The Bible vs. Denominational Creeds

[Meriweather]

For me, the Book of Revelation is a prime example of all the above--and therefore I cringe when I read some literal interpretations of it. Revelation is a fine example of apocalyptic literature, a very popular style of the time. It was directed at the audience living at the time it was written, and they understood it perfectly--those of us two thousand years later, not so perfectly. All the same, it contains timeless truths, more history than for which it is often credited; and has beautiful, striking allegories, similes, and metaphors that stick in our minds.

And it can mean pretty much anything you want. All of the books were written for a contemporary audience. None of which were written by Jesus apparently. Does that strike you as odd?

And that's the challenge: Not to figure out what one, personally, wants it to mean, but the author's intent.

That we have no writings by Jesus does not strike me as odd, considering the reality of those times. Paper and ink cost a lot of money, and writing took up a lot of time. Further, Jesus' work was among the poor and downtrodden--people least likely to be able to read anything he did write.

 

[Iceweasel]

And that's the challenge: Not to figure out what one, personally, wants it to mean, but the author's intent.

That's like saying interpreting an ink blot is a challenge. It isn't. There is no right answer.

That we have no writings by Jesus does not strike me as odd, considering the reality of those times. Paper and ink cost a lot of money, and writing took up a lot of time. Further, Jesus' work was among the poor and downtrodden--people least likely to be able to read anything he did write.

Oh come on. So why were the gospels written? His followers had more disposable income? The most important story even and Jesus couldn't scrape a few bucks together and spend a little quality time with some parchment? This is the kind of thing that you run into, you have to suspend rational thought to believe anything and the more you think and learn the more difficult it gets.

 

[Meriweather]

And that's the challenge: Not to figure out what one, personally, wants it to mean, but the author's intent.

That's like saying interpreting an ink blot is a challenge. It isn't. There is no right answer.

That we have no writings by Jesus does not strike me as odd, considering the reality of those times. Paper and ink cost a lot of money, and writing took up a lot of time. Further, Jesus' work was among the poor and downtrodden--people least likely to be able to read anything he did write.

Oh come on. So why were the gospels written? His followers had more disposable income? The most important story even and Jesus couldn't scrape a few bucks together and spend a little quality time with some parchment? This is the kind of thing that you run into, you have to suspend rational thought to believe anything and the more you think and learn the more difficult it gets.

There is a right answer but one has to research the history and the culture of the times. I am not clear on what you envision Jesus should have written, and why you might assign it greater credibility than you would the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? Say, for example, we had a piece of parchment in Jesus' own handwriting that said, "Rose from the dead today after being crucified on Friday. Must remember to tell the Eleven to preach the good news of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, and that I plan on sending the Holy Spirit to them in a few weeks."

What, if anything, would that change for you...and why?

 

[Iceweasel]

There is a right answer but one has to research the history and the culture of the times. I am not clear on what you envision Jesus should have written, and why you might assign it greater credibility than you would the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? Say, for example, we had a piece of parchment in Jesus' own handwriting that said, "Rose from the dead today after being crucified on Friday. Must remember to tell the Eleven to preach the good news of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, and that I plan on sending the Holy Spirit to them in a few weeks."

What, if anything, would that change for you...and why?

Everyone says they have the right answer so they can't be right. The Jesus character could have written his sermons down. Surely they would have been valued enough to hang onto and maybe copy. If the message was important it is a glaring omission that it wasn't done and left to memory some 30 years later by others, in another language.

 

[Meriweather]

There is a right answer but one has to research the history and the culture of the times. I am not clear on what you envision Jesus should have written, and why you might assign it greater credibility than you would the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? Say, for example, we had a piece of parchment in Jesus' own handwriting that said, "Rose from the dead today after being crucified on Friday. Must remember to tell the Eleven to preach the good news of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, and that I plan on sending the Holy Spirit to them in a few weeks."

What, if anything, would that change for you...and why?

Everyone says they have the right answer so they can't be right. The Jesus character could have written his sermons down. Surely they would have been valued enough to hang onto and maybe copy. If the message was important it is a glaring omission that it wasn't done and left to memory some 30 years later by others, in another language.

I disagree that it was a glaring omission. I have read that in those days (before microphones) that speakers were placed throughout the crowd so that everyone could hear what was being said. People were expected to repeat exactly what was said. Remember, even while alive, Jesus sent disciples forth with his message. Word of mouth, not written material, was the order of the day. The sermon's were not left to a thirty-year memory, but rather to the words that were still be repeated thirty years later. Thirty years of the same oral message probably gets someone to thinking, "Hmm, this may be important enough to future generations to now put into writing."

Being only two days old (as far as this forum is concerned), I don't know what you see as a great difference. Are the differences all that great, or just different shades of the same truth? An example might help me.

 

[Iceweasel]

I disagree that it was a glaring omission. I have read that in those days (before microphones) that speakers were placed throughout the crowd so that everyone could hear what was being said. People were expected to repeat exactly what was said. Remember, even while alive, Jesus sent disciples forth with his message. Word of mouth, not written material, was the order of the day. The sermon's were not left to a thirty-year memory, but rather to the words that were still be repeated thirty years later. Thirty years of the same oral message probably gets someone to thinking, "Hmm, this may be important enough to future generations to now put into writing."

Being only two days old (as far as this forum is concerned), I don't know what you see as a great difference. Are the differences all that great, or just different shades of the same truth? An example might help me.

So they repeat the messages thirty years, and into another language and someone gets the bright idea to write it down? And that makes sense to you?

What differences are you alluding to? All we know is what was translated and modified from one generation to the next about what someone says they heard.

 

[Meriweather]

I disagree that it was a glaring omission. I have read that in those days (before microphones) that speakers were placed throughout the crowd so that everyone could hear what was being said. People were expected to repeat exactly what was said. Remember, even while alive, Jesus sent disciples forth with his message. Word of mouth, not written material, was the order of the day. The sermon's were not left to a thirty-year memory, but rather to the words that were still be repeated thirty years later. Thirty years of the same oral message probably gets someone to thinking, "Hmm, this may be important enough to future generations to now put into writing."

Being only two days old (as far as this forum is concerned), I don't know what you see as a great difference. Are the differences all that great, or just different shades of the same truth? An example might help me.

So they repeat the messages thirty years, and into another language and someone gets the bright idea to write it down? And that makes sense to you?

What differences are you alluding to? All we know is what was translated and modified from one generation to the next about what someone says they heard.

Also keep in mind the early Christians believed...The End is Near...they expected to see Christ return during their lifetime. (Some things haven't changed in over two thousand years. ) When first generation Christians began dying off, and as the Word began spreading and being accepted in other lands, it made simple sense to write it down.

I was wondering about the differences you spoke of, specifically which differences seem most telling to you?

 

[Iceweasel]

Also keep in mind the early Christians believed...The End is Near...they expected to see Christ return during their lifetime. (Some things haven't changed in over two thousand years. ) When first generation Christians began dying off, and as the Word began spreading and being accepted in other lands, it made simple sense to write it down.

I was wondering about the differences you spoke of, specifically which differences seem most telling to you?

Yes, I know that's the spin. And rather the point. Supposedly Jesus knew so that's all the more reason he should have written stuff down instead of leaving it to distant memory and retellings of events and words. Especially since Greek was taking over as a language to the point many Jews didn't know Hebrew or Aramaic.

I don't know what differences you are referring to, I don't remember the entire conversation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

modern Pharisees from the far right like Ninja bring some light relief to the Board.

Jesus chuckled when He read it, "Oh, that Ninja just works too hard."

 

[Meriweather]

Also keep in mind the early Christians believed...The End is Near...they expected to see Christ return during their lifetime. (Some things haven't changed in over two thousand years. ) When first generation Christians began dying off, and as the Word began spreading and being accepted in other lands, it made simple sense to write it down.

I was wondering about the differences you spoke of, specifically which differences seem most telling to you?

Yes, I know that's the spin. And rather the point. Supposedly Jesus knew so that's all the more reason he should have written stuff down instead of leaving it to distant memory and retellings of events and words. Especially since Greek was taking over as a language to the point many Jews didn't know Hebrew or Aramaic.

I don't know what differences you are referring to, I don't remember the entire conversation.

If Jesus is given credit for knowing, perhaps he knew it would be recorded accurately?

Christian denominations do have differences. Do you believe those differences are great or small?

 

[Iceweasel]

If Jesus is given credit for knowing, perhaps he knew it would be recorded accurately?

Christian denominations do have differences. Do you believe those differences are great or small?

So the fact that he didn't write anything down is the evidence that it was written down accurately? That's circular reasoning.

Yes, denominations differ as much as people do. Been there, done that and have the tee shirts to prove it.

 

[Meriweather]

If Jesus is given credit for knowing, perhaps he knew it would be recorded accurately?

Christian denominations do have differences. Do you believe those differences are great or small?

So the fact that he didn't write anything down is the evidence that it was written down accurately? That's circular reasoning.

Yes, denominations differ as much as people do. Been there, done that and have the tee shirts to prove it.

Not evidence, a hypothesis. Backing up the hypothesis, is that many have put Christ's teachings to work in their own life, and found that they were sound. Do differences in belief (if they are not too great) matter all that much?

 

[Iceweasel]

Not evidence, a hypothesis. Backing up the hypothesis, is that many have put Christ's teachings to work in their own life, and found that they were sound. Do differences in belief (if they are not too great) matter all that much?

Many have put Muslim and Hebrew and Buddhist and whatever beliefs in their life and found them to be sound. You don't really know what Jesus taught or if there even was a Jesus. Josephus, the historian, wrote extensively on daily Jewish life and was a contemporary of the time and said nothing about the temple drapes being rendered in half or the sun's blackout, earthquake or the 500 or so death folks that popped out of their graves.

Philo said nothing about it either or Jesus or the movement and he wrote quite a bit about a new Jewish way of thinking. In fact, I think it's where the gospel writers got a lot of their thoughts.

 

[Meriweather]

Not evidence, a hypothesis. Backing up the hypothesis, is that many have put Christ's teachings to work in their own life, and found that they were sound. Do differences in belief (if they are not too great) matter all that much?

Many have put Muslim and Hebrew and Buddhist and whatever beliefs in their life and found them to be sound. You don't really know what Jesus taught or if there even was a Jesus. Josephus, the historian, wrote extensively on daily Jewish life and was a contemporary of the time and said nothing about the temple drapes being rendered in half or the sun's blackout, earthquake or the 500 or so death folks that popped out of their graves.

Philo said nothing about it either or Jesus or the movement and he wrote quite a bit about a new Jewish way of thinking. In fact, I think it's where the gospel writers got a lot of their thoughts.

There are other reasons not to include the items you mention. There are also reasons for Matthew to include them in his account.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Bible is an inspired guide, nothing more, to the true Christian who leans on his relationship with Jesus and listens to His promptings more than be contained by mens' writings.

 

[Iceweasel]

There are other reasons not to include the items you mention. There are also reasons for Matthew to include them in his account.

That's an evasion. Josephus couldn't be bothered with all that when he wrote prolifically about daily life in the small Hebrew community? That lacks credibility. The book attributed to Matthew was filled with errors taken from the imperfectly translated Septuagint. He obviously couldn't even read Hebrew.

 

[Meriweather]

There are other reasons not to include the items you mention. There are also reasons for Matthew to include them in his account.

That's an evasion. Josephus couldn't be bothered with all that when he wrote prolifically about daily life in the small Hebrew community? That lacks credibility. The book attributed to Matthew was filled with errors taken from the imperfectly translated Septuagint. He obviously couldn't even read Hebrew.

Josephus was writing a history of his people, not some small offshoot of it. A small offshoot cult was what Christianity was at the time of Josephus, and he gives little mention of it, apparently dismissing it as of no importance.

The beauty and the ingenuity of Matthew's Gospel was to write it as an overlay of the Old Testament, showing how Christ is the fulfillment of Old Testament writings. By knowing Christ, one could have a working knowledge of the Old Testament; by knowing the Old Testament, one could have a working knowledge of Christ's life and teachings.

I wouldn't say Matthew's Gospel is filled with errors as much as I would say that Matthew worked foreshadowing and parallels into his literary format. Keep in mind that modern skeptics of Christ skeptics scoff that a good author could use the Old Testament to foreshadow and parallel the life of a rooster. Still, for those who believe in Christ, Matthew did a masterful job writing his Gospel. Even so, anyone who wants accuracy and greater clarity of the Old Testament should not use Matthew's Gospel as their primary source. For that matter, even some of Paul's Old Testament quotes are not exact, either.

 

[Iceweasel]

There are other reasons not to include the items you mention. There are also reasons for Matthew to include them in his account.

That's an evasion. Josephus couldn't be bothered with all that when he wrote prolifically about daily life in the small Hebrew community? That lacks credibility. The book attributed to Matthew was filled with errors taken from the imperfectly translated Septuagint. He obviously couldn't even read Hebrew.

Josephus was writing a history of his people, not some small offshoot of it. A small offshoot cult was what Christianity was at the time of Josephus, and he gives little mention of it, apparently dismissing it as of no importance.

The beauty and the ingenuity of Matthew's Gospel was to write it as an overlay of the Old Testament, showing how Christ is the fulfillment of Old Testament writings. By knowing Christ, one could have a working knowledge of the Old Testament; by knowing the Old Testament, one could have a working knowledge of Christ's life and teachings.

I wouldn't say Matthew's Gospel is filled with errors as much as I would say that Matthew worked foreshadowing and parallels into his literary format. Keep in mind that modern skeptics of Christ skeptics scoff that a good author could use the Old Testament to foreshadow and parallel the life of a rooster. Still, for those who believe in Christ, Matthew did a masterful job writing his Gospel. Even so, anyone who wants accuracy and greater clarity of the Old Testament should not use Matthew's Gospel as their primary source. For that matter, even some of Paul's Old Testament quotes are not exact, either.

Josephus was an observant Jew, contemporary historian and the temple drapes being torn would be worthy of attention. The earthquake, day into darkness, lots of dead folks walking around, etc. is something a historian would take note of. And he was quite prolific.

Some guy reported to raise the dead, walk on water, feed thousands with a little bread and fish, turn water into wine, etc, etc. would not be going unnoticed in a small close knit community. Philo too was silent on it and knew some of the Bible characters, lent Herod money.

The author of Matthew couldn't read Hebrew and relied on the Septuagint, mistaking Isaiah's account of a young pregnant woman as a virgin and the story had nothing to do with a coming messiah for all time. He used the story to create a contemporary narrative that was heavily influenced by Greek thought by applying deeper meanings to past events. Churches do that to this day.

 

[Taz]

The Bible is a buffet, pick and choose whatever you want, and if there's something you end up not liking, just leave it on the plate and go get another one. The wider you cast your net, the more money you'll make - Jesus.

 

[Meriweather]

The Bible is a buffet, pick and choose whatever you want, and if there's something you end up not liking, just leave it on the plate and go get another one. The wider you cast your net, the more money you'll make - Jesus.

That's a bit cynical, is it not? The Bible is a very large book, covering a great number of topics. It is not all about any single individual. It's a matter of discerning which teachings relate to one's life and circumstances--and which do not.

Grin, I don't think Jesus said, "The wider you cast your net, the more money you'll make," I believe it was, Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves."