value to you?

 

That's a pretty straight forward question. Any other Christians are also welcomed to offer their thoughts to this as well.

 

Ok...in that case, I'll jump in here. I say that it depends on what the canon of the 66 really is. In other words...define inerrant. By that I mean, inerrant by who's interpretation. For instance, if the canon of the 66 was given to us as symbolic examples of how to live our lives, is it innerant because it is merely alagorical or parabolic much like Jesus's teachings? Or is it innerant because it is a work of man, influenced by errant man? If the former, than I believe that it should be taken at face value for the symbolic lessons that it holds for us, but if the later, than no it should not be held as inerrant, but rather as one would hold any book of fiction. There may be a few grains of truth or knowlege to be gleaned from it, but it should not be held as gospel truth.

I'm going to combine what you said over in the in another thread with this one as it directly relates to this topic. Here:

 

I have many struggles with the cannon of 66 that Christianity holds to be God's word. The reason why, is because of the glaring differences in God between the OT and the NT. Either He is two different people, or he is bi-polar...or what is written down comes from a controling agenda. With that said, I also believe there are many thing in this book that we can learn from and especially in the NT. There is much to be gleaned on how to love each other and live our lives as peacefully and with fairness and justice as we can. I also don't hold to the innerancy of it, simply because I have seen in my own life time the many different translations that have come about. Especially the interpretive ones! Common sense tells me that if the Bible can change this much just in my short life span, I KNOW it has changed much more than that before I was even thought of.

 

Speaking of common sense, I hold to beliefs that within that framework. I'm not talking about science vs. supernaturel or things of the physical nature, rather I'm speaking to straight common sense as it pertains to how one thing holds up against another. If it doesn't hold water, I simply don't believe it. Of course, this is after careful study and much prayer about it, but I don't hold to things that don't have any common sense. Such as the docrin of Hell as most of Christianity views it. Why would God punish for all eternity? What would be the point? Even Jesus when He descended into Hell was only there for 3 days. If He was supposed to take our punishment, then He would still be there would He not? Now that does not mean that I don't believe in a JUST God who will somehow reconcile sin with justice.

Regarding the glaring differences between the OT and the NT you see, this is nothing new. In fact going way back to the first couple centuries of the Christian church beginning to take shape, there was a Christian who said exactly that whose name was Marcion. Of course he was branded a heretic by another group of Christians who later became the favored flavor of the emerging religion which became what they called themselves "orthodox".

 

But the point remains, not everyone saw things the way the proto-orthodox group saw things, and he saw the God of the OT as a separate god altogether, and that Jesus came from another god, to save us from that "evil" one of the OT. It may seem strange or "wrong" to most Christians today who have been taught one point of view as the "delivered truth", but when you stop to realize that these people, along with the proto-orthodox group, were in the process of forming their various views, you see a world of not deviations, but emerging, new, competing ideas. There was no Church, no one single belief like what was formed later through purging.

 

Some like to try to suggest that there wasn't enough time for these stories of Jesus to evolve into mythologies, and therefore they must be historical facts, but then how do they account for the huge and widely differing views that existed if they were so close to the single truth source that started it all? It apparently wasn't too little of time for them to come up with some very different ideas. What picture we can see today is that these were all various groups each forming their own social experiments, drawing from the symbols and myths of their cultural surroundings into their own schools of thought centered around a founding figure of a Jesus teacher, imagining him in various ways such as a miracle man, others a simple sage like teacher, others an apocalyptic prophet, others a cosmic being between heaven and earth, others the Jewish messiah, etc, all tailor fit to meet their needs as social groups living within their respective areas.

 

Books were written tying these disparate traditions together into a narrative story arc, which formed the basis for other narrative stories based off that one, each adding bits that pertained to their purposes, etc. Some of these were chosen to be added into a collection of books which supported the basic views of one of these groups of Christians, while they rejected many books that other Christians groups used. Even within the proto-orthodox group there was disputes over the inclusion and exclusion of books that were widely popular, like the Apocalypse of Peter, which got excluded, or the Apocalypse of John which got included.

 

There was hardly any Holy Spirit intercession going on in the selection of these books, many of which are widely recognized by non-conservative scholars to not be the writings of whom they purport to be (see dialog above between Ray and me). This collection of books then became its own part of the mythology: that of an Epic story of Christianity, tying the new, upstart religion back deeply into Jewish history by co-opting the OT and re-interpreting it as containing the "hidden" story of Jesus going all the way back to the very Creation in Genesis!

 

So all that to get to my point... even so, even recognizing that this is the mythological product of human beings... would that being a fact make its myths ineffective, irrelevant, in need of discarding, etc?

 

You have just stated above that, "if the later, than no it should not be held as inerrant, but rather as one would hold any book of fiction. There may be a few grains of truth or knowlege to be gleaned from it, but it should not be held as gospel truth." I'm not so certain that to call a mythology that is tied so deeply into culture, which shapes our thoughts, our language, etc can be reduced to calling it "fiction", like a novel one might buy at Barnes and Nobel. Mythology is something that cultures use, and use effectively knowing full well they are stories. But the Christian one, seems to tie it to this notion of history so tightly, that they are unable to loose it to allow it to function as myth: the very thing it was functioning as, and the reasons for its creation, in its origins.

 

The argument I make is that its not a matter of it be "true" in the sense of factual, but "relevant" as a mythology. That is the important argument. And honestly, I am beginning to believe the whole hoopla about it being literal, is an argument driven to create controversy to deflect attention from this question, the question of its effectiveness as a relevant, symbolic system, thereby alluding to the uncomfortable answer that they perhaps sense - that it's failing. The rise of fundamentalism is therefore the symptom of the implosion of Christianity, like shock waves emanating outward.

[Neon Genesis]

Some like to try to suggest that there wasn't enough time for these stories of Jesus to evolve into mythologies, and therefore they must be historical facts, but then how do they account for the huge and widely differing views that existed if they were so close to the single truth source that started it all? It apparently wasn't too little of time for them to come up with some very different ideas.

I never understood this argument because you see it happening all the time with other religions. Take the case of cargo cults. Cargo cults are a relatively recent phenomenon. They started out when planes flew in from other countries to these islands and the people assumed the planes must be magical, so they created a whole religion around it. But already there's serious doubt as to whether or not John Frum ever lived and no one can agree on who John Frum actually was. Going by such logic, the xtians must also believe that cargo cults are historical fact. Maybe there's some historical basis for the myths of the bible just like the airplanes from other countries formed the real life basis for the cargo cults but that doesn't mean there's anything supernatural behind it. If this can happen to modern religions because of some mundane event like an airplane landing, there's no reason to believe it can't happen with Christianity but some Christians just love to play special pleading. Imagine what things like this must have been like in the first century where people were even more gullible than they are today.

[today]

I have just one question for Christians to answer. Why must the bible be the 100% literally true and perfect, inerrant word of god for the bible to have any value to it?

 

thats the problem most christians take the blble literal, it is a book of symbols, signs, commentary's, and parables,

most christians dont even read the bible for themselves they just aggree with what is spoken from the pulpit with out even looking at the word of God much less meditating on the sciptures

 

i have asked many christians (lay person and bible scholar)

did god create evil and this is what i have heard

 

evil is a perversion of good

satan created evil (satan is not even a person the stongs and the lexicon says satan greek/hebrew is advisary)

 

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

jesus spoke only in parables to the people and the disciples

 

Mat 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

 

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

 

Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

 

Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

 

you get the ideal

 

the bible is a wealth of knowledge you just have to read and let the spririt lead

[rayskidude]

It's so good to back in the USA - travelling has it's adventures, but there's no doubt that being in the USA presents what's best on this planet. There's a reason why so many people from all over this planet still want to emigrate to America - it is our freedoms and opportunities. Many people all over the world also acknowledge that the Americans they have met have been the most trustworthy that they've ever come across. It is a fact that millions of US Christians voluntarily give billions of USD each year to provide the necessities for others. Therefore, it is disappointing to see people default to a cynical estimation of Christian missions.

 

I would also add that seking the conversion of others to Christianity MUST BE the primary motivation for Christian missions - for any temporal motivation to be our primary motive would be the height of hypocrisy on our part. To know what we know about what God has revealed re: Himself and the salvation that He offers, and then to eliminate this or give it some secondary importance would be tremendously cold-hearted on our part. The eternal must take presedence over the temporal; and the long-term impact must also be more highly regarded than the short-term effects.

 

Re: the "irreproducible complexity" of Behe >> this certainly has not been discredited, except by those who are philosophically opposed to anything outside of a completely materialistic worldview. There has yet to be any serious proposal about how the DNA/RNA molecules, which are the blueprint of life, to have come into any meaningful existence without the prior presence and functioning of a complex protein/nucleic acid interaction of ribosomal and tRNA biochemical interactions. Even the Miller experiments are no longer seriously cited for evidence for the origin of life - since we now know the proposed ancient atmosphere was different than what Miller used, Miller produced "weird" amino acids in a racemic mix, and there is no explanation for how life would have developed from a racemic mixture of amino acids to use and produce only L-amino acids.

 

Marcion was declard to be a heretic by orthodox Christainity BECAUSE he was a heretic. Marcion was teaching unBiblical doctrines, its just thst simple. Is it possible that anyone could be a heretic? Or is heresy simply a fanciiful term that has no real significance?

 

Exactly how gravity is mediated is still unknown - some have proposed gravitons (similar to photons) or even a cosmic ether. Of course we see how gravity operates, but we don't know how. And we also don't know its nature. Light is EM radiation with both a wave and particle component - what is gravity's nature? We don't know; maybe String Theory will answer that question - but it's still an unanswered question.

 

I just finished a good book, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism - by Greg Beale. I highly recommend his work to anyone seriously interested in this issue.