jar - On Christianity

I have a book that purports to be the "true" biography of James Bond. Truth or fiction? Who says the Bible is "masquerading" as truth?
I'll ask again: Do you need a neon sign flashing "---> FICTION <---"? The "true" biography of James Bond strongly implies - i.e. states flat out - that the author interviewed James Bond in person. Treasure Island strongly implies that Jim Hawkins was an eyewitness.
Truth or fiction? There's a good reason why second-hand testimony isn't acceptable in a court of law - it's unreliable. A lot of writers write good dialog. Good dialog is not a sign of "truth".And what about the dialog that they most likely didn't witness - e.g. the trial(s)? Maybe the message of Jesus should be central to your faith.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Comparing books of fiction to the writing of the Bible is not the point in my view. Of course I read the Bible differently than I would Treasure Island. It wasn't all second hand and this isn't a court of law. In all likelihood at least Matthew and John witnessed the trial. Also Mark collaborated with Peter who was at the trial.How do you read the Bible? Do you see any validity in any of it? Is it just a book of good moral teachings or is it not even that? Is there any divine inspiration anywhere in it? If so; how much? Is any of it to be taken literally? Is Jesus God incarnate, a prophet, a good man or did He even exist at all.How would YOU answer those questions?All of these questions come have to considered in reading the Bible. I see the creation story and other many other OT stories as being true metaphors but I read the story of the crucifiction as being a fair and accurate account. If there are inexactitudes in it then they are IMHO minor and unintentional. Is it scientific? No. Fair enough. It is. However what Jesus did on the cross is a huge part of the message.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

GDR: Look at you. Suddenly you want Bible authors to use artistic license.But artistic license is the thing you deny. You have been insisting that Bible statements about Jesus are literal fact. Otherwise they are false. There is no other choice.You have made youself very clear about this.You insist that Bible statements be literal. So let's get literal.The issue is not what the name Emmanuel means. The issue is what Jesus' name was.Isaiah says 'and they will call his name Emmanuel.'Now--for $64,000 and that round trip for 2 to the Promised Land--what was Jesus' name?Edited by Archer Opterix, : No reason given.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

But why? Our standards should be higher, not lower. It seems to me that we have threads in the Bible Inaccuracy and Errancy Forum that suggest that the trial itself is historically implausible - a bit like Alice's trial beyond the looking-glass. Are you paying attention at all? I see the Bible as much more valid than a mere historical document. Yesterday's news is fit for wrapping fish and lining birdcages, but fiction can convey timeless truth. There are good moral teachings in it. There's good poetry in it. There are good adventure yarns in it. There's humour in it. I don't know why you would use the adjective "just". *shrug* I think there's divine inspiration in Hemingway too. Six pounds. (How do you measure "divine inspiration"?) Not much. As I said, it's better than that. Doesn't really matter. It's the message that matters. I've asked other literalists how they separate metaphor from literal truth and I've never gotten a straight answer. How do you? Not really. What He did off the cross was much more important.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

robinrohan: Not common enough, I'd say.And Ringo's my new hero.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I'm not sure, but what I wrote would have been the authors' minimal familiarity. Then Jar says, "That's just what I believe, blah, blah, blah . . . I may be wrong, blah, blah, blah. "Jar "believes" that he understands Jesus' message better than those who lived in that era, in that culture.

Yeah, it's real "nice."

I think they likely belived that they saw parallels. I do not see the parallels when all of Psalm 22 is read. Yes, it can be quotemined just as you did here, but even there the image breaks down.What Jesus said on the cross, IMHO probably quotemined but Jesus would also have been very familar with Psalm 22 and so it is not unreasonable that He said that or something similar. Doesn't sound to me like any foretelling and certainly not like the crucifixion of Jesus.I have never said that they were lying. I don't doubt that they believe they saw parallels, but I don't. Jesus bones were not out of joint, he was not surrounded by dogs, his hands were not pierced.The issue is IMHO what was the purpose of the author of Psalm 22? Frankly it reads like a general lament, one of many such Psalms. I do NOT believe it was written as prophecy.Let me try to return to the question of Map and Territory. On any given Map there will likely be multiple routes from a point of origin to a destination. Very seldom is there only one route.Different people choose different routes, perhaps one because it is more familar, another because it is more scenic, another to pass near a particular secondary destination, yet another because it is a route less traveled. Each choice is valid, none are "the right choice" yet each is the right choice, and each route must be constantly checked against the reality of the Territory.Please walk with me for a moment.Assume for a second that the author of Psalm 22 wrote nothing more than a general lament.Later, the authors of the New Testament saw the parallels between Psalm 22 and the crucifixion of Jesus. They were the ones that then created the connection between the two. It was not created until the authors of the New Testament drew the lines. And it is not really that firm a connection. Many parts of Psalm 22 could be applied equally to either of the other two people crucified that day or to anyone crucified. Some details don't match like all the bones being out of joint (or broken in some translation).In using Psalm 22 as prophecy lying? No, I don't think so. Is your belief that it is prophesy wrong? No, I don't think so. If it serves you as a marker, a guide, on YOUR Map then that is fine. It falls in the area where we cannot test it against the Territory and it does not harm.This is quite different from other cases. For example the prophecy about Tyre when compared to the Territory is simply wrong. There we do have clear references that can be checked. Here though it is more a question of "what were the beliefs of the various authors and what meaning do you draw from the Map?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Those who lived in that era, in that culture crucified Jesus. How "understanding" is that?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I mean whoever wrote the Bible.

You don't necessarily get the best view of the forest by pressing your nose up against one tree. Sometimes distance gives a better perspective.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I would agree. As a matter of fact I've always thought that Jesus said that on the cross in order to make the connection between what was happening then and what had been foretold in the OT. I'm not a medical person but it is my understanding that bones do come out of joint under those circumstances. His mouth was certainly dry as it even tells about in the Biblical account. His hands and feet being pierced sounds awfully close. (I know it was his wrists but my understanding is that the original language can be translated either way.) As for the dogs let's just call it metaphor, I don't really know. That quote from Psalm 22 sure creates a picture very much like the crucifixion, and as I mentioned Jesus even quoted from it on the cross which indicates that He certainly saw the connection.As far as the map is concerned I agree that there are other maps than the Bible or even Christianity. I do believe however that the idea of having a map is to get to a destination and that destination is Jesus.I think that Christianity provides the clearest map and that the Bible gives us the clearest route to the destination.Having said that I also believe that God has written on the hearts of everyone, (as Paul writes about in Romans), a map that leads to the destination. Other faiths that teach as an underlying principle the concept of love of others can be used as a map.I do believe that Psalm 22 is prophetic. Is it perfectly so -- no. I have no doubt that the writers of the Gospels saw the connection between the crucifixion and Psalm 22, and that they would be sure to include the details that paralleled Psalm 22, but that is not the same thing as attributing to the Gospel account something that wasn't said or didn't occur. To be honest I have never been all that concerned about Biblical prophesy in general as to how accurate their predictions were. In general I just accept that there is a reason that they are there whether they occurred as forecast or not. The Bible has to be read in total context and there are certainly cultural interests and ambiguities in the telling of God's interaction with his creation.For myself I'm just trying to be what God wants me to be today, to ask for forgiveness for what is past and to seek His assistance to be more what He wants me to be tomorrow.Edited by GDR, : Changed title

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Except in some special case, where there is a secret agenda which is later exposed, we understand less and less about a person's intentions
as the years accumulate. His contemporaries and those who were his near-contemporaries understood Jesus' utterances and actions far better than we can because they were much more aware of the context of his remarks, the references he made which are lost on us, the traditions, the laws, and so on.To give an example, Brian's thread on the incident with Barrabas is intended to painstakingly investigate what would have been well-known to anyone who lived in that time and in that area. Brian can only conclude that it was "highly unlikely" that such a tradition existed. A contemporary would have known for certain.

What, after all, are we to do with such passages as this?Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.Jesus seems to be saying he's paying for sins with the shedding of his blood. Jar wants to ignore such passages because it doesn't make sense to him. He wants to "modernize" the ideas so that it WILL make sense to him. He turns Jesus into a good-humored party-going liberal suburbanite who thinks we "have to learn to love ourselves"--ideas straight out of modern pop culture. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

I am not the focus here - Jar is.He claims that the way a person fulfills the First Commandment is by loving ones neighbor.The error here is the conflation of the First and Second Commandments.The ONLY way to fulfill the First Commandment, that is, love an invisible and untouchable God is to do what pleases Him. Hebrews 11:6 says ONLY faith pleases God, therefore, if we continually trust Him by N.T. faith (and in the Greek pisteo (faith) is a verb and not a noun) then we are pleasing God, and thus loving Him, and fulfilling the First Commandment.The only way to have faith in God is to act on a promise found in the Bible until God brings it to pass in ones life.As Jar is fond of saying, "it is really just as simple as that".Ray