|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:13 pm
Nebulance divineseraph Nebulance This is a key issue for Christians: Do we interpret the Bible (or specific passages in it) literally, as an allegory, or as a text skewed by the culture of the time? Most Christians are comfortable with taking most of the Bible literally, but there are some passages that cause a lot of debate, such as: -The Creation Account (inclusion of blatant symbolism allows a possible case for dismissing this passage as clearly intended to be read as allegorical/symbolic) -The Fall of Man (key theology may rest on this) -The Flood (exactly how many animals did Noah fit into exactly how much space?) -Jonah and the Whale (this is hardly a theological issue, but for some, stories like this cast legitimate doubt on all seemingly-literal accounts) -Paul's Discussion of Gender Roles (Outdated? Should we dismiss the rest of Paul's theology with this, or simply exercise our own judgement?) -Passages dealing with Homosexuality (possibly dismissed by reinterpretation of the original script) Looking at these passages now, it seems that we can get around tough passages by interpreting them as allegories in the Old Testament and as culturally skewed in the New Testament. Is it instead rationally possible to interpret all of these passages as literal? If not, what methodology should we use to decide how to interpret a particular passage? Most of the bible seems to be a guide to healthy living, written 2-3000 years ago, depending on which part we're looking at. These include things like foods to eat- Pork would kill you back then, they didn't know how to cook it and bleed the pig right. Same with shellfish. Actually, most of it was a guide of what they HAD eaten and therefore knew to be safe, so it was more like process of elimination rather than directly saying "shellfish is evil"- that's why it's written "Anything in the water that doesn't have scales or fins" or whatever. This said, we now know how to do these things in ways that won't kill us. So these parts of the bible are irrelevant. The relevance comes in divine law, which is basically the 10 commandments and other such rules. Basically, the point of all of these is the golden rule of "Do unto others". Well, the reason most Christians view those laws as outdated is because we are now under the New Covenant, and that is the Old Covenant as laid out in the Old Testament. 'Most' is more than a bit of an exaggeration, btw. Also, this doesn't deal with the thorny passages of the Old and New Testaments that I mentioned. True. To get more specific to what you had posted, symbolism. It's pretty clear that the world is more than 10,000 years old. The last two fall under the "How not to die" category.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:36 pm
rmcdra Nebulance Well, this is what I meant by 'taking the Bible in context as a bunch of allegories'. I'm curious, does this include viewing the life of Jesus as a myth? How does that change the faith? There is a historical Jesus and a mythic Jesus. For me if I was shown the bones of Jesus and there was no doubt that those bones were his. I would still believe in his resurrection and ascension. I would still say that Jesus is the son of God. This is because I on a personal level understand and am still in the process of understanding the new Covenant that the historical Jesus was trying to bring us and his disciples wanted to tell us in their personal understanding of his message. I'm not sure I understand this. How exactly are the mythic and the historic separated? What does it mean to believe Jesus rose from the dead and ascended in the mythical but not in the historical sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:05 pm
Nebulance rmcdra Nebulance Well, this is what I meant by 'taking the Bible in context as a bunch of allegories'. I'm curious, does this include viewing the life of Jesus as a myth? How does that change the faith? There is a historical Jesus and a mythic Jesus. For me if I was shown the bones of Jesus and there was no doubt that those bones were his. I would still believe in his resurrection and ascension. I would still say that Jesus is the son of God. This is because I on a personal level understand and am still in the process of understanding the new Covenant that the historical Jesus was trying to bring us and his disciples wanted to tell us in their personal understanding of his message. I'm not sure I understand this. How exactly are the mythic and the historic separated? What does it mean to believe Jesus rose from the dead and ascended in the mythical but not in the historical sense? Because we are made in God's image. It's describing a process that we go through as we grow into our faith. When I was called to Christianity, I had to experience the death and resurrection of Christ within myself. I haven't experienced the ascension but I know that it's there because I know the Kingdom exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:07 am
rmcdra Nebulance rmcdra Nebulance Well, this is what I meant by 'taking the Bible in context as a bunch of allegories'. I'm curious, does this include viewing the life of Jesus as a myth? How does that change the faith? There is a historical Jesus and a mythic Jesus. For me if I was shown the bones of Jesus and there was no doubt that those bones were his. I would still believe in his resurrection and ascension. I would still say that Jesus is the son of God. This is because I on a personal level understand and am still in the process of understanding the new Covenant that the historical Jesus was trying to bring us and his disciples wanted to tell us in their personal understanding of his message. I'm not sure I understand this. How exactly are the mythic and the historic separated? What does it mean to believe Jesus rose from the dead and ascended in the mythical but not in the historical sense? Because we are made in God's image. It's describing a process that we go through as we grow into our faith. When I was called to Christianity, I had to experience the death and resurrection of Christ within myself. I haven't experienced the ascension but I know that it's there because I know the Kingdom exist. So... is God allegorical? Because if He isn't real in a historical sense, who's behind the 'allegory' of the Bible and why would you value it? And if God is real, then how do you view His nature? Is He a Trinity (or however you want to interpret Father, Son, and Spirit as described in the Bible)? If not, how do you know anything about His nature?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:27 am
Nebulance rmcdra Nebulance rmcdra Nebulance Well, this is what I meant by 'taking the Bible in context as a bunch of allegories'. I'm curious, does this include viewing the life of Jesus as a myth? How does that change the faith? There is a historical Jesus and a mythic Jesus. For me if I was shown the bones of Jesus and there was no doubt that those bones were his. I would still believe in his resurrection and ascension. I would still say that Jesus is the son of God. This is because I on a personal level understand and am still in the process of understanding the new Covenant that the historical Jesus was trying to bring us and his disciples wanted to tell us in their personal understanding of his message. I'm not sure I understand this. How exactly are the mythic and the historic separated? What does it mean to believe Jesus rose from the dead and ascended in the mythical but not in the historical sense? Because we are made in God's image. It's describing a process that we go through as we grow into our faith. When I was called to Christianity, I had to experience the death and resurrection of Christ within myself. I haven't experienced the ascension but I know that it's there because I know the Kingdom exist. So... is God allegorical? Because if He isn't real in a historical sense, who's behind the 'allegory' of the Bible and why would you value it? And if God is real, then how do you view His nature? Is He a Trinity (or however you want to interpret Father, Son, and Spirit as described in the Bible)? If not, how do you know anything about His nature? When one has seeking to know if God exist and found one's own personal evidence there is no doubt. I found my evidence after 3+ years of seeking. I believe in God because we are made in God's image. We each have God in us. I understand God in terms of the Trinity because we are made in his image. God is just like God's described and taught, a God of Light and Agape. When one has seen the Light they will know that God first loved them. But this is my evidence and unfortunately it's not proof, but it's the reason why I am a Christian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:07 am
rmcdra Nebulance rmcdra Nebulance rmcdra Nebulance Well, this is what I meant by 'taking the Bible in context as a bunch of allegories'. I'm curious, does this include viewing the life of Jesus as a myth? How does that change the faith? There is a historical Jesus and a mythic Jesus. For me if I was shown the bones of Jesus and there was no doubt that those bones were his. I would still believe in his resurrection and ascension. I would still say that Jesus is the son of God. This is because I on a personal level understand and am still in the process of understanding the new Covenant that the historical Jesus was trying to bring us and his disciples wanted to tell us in their personal understanding of his message. I'm not sure I understand this. How exactly are the mythic and the historic separated? What does it mean to believe Jesus rose from the dead and ascended in the mythical but not in the historical sense? Because we are made in God's image. It's describing a process that we go through as we grow into our faith. When I was called to Christianity, I had to experience the death and resurrection of Christ within myself. I haven't experienced the ascension but I know that it's there because I know the Kingdom exist. So... is God allegorical? Because if He isn't real in a historical sense, who's behind the 'allegory' of the Bible and why would you value it? And if God is real, then how do you view His nature? Is He a Trinity (or however you want to interpret Father, Son, and Spirit as described in the Bible)? If not, how do you know anything about His nature? When one has seeking to know if God exist and found one's own personal evidence there is no doubt. I found my evidence after 3+ years of seeking. I believe in God because we are made in God's image. We each have God in us. I understand God in terms of the Trinity because we are made in his image. God is just like God's described and taught, a God of Light and Agape. When one has seen the Light they will know that God first loved them. But this is my evidence and unfortunately it's not proof, but it's the reason why I am a Christian. I feel like you're avoiding my questions. Taking most of the Bible as an allegory may work. But God needs to be real for any of it to matter. If He is real, is He the God described in the Bible? If He is the God in the Bible, does that not include a historical Jesus?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:07 pm
Nebulance This is a key issue for Christians: Do we interpret the Bible (or specific passages in it) literally, as an allegory, or as a text skewed by the culture of the time? Most Christians are comfortable with taking most of the Bible literally, but there are some passages that cause a lot of debate, such as: -The Creation Account (inclusion of blatant symbolism allows a possible case for dismissing this passage as clearly intended to be read as allegorical/symbolic) -The Fall of Man (key theology may rest on this) -The Flood (exactly how many animals did Noah fit into exactly how much space?) -Jonah and the Whale (this is hardly a theological issue, but for some, stories like this cast legitimate doubt on all seemingly-literal accounts) -Paul's Discussion of Gender Roles (Outdated? Should we dismiss the rest of Paul's theology with this, or simply exercise our own judgement?) -Passages dealing with Homosexuality (possibly dismissed by reinterpretation of the original script) Looking at these passages now, it seems that we can get around tough passages by interpreting them as allegories in the Old Testament and as culturally skewed in the New Testament. Is it instead rationally possible to interpret all of these passages as literal? If not, what methodology should we use to decide how to interpret a particular passage? people take the bible how they want to because most are not willing to accept the fact that the bible tells them something they must do to be a christian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:19 pm
xXlittlepuppyXx Nebulance This is a key issue for Christians: Do we interpret the Bible (or specific passages in it) literally, as an allegory, or as a text skewed by the culture of the time? Most Christians are comfortable with taking most of the Bible literally, but there are some passages that cause a lot of debate, such as: -The Creation Account (inclusion of blatant symbolism allows a possible case for dismissing this passage as clearly intended to be read as allegorical/symbolic) -The Fall of Man (key theology may rest on this) -The Flood (exactly how many animals did Noah fit into exactly how much space?) -Jonah and the Whale (this is hardly a theological issue, but for some, stories like this cast legitimate doubt on all seemingly-literal accounts) -Paul's Discussion of Gender Roles (Outdated? Should we dismiss the rest of Paul's theology with this, or simply exercise our own judgement?) -Passages dealing with Homosexuality (possibly dismissed by reinterpretation of the original script) Looking at these passages now, it seems that we can get around tough passages by interpreting them as allegories in the Old Testament and as culturally skewed in the New Testament. Is it instead rationally possible to interpret all of these passages as literal? If not, what methodology should we use to decide how to interpret a particular passage? people take the bible how they want to because most are not willing to accept the fact that the bible tells them something they must do to be a christian. Stereotyping Christians is just as inaccurate as stereotyping a gender. More so, probably. I believe in the veracity and authority of the entire Bible, and I don't just ignore incovenient sections. This also means I have some unpopular beliefs... but I'm not a hyprocrite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:01 pm
...
Gnostics are here!
...
blaugh
Anyways, it could be said that we are to conform our lives to His teachings and He is not to conform tom ours, as many do in these days.
As for how we interpret Sacred Scripture, well, go and study Hermeneutics. It helps and its not something ionly your Pastors, Teachers or Priests should know. Its something everyone who reads the Sacred Scriptures should do as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:09 pm
Nebulance I feel like you're avoiding my questions. Taking most of the Bible as an allegory may work. But God needs to be real for any of it to matter. If He is real, is He the God described in the Bible? If He is the God in the Bible, does that not include a historical Jesus? I'm sorry if I'm coming off as avoiding your question. Why does a historical Jesus matter? A historical Jesus probably would not be as convincing to follow as a mythic Jesus. I'm still convinced God exists, that Jesus was the son of God, and that he died for my sins, though are understandings of this is probably going to be significantly different since we are interpreting the Bible in different ways. Historically though, I have my doubts about him being the son of God and God incarnate, but mythically he is the Son of God and God incarnate and that myth has a significance to my understanding of the God as described in the Trinity. You do realize that myth does not mean that something is false right? Does there have to be a historic Adam and Eve for the creation story to matter? My tradition and personal opinion says no. The truths of the creation story in Genesis are still present regardless of it's historical accuracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:36 pm
rmcdra Nebulance I feel like you're avoiding my questions. Taking most of the Bible as an allegory may work. But God needs to be real for any of it to matter. If He is real, is He the God described in the Bible? If He is the God in the Bible, does that not include a historical Jesus? I'm sorry if I'm coming off as avoiding your question. Why does a historical Jesus matter? A historical Jesus probably would not be as convincing to follow as a mythic Jesus. I'm still convinced God exists, that Jesus was the son of God, and that he died for my sins, though are understandings of this is probably going to be significantly different since we are interpreting the Bible in different ways. Historically though, I have my doubts about him being the son of God and God incarnate, but mythically he is the Son of God and God incarnate and that myth has a significance to my understanding of the God as described in the Trinity. You do realize that myth does not mean that something is false right? Does there have to be a historic Adam and Eve for the creation story to matter? My tradition and personal opinion says no. The truths of the creation story in Genesis are still present regardless of it's historical accuracy. -If God does not actually (and past tense, 'historically') have the nature described in the Bible (Jesus as God Incarnate, the Father as the Creator), why did He describe Himself that way? -If your answer is that it was to show us certain truths through allegory/myth, and if you don't take the Bible as historically accurate with regards to God's nature, how did you deduce that God (actually, historically) wants to show us those truths in that way? -Aren't you just taking a document that was written with the seeming intention of being taken historically (as opposed to mythically in the sense that you're using it), and subjectively assuming that it is meant to be interpreted mythically, instead?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:19 pm
Nebulance -If God does not actually (and past tense, 'historically') have the nature described in the Bible (Jesus as God Incarnate, the Father as the Creator), why did He describe Himself that way? Because we are made in his image. As above, like below and as below, like above. Quote: -If your answer is that it was to show us certain truths through allegory/myth, and if you don't take the Bible as historically accurate with regards to God's nature, how did you deduce that God (actually, historically) wants to show us those truths in that way? Because what I have experienced so far and in building my relationship with God has been consistent with scripture. This is my reasoning. Quote: -Aren't you just taking a document that was written with the seeming intention of being taken historically (as opposed to mythically in the sense that you're using it), and subjectively assuming that it is meant to be interpreted mythically, instead? There's historical elements in it yes but there are more mythic elements than historical elements. Those mythic elements are key to coming to know God. I very well could be but it makes sense to me personally to take it as such. I hope I didn't make it out that it "had" to be interpreted this way. If I did I'm sorry. I think we are at a point where we must agree to disagree due to coming from different traditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:40 pm
rmcdra Nebulance -If God does not actually (and past tense, 'historically') have the nature described in the Bible (Jesus as God Incarnate, the Father as the Creator), why did He describe Himself that way? Because we are made in his image. As above, like below and as below, like above. Of course, we are made in God's image. So why wouldn't He describe Himself accurately? Quote: Quote: -If your answer is that it was to show us certain truths through allegory/myth, and if you don't take the Bible as historically accurate with regards to God's nature, how did you deduce that God (actually, historically) wants to show us those truths in that way? Because what I have experienced so far and in building my relationship with God has been consistent with scripture. This is my reasoning. Just to be clear: -You don't think the Bible is (completely) historically accurate because...? -But you can tell that there is Truth in it. -And so you label it 'mythical' Truth (not trying to make fun of you here, this would be a logical conclusion). So I guess my question is on the first point. Quote: Quote: -Aren't you just taking a document that was written with the seeming intention of being taken historically (as opposed to mythically in the sense that you're using it), and subjectively assuming that it is meant to be interpreted mythically, instead? There's historical elements in it yes but there are more mythic elements than historical elements. Those mythic elements are key to coming to know God. I very well could be but it makes sense to me personally to take it as such. I hope I didn't make it out that it "had" to be interpreted this way. If I did I'm sorry. I'm not saying they're can't be mythic elements in it. I'm asking how we know that elements are mythic in it when they are written in a seemingly historical narrative. Quote: I think we are at a point where we must agree to disagree due to coming from different traditions. I'm willing to continue-- I apologize if I seem hostile, I'm just a very aggressive debater-- and I'm not trying to disprove your viewpoint, just understand whether it is one that I can consider logically consistent. I'm quite open to considering other beliefs, but that includes a lot of questioning. I've questioned my own beliefs just as harshly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:19 am
Nebulance rmcdra Nebulance -If God does not actually (and past tense, 'historically') have the nature described in the Bible (Jesus as God Incarnate, the Father as the Creator), why did He describe Himself that way? Because we are made in his image. As above, like below and as below, like above. Of course, we are made in God's image. So why wouldn't He describe Himself accurately? Try to describe God? It's pretty hard because not only is God part of everything but simultaneously transcends everything as well. It would be like trying to explain nuclear physics to a three year old. A three year old would not be able to comprehend everything. The Trinity I believe is the most concise and accurate description of God since it reflects who we are fundamentally. Quote: Quote: Quote: -If your answer is that it was to show us certain truths through allegory/myth, and if you don't take the Bible as historically accurate with regards to God's nature, how did you deduce that God (actually, historically) wants to show us those truths in that way? Because what I have experienced so far and in building my relationship with God has been consistent with scripture. This is my reasoning. Just to be clear: -You don't think the Bible is (completely) historically accurate because...? -But you can tell that there is Truth in it. -And so you label it 'mythical' Truth (not trying to make fun of you here, this would be a logical conclusion). 1. Try to rationally explain that the events that are described in are 100% factual when there is historical evidence that points to contrary. facts in the creation story, the debatable history of the exile of the Hebrew people from Egypt, the debatable history of Kingdom ruled by King David, the lineage of Jesus, just to name a few. 2. Yes because spiritual literature in my experience is talking on a deeper level and is trying to convey more than just historic fact but may use events in history to convey particular ideas about who we are and why we are here. 3. Yes because they convey the message of who we are and why we are here and those messages are consistent with my experience of my inward journey to come to know God. So I guess my question is on the first point. Quote: Quote: Quote: -Aren't you just taking a document that was written with the seeming intention of being taken historically (as opposed to mythically in the sense that you're using it), and subjectively assuming that it is meant to be interpreted mythically, instead? There's historical elements in it yes but there are more mythic elements than historical elements. Those mythic elements are key to coming to know God. I very well could be but it makes sense to me personally to take it as such. I hope I didn't make it out that it "had" to be interpreted this way. If I did I'm sorry. I'm not saying they're can't be mythic elements in it. I'm asking how we know that elements are mythic in it when they are written in a seemingly historical narrative. Because the OT was written in a historical format to serve another purpose besides spirituality. There was also the goal of uniting the Hebrew people so they could be a distinct culture from the other various cultures in there surroundings. Again I'm no bible scholar but this is what I've come to realize so far and I'm willing to change my opinion if I'm wrong because that would be a treasure I would need to drop. Quote: Quote: I think we are at a point where we must agree to disagree due to coming from different traditions. I'm willing to continue-- I apologize if I seem hostile, I'm just a very aggressive debater-- and I'm not trying to disprove your viewpoint, just understand whether it is one that I can consider logically consistent. I'm quite open to considering other beliefs, but that includes a lot of questioning. I've questioned my own beliefs just as harshly. I wasn't sure. Thank you for your patience and I don't mind continuing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 7:37 am
I think that if someone was a christan then yes they should take thing s as they are wrritten. If they didn't then how could they call themselves christans if there not even REALLY following there belief!
ohh to the person that said ...long as man has a hand on things...
well to me the bible is missing pages i think man has taken it away becuase they were scared of what migth happen to the huamity.
I don't think that its lieing or had been rewritten, because all of the bibles are the same!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
