What is considered "the Bible" these days?

I freakin' LOVE sriracha sauce, but unless there is some passage declaring sriracha as the rightful sauce of salvation, I have no idea how it is relevant here.

 

No, what it comes down to is your interpretation of what qualifies as old law. Does Jesus mean adhere to the 10 commandments? I'm sure. Does he mean keep sacraficing animals? No. The death of Jesus provides that the ultimate sacrafice was made. See. What is old law refering to here?

I'll be the first to admit that my biblical knowledge is not as extensive as probably some people in this thread but I know I can not read just one line to justify an entire stance. You must read the entire book or thought to grasp the overall thought. That's the problem. How do you justify an entire book's ideas by breaking down just one verse?

 

I'm kinda with LSD.

There alot of ASSUMPTIONS made as to what we should and shouldnt be still adhering to in 'todays world'.

The credibility of a book so many times re-interpretated/translated over untold amounts of years and languages is always going to struggle to be strong.

 

No, Jesus said that the entire law still applied:

Do you have a specific, textually-based refutation of my argument?

 

This irks me about Muslims as well.

The norms shouldn't lead the religion to change. The religion should lead the norms.

Who decides what is based on "the times" and what is not? What differentiates?

Also, Jesus PBUH didn't bring a message for a group of people frozen in time. He brought a message to all humanity and for the future.

If norms take control of religion, religion will dissapear quickly.

 

Thanks, that will be in a sermon probably some day.

 

I think there’s a lot of truth in that. Our society is constantly evolving for a number of reasons - globalization is a current one - and new issues keep coming up, and old issues sometimes come up in new ways. I think some of the same old issues keep coming back as well, however, so I think one probably needs to look at the issues on a case by case basis.

With respect to the Corinthians passage, the key question there is whether that was a reference to something in a specific context or whether it was a universal statement. To find the answer to that you need to look at the rest of the NT to see what it says about women in church, and just women in general.

Here’s one take on Corinthians, but you would have to do more research to really look into this issue.
http://www.gotquestions.org/women-silent-church.html

Here’s another quite clear passage the status of women in general:
Galatians 3
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal 3;&version=31;

 

I think in order to understand everything written, we need to understand the context in which it was written (which is extremely hard thousands of years later). Paul's letter was written to the church in Corinth, so I have always understood that to be directed to that church, not the global church. I could be wrong, because I don't fully understand what was going on in that church at that time.

I think context is so important when you read scripture. Take the great flood. Noah understood that the whole world was flooding, but what was his concept of the world? Surely much different than the concept of the world we have in 2009.

 

but this isn't Jesus...it's Paul talking about church polity. he wrote a ton at makes it clear at points that it's merely his commentary. i find it has value, nonetheless. but i draw sharp distinctions about what paul had to say about church polity from the Sermon on the Mount.

 

Why are your "sharp distinctions" valid? Who decides these things and how are the recitified with the common motif of the "literal word of god"?

I'd hardly think your viewpoint of commentary widely accepted among synod dogma. That would be too close to admitting interpretation and metaphor.

An aside...Good book that is somewhat related:

 

my sharp distinctions are valid to me. i'm not suggesting they need/have to be valid to you. and i'm guessing you know me well enough to know that i could not care less how my views mesh with dogma.

i had an experience when i was 3 that left me alive when no one else afforded me that opportunity...i found God in that as a small child. i have seen Him work in my life and in the lives of others. i believe i understand Him best through the person of Jesus Christ. that's about it. if you're interested in knowing more about what he means to me and why it's been impactful, i'm always happy to share that....if you're not, i'm cool with that too and think you're awesome anyway.

 

Allow me to explain this verse in a different context if I may.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus is saying he didn't come to destroy Mosaic law, but to fulfill the law and the prophesies. When I talk about Mosaic law, I speak of the customs and certain laws put into books such as Numbers and Deuteronomy, not the Ten Commandments. The purpose of the law was put into place to guide God's people until Jesus came to Earth to pay the debt of humanity's sin. When Jesus died on the Cross, he fulfilled and in essence "completed" the law.

Consider this passage in the OT Book of Jeremiah.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.




There was a barrier between God and His people before the time of Jesus in the OT. Jesus came to fulfill the prophesies and was to be the conduit for humanity to communicate with The Lord. To bring all to God's Kingdom who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Notice also when Jesus later says to keep the "commandments" it could mean that Jesus is referring to the Ten Commandments as "The Law". Jesus personally reinforced and added some other thoughts the Ten Commandments.

Jesus clearly broke the Old Law. He angered the pious Jews by healing people on the Sabbath.

Jesus also explicitly said "I only do what I see my Father do" Which means he is carrying out the direct will of God.

The very meaning of the word Christian is to be Christ like.

Therefor, following that logic... most Christians have no problem accepting that the Old Law of the Old Testament was abolished when God created the "New Covenant" through Christ.

 

Well, yes, of course I know that. It's one of the reasons I enjoy talking about it with you.

The point was that while I (naturally) agree with your pronouncement, there appears to be a generic reluctance within the church/christian community to similarly relent. I don't like to make wide-reaching "genericisms", but this one is decidedly valid. And I cannot understand why.

What's so hard about admitting the bible is merely a book? Some may find god in it. Some may find history. Some may find metaphorical stories a la aesop. The simplistic answer is inuitively obvious: that without a decreed and unalterable "truth", the ability to hold captive large segments of the populace is diminished. Questions and introspection don't usually lend themselves to abject submission.

I always find it interesting that jesus often (primarily) uses scripture as a means to put down or otherwise disenfranchise the jewish church leaders and/or system. There is something distinctly ironic in how jesus' command to "pick up your cross and follow me" has (through stringent manipulation and control) become synonymous with "trust the church and read the bible: believe every word".

 

Who knows what personal biases went into some of Paul's teachings.

The dude did not have much use for women.

 

it's very difficult for me to read Jesus' words and read what is written of his actions and not come to the conclusion he was a revolutionary (though not in a violent sense) who constantly challenged authority.

as for the bible...it's more than just another book to me. and the truth is, i think it's more powerful (and definitely more mystical) than the "literal instruction manual" that a great segment of the Church tries to reduce it to. when i hear a pastor compare it to "user's manual/intruction manual" i cringe and my stomach turns...because it's much more difficult than that. it's much bigger than that. at least it is to me. either that, or they're all a helluva lot smarter than i am, because even as i study the context around some of it i'm still left scratching my head thinking, "what does THAT PART really mean???" but i'm ultimately content that God is God, whether I fully understand Him or not.

 

I like all bibles catholic, protestant and the various translations

A group of pastors were once arguing about which translation is the best and they asked me...

I said my problem is not which one is best, but getting people to read one.

I stick to the standard Matthew Mark Luke and John, etc

love the Old testament, cherish the New testament...

the basic cannon is there for all to read...

many men were burned at the stake so that we could have an English bible.

I am grateful

 

yet, i'll tell you that when he equated them with men in the verse that Grizzled quoted above in Galatians, it would have been mind-numbingly revolutionary given the context of the time and place. remember, these are letters. paul never claims his letters were found in a cave and he was unable to read them until he ate his magic beans.

 

also my children love the bible and have no problem understanding the message...

 

I was just trying to win brownie points with the fiancee.

 

I think we are saying the same thing. Just from a different point of view.