Biblical/Religious Questions

Those who believe the Bible is inerrant believe it is without error. Just because a person does not believe the Bible inerrant does not mean they believe it is unreliable. Many, many Christians, probably most, feel the Bible must be read as an ancient text with some hyperbole and myth included.

I am merely stating a fact - that many scholars believe there was another source, called Q, for the writings we call Matthew and Mark.

The best evidence that the message, not the specific verbiage, is important is a comparison of certain aspects of the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew, Mark and Luke all give their descriptions, but there are telling variations in the words they attribute to Jesus. The Judge Not provisions of Matthew are distinguished from the Condemn Not provisions of Luke. If we cannot depend on two of Jesus' apostles to quote him identically, we cannot depend on any of it to be absolutely correct.

That doesn't mean it's not a true story, just that some parts of it probably are not true, or at a minimum, inaccurate.

 

You mean these verses?

Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. "

Seems pretty identical to me. Granted, Luke provides more, but he was considered more detail oriented. Because these accounts were taken from different eye-witnesses, I think it's more reassuring that the differences were subtle while the message remained the same. If they were completely identical, one would have to assume a single author (or editor) as in the reasoning for the mysterious Q.

 

Two eye witnesses produce differing texts. The message is the same. The point is that the message is correct, but the words used to describe the message vary. The message is more important than the words used to express it.

If two of Jesus' apostles can't agree on what he said, if both remember it sort of the same, but different in the details, it tells us not to hang on every detail. It also tells us each author wrote from a perspective.

You choose to believe these guys were all being guided by the hand of God, doing only what he wanted, and in doing so created the library of ancient texts you call the New Testament. I choose to believe Paul was a man who added things to the message that Jesus never spoke. And such has been much of Christianity since shortly after Jesus departed: People making up stuff to implement their world view of social issues.

h e l l, we wouldn't be having this discussion if Henry VIII hadn't wanted to get his freak on with Anne Boleyn.

 

here's a perspective from an online site

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jsem.htm



The Jesus Seminar is a group of academic theologians who study Christian writings from the 1st to 3rd century CE, from a religiously liberal perspective. They are composed of members with "Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and independent" backgrounds. 1 Their initial goal was to determine what Jesus really said. Their second goal was to describe what Jesus really did.

In the past, liberal and mainline religious academics have lectured, written articles in specialist journals, attended conferences and debated among themselves. They have taught generations of mainline and liberal divinity students. But their conclusions have rarely filtered down to the public.

"The public is poorly informed of the assured results of critical scholarship, although those results are commonly taught in colleges, universities and seminaries. In this vacuum, drugstore books and slick magazines play on the fears and ignorance of the uniformed." 2, Page 34

The Jesus Seminar attempts to change that through its conferences, press releases, books, webpage, 1 etc. The goal is: "to bring the quest of the historical Jesus of Nazareth to the center of a global forum." 1 That is, to extract what the participants have concluded to be the actual words and actions of Jesus from ancient writings, and present these to the public.

Their conclusions differ greatly from what Christian denominations have historically taught. They are also in major conflict with the current beliefs of most present-day conservative Christians. Fellows of the Seminar do not regard Christian Scriptures as inerrant. They do not believe that the authors were uniquely inspired by God. Rather, they view the Bible as a very human document, composed by writers who actively promoted their own theological beliefs (or those of the group to which the writers belonged). The Seminar sees within early Christian writings the evolution of religious thought. The fellows study this over the approximately 28 decades from the time of the execution of Jesus (circa 30 CE) to about 310 CE. They see many passages in conflict with each other and with the historical record.

The techniques used by the Jesus Seminar are often called by the theological term biblical criticism: "the study of the sources and literary methods employed by the biblical authors." 3 A better term for biblical criticism might be "biblical analysis." Theologians who use it to study the Bible are not criticizing (in the common sense of that term). They are analyzing the Bible in order to improve their understanding of it.

 

here's the nuts of it

 

Mr.gootan, doesn't this quote strongly support my case against not faith alone. And it certainly doesn't destroy my argument against works being a whole constituent of your life, not just individual actions. Life is long, it is not lived in a day. And as far as you mocking communion, you only mock the bible, since that is where the sacrament is taken from. OR do you only choose to believe some parts of the Bible and the ones that don't make sense you just leave out?

 

No double post necessary, I read it fine.

Doesn't it seem ironic that this group accuses Paul of adding his own beliefs and meanings to the words of Jesus when this group can be guilty of the same charge? At least in Paul's case, there were still people alive that could refute his errant teachings based on their own eye-witness accounts. Who would this group allow to question their methods?

Regardless, let's say they (and you) are right. What beliefs, what agenda did Paul accomplish to propagate through his writings that is distinct from the words of Jesus? What did Paul gain (or hope to gain) out of it? I'm genuinely interested.

 

Way to help an unbeliever man, c'mon you're better than that.

 

This group I assume means the Catholic Church? When do we accuse Paul of adding his own meaning to the words of scripture? I'd like some documentation please. Do you think the Catholic Church is some big boogeyman big brother type character? Why do you accuse me of this, and I'd like to see where I did it. You have the King James version of the bible, you know the one the king of England told some writers to make pretty. The Catholic church's New American version is based off of the one the Benedictine Monks protected throughout the dark ages.

So, you aren't even making a point, quite honestly I don't even know what you are talking about.

 

the answer to that question is the same as it is for any man anywhere any time: he was a man

Osama bin Laden believes he is doing the will of God and properly interpreting Mohammed. No different than what Paul did.


Paul was interested in building the church, so he worked on the "rules", making it up as he went along. Some of what he wrote was good, but much of it is hogwash. He's probably responsible of half the evil done in the name of Christianity.

 

No, because I quoted it out of context. These are the people who are thrown in the lake of fire. I only quoted it to magnify your ignorance of what the Bible says as compared to what you believe.

This will only lead to another discussion about interpretation vs. ramifications. But if you want to post those relevant verses, I guess we can discuss it some more.

Although I was trying to be cutesy and funny, I knew you could take offense to that wording. I apologize for that. I'm actually very glad you're posting your faith as openly as you are. You're an answered prayer.

 

Grizzled-

First let me commend you for your spirit of eccumensism. I think that is the real spirit that should be kept up by interlocuters that consider themselves Christian.

Second, let me say that we are working off different translations of the Bible, which I think can really inhibit an argument. Here's How Romans 2 goes in the Catholic Translation....

1Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things.
2
We know that the judgment of God on those who do such things is true.
3
Do you suppose, then, you who judge those who engage in such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?
4
Or do you hold his priceless kindness, forbearance, and patience in low esteem, unaware that the kindness of God would lead you to repentance?
5
By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6
who will repay everyone according to his works:
7
eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8
but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.
9
Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek.
10
But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek.
11
There is no partiality with God.
12
All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it.
13
For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.
14
For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.
15
They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them
16
on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works through Christ Jesus.
17
Now if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of God
18
and know his will and are able to discern what is important since you are instructed from the law,
19
and if you are confident that you are a guide for the blind and a light for those in darkness,
20
that you are a trainer of the foolish and teacher of the simple, because in the law you have the formulation of knowledge and truth--
21
then you who teach another, are you failing to teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?
22
You who forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, do you rob temples?
23
You who boast of the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
24
For, as it is written, "Because of you the name of God is reviled among the Gentiles."
25
Circumcision, to be sure, has value if you observe the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26
Again, if an uncircumcised man keeps the precepts of the law, will he not be considered circumcised?
27
Indeed, those who are physically uncircumcised but carry out the law will pass judgment on you, with your written law and circumcision, who break the law.
28
One is not a Jew outwardly. True circumcision is not outward, in the flesh.
29
Rather, one is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not the letter; his praise is not from human beings but from God.


Now, as to difference of readings, I realize that will happen, but I think you downplay the importance of the fact that faith and alone are not together. The works Paul speaks of simply mean that one cannot be saved by works alone. It takes, as you stated, the two together... I think the Catholic position is to leave it at that, and as you said it is a good starting point for justification.

 

So only people who are bad are judged on works? Seems random and arbitrary to me.

And, if this was real life, I would be much more humble about my faith, but since twhy77 is but a screen name, I feel like it should be a voice of truth.

 

The Catholics believe in evolution but not to the extent that a darwinist would. I'll try to find a link for you LP.

 

I have my own. Why should guys like Paul, and Henry VIII, and John Calvin be the only guys who get to make up a religion?



but seriously ...


I was raised as a Christian, protestant, low end. I know the Bible backwards and forwards, know every argument that every Christian will make before they make.

I've studied the history of religion and philosophy of religion for decades, and feel comfortable saying all have a few gems buried deep within them, not unlike the gemstones surrounded by otherwise worthless igneous rock. After all the mining and grinding, a little is worthy of attention. The rest is just a mess we have to go through to get there.



Jesus, Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucius - I find the common ground and that is my religion.

 

Mr. gootan, from Luke 22

15
He said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer,
16
for, I tell you, I shall not eat it (again) until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God."
17
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, "Take this and share it among yourselves;
18
for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."
19
Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me."
20
And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.
21
"And yet behold, the hand of the one who is to betray me is with me on the table;
22
for the Son of Man indeed goes as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed."
23
And they began to debate among themselves who among them would do such a deed.

Thats where we get communion from.

 

Or, as I liked to call it as a teen, "Sunday Brunch." Tasty, if you were really, really hungry and a little hungover.