How much of the bible is literally true

joe40

This is a genuine question for people who consider themselves christian. How much of the bible (old and new testament) do you believe in a literal sense. I would consider myself catholic but would not agree with many of the teachings of the church, probably like a lot of people.

However listening to bible stories such as Noahs ark, killing first born in egypt, Adam and Eve etc I simply don't believe it ever happened. These aspects of christianity I just don't believe in. So it got me thinking how much can I simply disagree with or downright disbelieve before I have to let the whole thing go. What are other people positions thoughts

minikin

Treat it ALL as didactic metaphor and you won't have any doubts about it's value.
Take the message of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' and disregard the rest - you don't need to believe the fairytales and scare stories (believe this or else...), which simply undermine the core message when viewed by educated people in more enlightened times.

kelly1

Joe, that's a difficult question to answer.

Personally, I think it's ok to take a lot of the stories as allegorical.

We know that the creation of the universe didn't happen in 6 days. But then the bible is not a science book. It should be looked upon as the history of our salvation.

I have doubts that Noah's Ark ever existed, maybe it did. But I think the important idea is that God saves those who live according to his laws and destroy those who fight against him.

In any case the stories you mentioned are from the Old Testament. We Christians place more importance on the New Testament.

joe40

Thats the problem sorting out the allegorical stuff from what you are expected to accept as fact. I'm no bible scholar but most of the teachings in the new testament seem fairly sensible and would provide a good basis for human behaviour. Not to be confused of course with the many man made church teachings which were ridiculous and deeply damaging.

Sleeper12

Not all Christians believe the same thing. Creationalists believe every story is literall. So the world is only a few thousand years old & Noah had dinosaur eggs on the Ark. Others see stories like noahs ark as yes there was a flood of tsunami but the story was embellished and turned into a moral story

Manach

As per Pilate, Quid est veritas?

In short, the Bible is as close to true as possible for the diverse collection of works that compose it from that span of eras. Events that are Myth, one example being Noah's flood, can be linked to regional shared ur-memory and so be used as a means to share a common cultural experience to explain God's judgement. As the historical record became more recognisable, the events and people (flight from Egypt, the time of Kings etc)are used as primary source evidence in standard Ancient histories (with the usual academic in-fighting for interpretation) while the miraculous elements are matters of faith that bind the community of believers then and now. The moral lessons drawn are from the evolved narrative as a whole. Arguably best when viewed through the lens of Church teachings and the Early Fathers of the Church. Either way the Bible has become one of the foundational texts of the West.

Breadsons

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

antiskeptic

minikin wrote: »

.. when viewed by educated people in more enlightened times.

Ha ha.

Bob_Marley

joe40 wrote: »

This is a genuine question for people who consider themselves christian. How much of the bible (old and new testament) do you believe in a literal sense. I would consider myself catholic but would not agree with many of the teachings of the church, probably like a lot of people.

However listening to bible stories such as Noahs ark, killing first born in egypt, Adam and Eve etc I simply don't believe it ever happened. These aspects of christianity I just don't believe in. So it got me thinking how much can I simply disagree with or downright disbelieve before I have to let the whole thing go. What are other people positions thoughts

From Atheists to Fundamentalists, Muslims, Jehovah's, Mormons, Christians to Non Christians, to politicians, to the media to hollywood, most will generally interpret it a la carte whatever way that suits them the most.

A bit like the state's law, lay people, criminals, police, solicitors and barristers can and and do interpret it any way they want to, but the only interpretation that is going to count is the courts.

In old testament times it was Moses, then the Kings and the Prophets, and lastly the Pharisees, and even when they were wrong they were right, you were judged did you hold to it for want of lack of any better authority.

Who's interpretation on earth actually has any authority now ? . . the successors to the apostles.

Who are the successors to the apostles ?

Well that depends on the interpretation of scripture and version of christian history that suits you the most.

Sure take your pick, whatever suits you the most and roll the dice, nearly everyone else does. You're only gambling on eternity.

Peregrinus

I’m not sure the question is all that meaningful.

For a start, the bible contains lots of different texts composed at different times by different people, and for many of them “is it true?” is not really a relevant questions. Psalms, for example, is a book of songs. Are songs “true”? That’s not a question we normally ask. Likewise the Book of Proverbs, which is pretty much what is says on the tin. Proverbs might be wise, or insightful, or useful (or not, of course), but true? Is a bird in the hand really worth two in the bush?

There are many books of prophecy, which mostly take the form of either “carry on the way you’re going, and things will end badly” or “things have already ended badly because of the way you all carried on”. This is commentary on public affairs, basically. You might agree with a commentator or you might disagree with him. You might think he is right or wrong (or you might have no opinion) but, again, we don’t normally classify commentary into true and false.

There are, of course, the history books, which offer an account of (parts of) the history of the people of Israel. The question is a bit more meaningful with respect to them. They cover an immense period, and the early part of it is knowns as the mythic period, which tells you something about truth and falsity. Basically, at the risk of oversimplifying, the earlier the “history”, the less likely it is to be actually historical. The stories in the Book of Genesis - the creation, the fall, the flood, etc - are not historical. At the other end, the two Books of Maccabees are set in the Jewish rebellion against the Seleucid dynasty; that’s definitely a real historical event.

We can’t divide them neatly into stuff which is historically true and stuff which is not; there’s a large amount of material where we really don’t know how historically true it is. Sometimes the story is mixed; the Maccabean Rebellion definitely happened, and Judas Maccabeus, who features in the Books, is a historical character who is attested in non-biblical sources. But it doesn’t follow that every statement made about him in the Books of Maccabees is historically true. And from time to time, as historical and archeological knowledge progress, we have to revise opinions; some stuff which it’s thought might be historically true turns out not to be, but it turns out that other stuff is.

Does historical truth matter, though? Stories aren’t necessarily included in scripture, or regarded as scriptural, simply because they are historically true. For historical truth, you want records, archives, witness accounts, that kind of thing. Stories come to be regarded as scriptural because of what they are taken to mean, and of course in many cases what a story means has very little to do with whether it’s historically true or not. For example, the story about Abraham and his son Isaac is a story about human sacrifice, and the repudiation of the practice by the Jews; also a story about authority and obedience; also a story about father/son relationships. What that story tells us about these things doesn’t depend on whether the story is historically true or not; fables and allegories and parables and novels are often used to express and communicate important things.

So in each case you need to ask whether the historical truth of a particular story matters or not to its religious significance. If it doesn’t matter, why bother asking the question, and why attach any importance to the answer?

santing

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Who's interpretation on earth actually has any authority now ? . . the successors to the apostles.

Who said the apostles had successors? And who gave them authority? And who made this passing on of authority, inheritable? And of how many apostles do we know their successors?

kelly1

santing wrote: »

Who said the apostles had successors? And who gave them authority? And who made this passing on of authority, inheritable? And of how many apostles do we know their successors?

Santing, where do you think the tradition of the papacy came from? There's no point in denying apostolic succession. It's a fact of history.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-succession

[Edit: I'm not getting into a debate about this but I think there was no need to question apostolic succession in this thread]

uck51js9zml2yt

I think it's a case of the OP asking the wrong question.

Is it all inspired by God ? Yes

Is all that's written in it the same? No
Is it all of value in teaching us? Yes.

kelly1

Sandra Gigantic U-boat wrote: »

Is all that's written in it the same? No

Can you clarify what you mean here, please?

Chancer3001

Do people REALLY believe the Jesus stories ?

That he could walk on water ? That he raised people from the dead? That he appeared after death on a road ? That he actually kept reaching into a basket for unlimited bread and fish

Or again , just taking these as symbolic stories ?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

All of the Bible is true. Some of it is fact. Some of it is allegorical. The allegorical parts are those which we don't understand, so the language used reflects this. Remember, the bible is not written as we understand it, as a linear list of events one after another in as we understand Time. God's time is outside time. We can never comprehend this.

Chancer3001

3nyv2t7ab5qmcz wrote: »

All of the Bible is true. Some of it is fact. Some of it is allegorical. The allegorical parts are those which we don't understand, so the language used reflects this. Remember, the bible is not written as we understand it, as a linear list of events one after another in as we understand Time. God's time is outside time. We can never comprehend this.

Forget about airy fairy time paradoxes.

Do you believe Jesus walked on water ? Brought a guy back to life ? Reappeared to talk to a man on a road after he died ?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Chancer3001 wrote:

Do you believe Jesus walked on water ? Brought a guy back to life ? Reappeared to talk to a man on a road after he died ?

Yes

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Christ is God and can do what His Father wishes.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Again, you have to have Faith to believe these things. To one who believes everything is possible. To the one who does not believe, only one thing is certain.

uck51js9zml2yt

kelly1 wrote: »

Can you clarify what you mean here, please?

There are different kinds of writings.
Poetic, narrative, historical, etc
Understanding the type of writing a particular book is aids it's understanding

touts

There is a great podcast that puts all the events and stories in the Bible in a historical context. It has finished the old testament and is making its way through the other books not in our Bible but in other bibles and holy books. It's tag line is All the History in All the books in all the Bibles.

Look up "History in the Bible" podcast

Bob_Marley

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Forget about airy fairy time paradoxes.

Do you believe Jesus walked on water ? Brought a guy back to life ? Reappeared to talk to a man on a road after he died ?

That depends on what you believe, simple enough thing for God to do, but impossible for a mere man.

Were Jesus and the apostles and eyewitnesses : mad, bad, or telling the truth ?
You decide, just as the people in his time did. Some followed him, some crucified him.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Bob_Marley wrote:

Were Jesus and the apostles and eyewitnesses : mad, bad, or telling the truth ? You decide, just as the people in his time did. Some followed him, some crucified him.

Exactly. That's the question He is posing to you now. You have the freedom to decide.

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

Santing, where do you think the tradition of the papacy came from? There's no point in denying apostolic succession. It's a fact of history.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-succession

[Edit: I'm not getting into a debate about this but I think there was no need to question apostolic succession in this thread]

I don't deny that it is a fact of history, but so is Christmas - and it is not 'Biblical.' I enjoy celebrating the birth of Christ, even though I know that the date is absolutely wrong. I don't sympatise with apostolic succession though. It is completely opposed to what the Bible teaches imho.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

santing wrote:

I don't deny that it is a fact of history, but so is Christmas - and it is not 'Biblical.' I enjoy celebrating the birth of Christ, even though I know that the date is absolutely wrong. I don't sympatise with apostolic succession though. It is completely opposed to what the Bible teaches imho.

Look, I'm afraid that you are wrong there. But it's too late to go into it. I'd recommend that you read the gospels carefully.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

Santing, where do you think the tradition of the papacy came from? There's no point in denying apostolic succession. It's a fact of history.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-succession

[Edit: I'm not getting into a debate about this but I think there was no need to question apostolic succession in this thread]

It's a fact of history that the notion of apostolic succession has a long lineage.

That in itself doesn't make apostolic succession a God-initiated fact.

The question arises into the foundation of apostolic succession - one isn't so much interested in the scale of the structure which stands upon the foundation, one is interested in the foundation itself. Because if the latter is unsound, all that stands on it is unsound.


Taking your link. When you look at the foundation (scripture) you find insufficient foundations on which all the rest is built. The verse used, in which Paul exhorts Timothy to pass on the teaching to faithful men, isn't in itself sufficient support for apostolic succession. Faithful men can only be taken to be just that, faithful men. Ordinary men but faithful.

Faithful doesn't mean inerrant. It doesn't mean they become apostles (in the Christ-appointed way)

The piece then goes on to cite a litany of "church fathers". They are the building which stands on the foundation. And so, cannot be utilised to support the argument for the soundness of the foundation.

It seems that the mere longevity of the idea is utilised to argue for the stability of the idea. Which is a nonsense: an building on unsound foundations can stand for as long as the conditions permit it to stand. It isn't relying on the foundations but on favourable circumstances. It will crack and lean and crumble all the same

One could argue that the Reformation, the scandals, the decline of the Church are exactly that.

-

A.S. is as so much of what RC is about. Tradition/longevity/presumption that the scriptural starting point is correct is the chief cornerstone. Scripture itself usually provides scant support.

I can understand why it's scripture + TRADITION. For without the tradition there'd be no basis for the core ideas of RC.

kelly1

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Do people REALLY believe the Jesus stories ?

That he could walk on water ? That he raised people from the dead? That he appeared after death on a road ? That he actually kept reaching into a basket for unlimited bread and fish

Or again , just taking these as symbolic stories ?

It's important to understand that Jesus didn't just make claims (e.g. being the Son of God) and leave it at that. He performed miracles to support his claim:

John 10:38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

The ultimate proof was his resurrection. The arguments for Jesus historical resurrection are quite strong and I would suggest looking up Michael Licona, Gary Habermas, and William Lane Craig.

Bob_Marley

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can understand why it's scripture + TRADITION. For without the tradition there'd be no basis for the core ideas of RC.

Actually without any sound understanding or appreciation of early Christian history, and how Christians traditionally understood and interpreted scripture, you have no basis for any of the core ideas of Christianity. Everything from Arianism to Mormonism to JW's to the Westboro baptists and the thousand of other versions of claimed Christianity, has dumped traditional interpretation. If you refuse interpret scripture in the way Christians always traditionally have, that's what you're going to get. The chief reason Christians today are not all Arianists is because of the direct unwritten knowledge of how the apostles understood what we now call the trinity, which was passed down to the early Church fathers, and who were able to directly quote this knowledge in several generations on. Not everything was written down in early days of the new testament, and scripture even warns of this and requires Christians to also hold to the traditions they were taught.

antiskeptic

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Actually without any sound understanding or appreciation of early Christian history, and how Christians traditionally understood and interpreted scripture, you have no basis for any of the core ideas of Christianity. Everything from Arianism to Mormonism to JW's to the Westboro baptists and the thousand of other versions of claimed Christianity, has dumped traditional interpretation. If you refuse interpret scripture in the way Christians always traditionally have, that's what you're going to get. The chief reason Christians today are not all Arianists is because of the direct unwritten knowledge of how the apostles understood what we now call the trinity, which was passed down to the early Church fathers, and who were able to directly quote this knowledge in several generations on. Not everything was written down in early days of the new testament, and scripture even warns of this and requires Christians to also hold to the traditions they were taught.

Scripture can be considered inerrant and inspired without having to suppose subsequent teaching to be the same. If taking that stance, one cannot but assess tradition for oneself in light of scripture. You cannot suppose that which early Church fathers claim was handed down to them is true - unless you suppose them inerrantly able to receive.

It's beside the point that different people arrive a different interpretations this way. The question is where you decide to draw the inerrancy line.

Bob_Marley

antiskeptic wrote: »

Scripture can be considered inerrant and inspired without having to suppose subsequent teaching to be the same. If taking that stance, one cannot but assess tradition for oneself in light of scripture. You cannot suppose that which early Church fathers claim was handed down to them is true - unless you suppose them inerrantly able to receive.

It's beside the point that different people arrive a different interpretations this way. The question is where you decide to draw the inerrancy line.

Thing is though, yet again everything from Arianism to Mormonism to JW's to the Westboro baptists and the thousand of other versions of claimed Christianity, that have dumped traditional Christian interpretation to suit, will claim their latest interpretation is the one that should now be considered inerrant and inspired.

antiskeptic

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Thing is though, yet again everything from Arianism to Mormonism to JW's to the Westboro baptists and the thousand of other versions of claimed Christianity, that have dumped traditional Christian interpretation to suit, will claim their latest interpretation is the one that should now be considered inerrant and inspired.

Some will indeed claim their theology the one true one. Others, like me, will suppose a never ending quest to mine closer approximations to the truth - supposing it won't ever neccessarily be fully arrived at. It's not so much true but (considered) truer. And therefore more useful.

I can't legislate for others supposing their interpretation inerrant. Whether their theology comparatively new, or supposing itself having it's roots in apostolic teaching.

That's their affair. They and those who chose to follow that path will reap whatever goes with it, for better or worse. Just as I will.

The positive weight of tradition is only positive if the tradition correctly rooted. If incorrectly rooted, the tradition based theology is worse than the alternative claims to inerrancy - since the incorrectly rooted theology is more firmly rooted in its incorrectness.


The simple answer to your objection is "so what?". People will enjoy the fruits of their approach - whatever the approach. Each is responsible for the theology they adopt for themselves

Bob_Marley

antiskeptic wrote: »

Some will indeed claim their theology the one true one. Others, like me, will suppose a never ending quest to mine closer approximations to the truth - supposing it won't ever neccessarily be fully arrived at. It's not so much true but (considered) truer. And therefore more useful.

I can't legislate for others supposing their interpretation inerrant. Whether their theology comparatively new, or supposing itself having it's roots in apostolic teaching.

That's their affair. They and those who chose to follow that path will reap whatever goes with it, for better or worse. Just as I will.

The positive weight of tradition is only positive if the tradition correctly rooted. If incorrectly rooted, the tradition based theology is worse than the alternative claims to inerrancy - since the incorrectly rooted theology is more firmly rooted in its incorrectness.


The simple answer to your objection is "so what?". People will enjoy the fruits of their approach - whatever the approach. Each is responsible for the theology they adopt for themselves

Oh indeed, people are absolutely free to interpret things anyway that personally suits them best - from Atheists to Arianists to JW's and all the thousands of other versions of pick and mix Christianity, and it's not confined to Christianity people can and do also choose to interpret anything from history to science to politics to morality to conventional and alternative medicine any way they want to.

antiskeptic

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Oh indeed, people are absolutely free to interpret things anyway that personally suits them best - from Atheists to Arianists to JW's and all the thousands of other versions of pick and mix Christianity, and it's not confined to Christianity people can and do also choose to interpret anything from history to science to politics to morality to conventional and alternative medicine any way they want to.

RC is just another pick from the mix. Interpreting the bible to advocate tradition on a par with scripture.

You going to make a case or just ignore the flaws pointed out in your own thinking?

Bob_Marley

antiskeptic wrote: »

RC is just another pick from the mix. Interpreting the bible to advocate tradition on a par with scripture.

You going to make a case or just ignore the flaws pointed out in your own thinking?

The traditional christian interpretation of scripture does not contradict it.
To much complaint over the years, the eastern and western churches are not a pick and mix, they've held to the same positions Christians always traditionally have - if you want to ignore all the historical Christian councils and the study of countless Christian saints, bishops and theologians, and how Christians have always interpreted scripture, and invent your own interpretation of history and scripture that suits you, that's entirely your prerogative - go for it.

antiskeptic

Bob_Marley wrote: »

The traditional christian interpretation of scripture does not contradict it.

How do you figure that? If not by comparing scripture with tradition* and finding no conflict.

When others do precisely as you do but find differently you turn to..

To much complaint over the years, the eastern and western churches are not a pick and mix, they've held to the same positions Christians always traditionally have - if you want to ignore all the historical Christian councils and the study of countless Christian saints, bishops and theologians, and how Christians have always interpreted scripture, and invent your own interpretation of history and scripture that suits you, that's entirely your prerogative - go for it.

1. Age imbues a view with inerrancy??

2. False premise. No one is suggesting that all traditional views are erroneous. One does as you presumably do and compares scripture with the view and draws conclusions about them. Kettle pot black - since they do as you do?

Or maybe you don't do your own evaluation and simply suppose longstanding view = inerrant view. Which too is a personal stance of yours.

Which is it? If neither, what else permits you to arrive at the conclusion you do.

3. If the east and west have always held to tradition the why east and west?


*Christians have always held... No they haven't. Tradition is something which evolved over the years and the idea that there is one tradition that has always been held by every Christian is a nonsense. What you refer to is something which became a majority view for a period of time.

Bob_Marley

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do you figure that? If not by comparing scripture with tradition* and finding no conflict.

When others do precisely as you do but find differently you turn to..

1. Age imbues a view with inerrancy??

2. False premise. No one is suggesting that all traditional views are erroneous. One does as you presumably do and compares scripture with the view and draws conclusions about them. Kettle pot black - since they do as you do?

Or maybe you don't do your own evaluation and simply suppose longstanding view = inerrant view. Which too is a personal stance of yours.

Which is it? If neither, what else permits you to arrive at the conclusion you do.

But other countless interpretations of scripture from new Atheism, to Mormans to JW's conflict with how Christians have traditionally understood and interpreted the same scripture. That's what makes their interpretation different in the first place and not the same.

antiskeptic wrote: »

3. If the east and west have always held to tradition the why east and west?

*Christians have always held... No they haven't. Tradition is something which evolved over the years and the idea that there is one tradition that has always been held by every Christian is a nonsense. What you refer to is something which became a majority view for a period of time.

Given that eastern and western Christianity spit in 1054, it's quite remarkable they are so similar in theology and worship over thousand years later, or actually not when you consider the importance they place on interpreting scripture as Christians always have.

But remember, you're perfectly free to dump historical Christian interpretation, and a thousand years of study, theologians, saints, bishops and church councils, to re-interpret scripture any way you want, just like everyone else is from new atheism, to JW's is. - We absolutely need such free will, and for people to come up with all sorts that suits them, as it proves God gave people the choice, and they can't claim they didn't have it later.

antiskeptic

Bob_Marley wrote: »

But other countless interpretations of scripture from new Atheism, to Mormans to JW's conflict with how Christians have traditionally understood and interpreted the same scripture. That's what makes their interpretation different in the first place and not the same.



Given that eastern and western Christianity spit in 1054, it's quite remarkable they are so similar in theology and worship over thousand years later, or actually not when you consider the importance they place on interpreting scripture as Christians always have.

But remember, you're perfectly free to dump historical Christian interpretation, and a thousand years of study, theologians, saints, bishops and church councils, to re-interpret scripture any way you want, just like everyone else is from new atheism, to JW's is. - We absolutely need such free will, and for people to come up with all sorts that suits them, as it proves God gave people the choice, and they can't claim they didn't have it later.

Could you go back to the start of my post and answer the actual questions asked and the specific points raised in the sequence they occur?

I get you've a beef, but it's time to see whether it holds water or not.

You up for it?

Bob_Marley

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you go back to the start of my post and answer the actual questions asked and the specific points raised in the sequence they occur?

I get you've a beef, but it's time to see whether it holds water or not.

You up for it?

I'm not the one after inventing an imaginary 'beef' and resorting to ad homiem.
I've repeatedly replied to your posts and repeatedly answered (due to giving you the benefit of the doubt) but hey presto - you've ignored the answers and actual points again. - I'm not going to reply again to any other ad nauesum, strawman or likewise fallacious argument.

Remember this - you can interpret scripture any which way that suits and pleases you, and it's been explained to you why it's important that you do.

KKkitty

For all intents and purposes I am a non believer in God. In saying that I do believe in some parts of The Bible. That may seem like an oxymoron to many but hear me out. I do believe that someone called Jesus existed. I do believe he had the power to turn water into wine and turn so few loaves and fishes into many more. Jesus was an innovator and visionary. He knew by waiting for bigger harvests more loaves could be made. The same with waiting for more fish to be in the right area at the same time meant more fish could be shoaled. He was probably ahead of his time in a lot of ways with fermentation which meant he could see how to combine water and other products with grapes to turn into wine. Every generation has an innovator that turns the tables on everything, one person who is talked about for centuries and Jesus was like the Galileo of his time. Moses parting the Red Sea was him having the ingenuity to build a passible bridge structure to make sure people could cross a body of water. This is my take on some of Bible stories. I can share more if you wish. Give me what you want in The Bible explained and I'll try to do that for you.

JoshRosen

KKkitty wrote: »

For all intents and purposes I am a non believer in God. In saying that I do believe in some parts of The Bible. That may seem like an oxymoron to many but hear me out. I do believe that someone called Jesus existed. I do believe he had the power to turn water into wine and turn so few loaves and fishes into many more. Jesus was an innovator and visionary. He knew by waiting for bigger harvests more loaves could be made. The same with waiting for more fish to be in the right area at the same time meant more fish could be shoaled. He was probably ahead of his time in a lot of ways with fermentation which meant he could see how to combine water and other products with grapes to turn into wine. Every generation has an innovator that turns the tables on everything, one person who is talked about for centuries and Jesus was like the Galileo of his time. Moses parting the Red Sea was him having the ingenuity to build a passible bridge structure to make sure people could cross a body of water. This is my take on some of Bible stories. I can share more if you wish. Give me what you want in The Bible explained and I'll try to do that for you.

Heeling the blind & the crippled?

KKkitty

JoshRosen wrote: »

Heeling the blind & the crippled?

Like what is happening now but on a much smaller scale with blindness, making sure they had someone with them at all times so the person who wasn't blind could describe the surrounding areas to them. Similarly to the blind aspect, the crippled person was piggybacking an able bodied person so they could still see things from a standing point of view. They obviously hadn't the ingenuity or foresight (pun intended) to invent a lot of things back then so they were limited to what they could have.

JoshRosen

KKkitty wrote: »

Like what is happening now but on a much smaller scale with blindness, making sure they had someone with them at all times so the person who wasn't blind could describe the surrounding areas to them. Similarly to the blind aspect, the crippled person was piggybacking an able bodied person so they could still see things from a standing point of view. They obviously hadn't the ingenuity or foresight (pun intended) to invent a lot of things back then so they were limited to what they could have.

Not saying you’re wrong or even saying Jesus did in fact do this, but, I’d imagine being blind 2k years ago is the same as being blind today! Big difference between partially blind & full blind.

I understand though that partial blindness or progressive bad eye sight wouldn’t have the norm in that time due to the low life expectancy, I’d guess if you weren’t born with it it never affected you to the extent that you could claim to be ‘cured’ from any type of blindness?

antiskeptic

Bob_Marley wrote: »

I'm not the one after inventing an imaginary 'beef' and resorting to ad homiem.
I've repeatedly replied to your posts and repeatedly answered (due to giving you the benefit of the doubt) but hey presto - you've ignored the answers and actual points again. - I'm not going to reply again to any other ad nauesum, strawman or likewise fallacious argument.

The beef is there and it's fair enough. You suppose the actuality of multiple personal interpretations the outcome of incorrect approach. That's a fair point. The question is however, is your approach any better?

If there are problems with your approach, then we're back to supposing which way most correct, in light of the fact both have problems.


I detect unwillingness to address specific questions aimed investigating problems with your approach. That unwillingness outs by way of mentioning the problems (yet again) in "my" approach.

To recap the enquiry into your approach.


I assume your declaration of "tradition not conflicting with scripture":

- not to be the result of personal assessment. I've asked whether it is (for that generates an immediate problem with your approach) and you haven't given a direct answer to the question.

- to be the result of faith in tradition. Faith that tradition is inerrant. Faith that long age imbues correctness.


You can say that Chrisians have always held the traditional view all you like but:

- Christians haven't always held a traditional view. The traditional view has been subject to schisms - rendering a number of now-traditional views. The view has evolved - making it impossible for all Christians at all times to hold the traditional view. Your evade that point - rendering, for example, the 11th century schism but a storm in a teacup. Have you read about that schism?

What about disagreements that occurred whilst the traditional view was being formulated. How unanimity when disagreement? What about the Protestant reformation? It knocks a hole in the notion that all Christians at all times have held a traditional view - given the P.R. generated yet another now-traditional view. Let me guess: all dissenting views over the years are labelled heretics/mistaken/not Christians? Fair enough if that's the approach: all Christians at all times have held the traditional view - because if they haven't they they aren't Christians?

- even if all ("all" being achieved by stripping out dissenters) Christians held one your particular traditional view for a very long time, it doesn't mean anything, unless you suppose tradition = inerrancy. You haven't addressed this point either.






Perhaps avoid repeating the problems arising from "my" approach and deal with the questions aimed at your own approach.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

The Truth is in the Holy Catholic Church, and nowhere else.

antiskeptic

3nyv2t7ab5qmcz wrote: »

The Truth is in the Holy Catholic Church, and nowhere else.

I just had a free association moment. It went thus:

"Rabbits are brave, rabbits are brave"

uck51js9zml2yt

3nyv2t7ab5qmcz wrote: »

The Truth is in the Holy Catholic Church, and nowhere else.

Sigh...and there was me just starting to like you.
The Truth is in Jesus Christ and no one else and no where else.

railer201

KKkitty wrote: »

For all intents and purposes I am a non believer in God. In saying that I do believe in some parts of The Bible. That may seem like an oxymoron to many but hear me out. I do believe that someone called Jesus existed. I do believe he had the power to turn water into wine and turn so few loaves and fishes into many more. Jesus was an innovator and visionary. He knew by waiting for bigger harvests more loaves could be made. The same with waiting for more fish to be in the right area at the same time meant more fish could be shoaled. He was probably ahead of his time in a lot of ways with fermentation which meant he could see how to combine water and other products with grapes to turn into wine. Every generation has an innovator that turns the tables on everything, one person who is talked about for centuries and Jesus was like the Galileo of his time. Moses parting the Red Sea was him having the ingenuity to build a passible bridge structure to make sure people could cross a body of water. This is my take on some of Bible stories. I can share more if you wish. Give me what you want in The Bible explained and I'll try to do that for you.

Do you believe that Jesus was the son of God ? - we are told he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, or God via the Trinity.

Do you believe Jesus visibly ascended into heaven post the resurrection ? - if not what happened to his mortal remains or should I say half mortal remains ?

kelly1

Sandra Gigantic U-boat wrote: »

Sigh...and there was me just starting to like you.
The Truth is in Jesus Christ and no one else and no where else.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.


This is the basis of the infallibility of the Church. The safeguarding of truth must be given to living people, not just recorded in a book (which is open to different interpretations).

The Spirit did not abandon the Church when the apostles died!

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

The Spirit did not abandon the Church when the apostles died!

I think the key question is not whether the Spirit abandoned the Church, but whether a particular segment of the Church abandoned the Spirit.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.


This is the basis of the infallibility of the Church. The safeguarding of truth must be given to living people, not just recorded in a book (which is open to different interpretations).

The Spirit did not abandon the Church when the apostles died!

I was watching Louis Theroux's doc on Westboro Baptist Church - those of God Hates Fags fame.

I'm not for a second supposing the RC church on a par with Phelps and his clan, but what struck me was the similarity between their approach and the approach shared by yourself, Oweny and Bob

That is, a lack of ability to present a coherent, sustained train of thought leading you to the conclusions you do. What takes the place of giving a reason for the hope that you have is dogged repetition of a mantra - again and again, as if by sheer repetition you can make the mantra stick.

For example, there is simply nothing in the scripture cited above which connects what is said with what you hold it to say. No mention of an institutional church - just a statement addressed to whoever the "you's" are. No mention of the manner by which the guidance will take place (which can as easily mean spirit led individuals reading the Bible)


Huge doctrines, pulled rabbit-from-a-hat like. And it's like that all the way through: tiny slivers of scripture to support cornerstone doctrines of "The Church" (not least it's own primacy). If those slivers of scripture are the mortar holding the bricks together, then the bricks themselves are the huge leaps of assumption made - of the type you make in your own "reading" of the passage.


You, like the Phelps', simply ignore the problem and go on shouting the same old dogma from the rooftops. You don't apparently realise how asinine this approach appears to people who are in a position to apply a modicum of reasoned thinking to the conclusions they arrive at: be they atheists or Christians.

Just like the Phelps' do, you use the objection raised against your position as a proof of the blindness/lostness/sinfulness/rebelliousness of all those who can but only bewilderingly facepalm at these antics.

I know I'm like a voice calling in the wilderness on this. Your response, if any, will follow the same old lines.