Ted has mentioned "midrash" a number of times and how some of the stories in the bible are factual and some are metaphorical or myth based. I wonder what the different ideas are on what is meant by various things in the bible.
My first question is:
The virgin birth. While some may think that Mary was impregnated by God and never had sex, even though she was married, I am sure there are other ideas of what this might have meant. What do you take this to mean?
Literal or Metaphor?
Literal or Metaphor?
Koan :-6
A good topic.
You mention the virgin birth. This is a midrashic story. Not only is it midrashic but is based on a Greek mistranslation of a part of Isaiah. The word used in Isaiah properly translated should read young woman and has nothing whatsoever to do with virginity. It was translated into the Greek Sequagent as virgin which of course is a mistranslation.
Place that aside for now.. After Jesus death and resurrection the gospel writers being convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, rightly so I believe, then looked into the OT to find prophesies that would indicate that Jesus was the Messaih. Thus they chose from the Greek mistranslation the word virgin. Now this is neither an attempt to mislead or lie it is the nature of Midrash. By using that comparison they were saying exactly how strongly they felt about this Jesus. In other words thy were telling a truth about Jesus through the Midrashic process.
There is no doubt among the leading Biblical scholars around the world that the very human Yeshua of Nazareth was indeed a real and living person. Not only that he was a teacher etc. He was also, to use a modern term, a **** disturber. He was upsetting the social ethos that existed and thus for that he was crucified.
The Birth stories of Jesus are midrashic and designed to tell great truths about this man. He was probably born to Josheph and Mary (Miriam in Hebrew) in an upper room in the town of Nazareth. And of course the usual processes were followed. As one theologian said to me "we know who did it'.LOL
Knowing this I love and appreciate Christmas even more then I ever did before. We celebrate it with great joy.
Misdrah when understood makes the Bible a far more powerful book then any historical interpretation could ever do.
Shalom
Ted :-6 :-6
A good topic.
You mention the virgin birth. This is a midrashic story. Not only is it midrashic but is based on a Greek mistranslation of a part of Isaiah. The word used in Isaiah properly translated should read young woman and has nothing whatsoever to do with virginity. It was translated into the Greek Sequagent as virgin which of course is a mistranslation.
Place that aside for now.. After Jesus death and resurrection the gospel writers being convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, rightly so I believe, then looked into the OT to find prophesies that would indicate that Jesus was the Messaih. Thus they chose from the Greek mistranslation the word virgin. Now this is neither an attempt to mislead or lie it is the nature of Midrash. By using that comparison they were saying exactly how strongly they felt about this Jesus. In other words thy were telling a truth about Jesus through the Midrashic process.
There is no doubt among the leading Biblical scholars around the world that the very human Yeshua of Nazareth was indeed a real and living person. Not only that he was a teacher etc. He was also, to use a modern term, a **** disturber. He was upsetting the social ethos that existed and thus for that he was crucified.
The Birth stories of Jesus are midrashic and designed to tell great truths about this man. He was probably born to Josheph and Mary (Miriam in Hebrew) in an upper room in the town of Nazareth. And of course the usual processes were followed. As one theologian said to me "we know who did it'.LOL
Knowing this I love and appreciate Christmas even more then I ever did before. We celebrate it with great joy.
Misdrah when understood makes the Bible a far more powerful book then any historical interpretation could ever do.
Shalom
Ted :-6 :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
Ted wrote:
Midrash when understood makes the Bible a far more powerful book then any historical interpretation could ever do.
Shalom
Ted :-6 :-6
This is why I thought this would be a good topic.
To go back to the OT.
The story of everyone being born from Adam and Eve (making us all the product of incest) What are the interpretations of this?
Feel free to post any other likely "midrashic" scenarios for discussion.
Midrash when understood makes the Bible a far more powerful book then any historical interpretation could ever do.
Shalom
Ted :-6 :-6
This is why I thought this would be a good topic.
To go back to the OT.
The story of everyone being born from Adam and Eve (making us all the product of incest) What are the interpretations of this?
Feel free to post any other likely "midrashic" scenarios for discussion.
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
I think the answer to Adam and Eve is simple. Adam is a Hebrew word that translates into "mankind" and Eve is a Hebrew word that translates into womankind. The story was a myth created to make the point that God created man in His image. We have to remember that the Hebrew language was very primitive and had absolutely no way of addressing the abstract. Everything written in ancient Hebfew had to be written as history. Myth is a story about the way things never were but always are.
The truth of the story is that God created man. That is the basic question that it answers to.
Shalom
Ted :-6
I think the answer to Adam and Eve is simple. Adam is a Hebrew word that translates into "mankind" and Eve is a Hebrew word that translates into womankind. The story was a myth created to make the point that God created man in His image. We have to remember that the Hebrew language was very primitive and had absolutely no way of addressing the abstract. Everything written in ancient Hebfew had to be written as history. Myth is a story about the way things never were but always are.
The truth of the story is that God created man. That is the basic question that it answers to.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
Adam is a Hebrew word that translates into "mankind" and Eve is a Hebrew word that translates into womankind
I did not know that. How wonderfully simple! So, why did "He" create woman out of man's rib? :yh_think
I did not know that. How wonderfully simple! So, why did "He" create woman out of man's rib? :yh_think
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
The rib story is part of the myth. It was the only way they could explain what they could not understand. Of course the later church mistakenly used that among other things to justify a partiarchal church which in light of the Good News of Jesus as the Christ is simply not defensible.
Shalom
Ted :-6
PS the next thing you know you will have me writing a book. LOL.
The rib story is part of the myth. It was the only way they could explain what they could not understand. Of course the later church mistakenly used that among other things to justify a partiarchal church which in light of the Good News of Jesus as the Christ is simply not defensible.
Shalom
Ted :-6
PS the next thing you know you will have me writing a book. LOL.
Literal or Metaphor?
PS the next thing you know you will have me writing a book. LOL.
Now I'll never stop asking questions.
I would love to hear the analysis of the creation of the world ending in "Let there be light" but under the "What?" thread.
Hmmm. I'll have to do some research now. I promise not to use a highlighter on the bible.
What do you think of the stories regarding Jesus bringing people back from the dead? Literal or midrashic?
Now I'll never stop asking questions.
I would love to hear the analysis of the creation of the world ending in "Let there be light" but under the "What?" thread.
Hmmm. I'll have to do some research now. I promise not to use a highlighter on the bible.
What do you think of the stories regarding Jesus bringing people back from the dead? Literal or midrashic?
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
It is my opinion supported by many Biblical scholars and theologians that the stories of Jesus resoring the dead to life are essentially midrashic. Once again they were designed to show the reader what they believed about this man Yeshua of Nazareth. This is not meant to deceive but to convey the truth about the messiahsip of this Man.
Shalom
Ted :-6
It is my opinion supported by many Biblical scholars and theologians that the stories of Jesus resoring the dead to life are essentially midrashic. Once again they were designed to show the reader what they believed about this man Yeshua of Nazareth. This is not meant to deceive but to convey the truth about the messiahsip of this Man.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
What do you think of the idea that raising them from the dead meant converting them to the religion? In this case it is not a "lie for a cause" but a representation of their belief that people were "dead" to spiritual life until "resurrected" into the realm of understanding and conscious living.
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
That is an interpretation that I have heard before and I certainly don't rule it out. That would fit within the boundaries of misrash and metaphor.
Shalom
Ted :-6
That is an interpretation that I have heard before and I certainly don't rule it out. That would fit within the boundaries of misrash and metaphor.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
Here's another one for you. Jesus went into the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights. They don't mention his returning after that and in King James version he is actually gone for three years. Since Qumran (the Essenes) was refered to as the wilderness and their initiations took one year to complete each of the three levels, could this be related?
Here's a fun interpretation for you from The Chicken Qabalah.
Lon Milo Duquette has the following to say about the Ark of the Covenant:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a wooden box with a double lining of gold and closed with a slab of gold, containing pots of mysterious substances, heavy plates and rods submerged in a pan of liquid, was in all likelihood a gigantic and highly unstable battery. The two cherubim on the lid served as the anode and cathode, and a spark or 'arc' (the flaming presence of God) jumped madly between the tips of the two highly conductive golden wings.
(Viable batteries have been found in Egyptian tombs of this period and before.)
The High Priest must have been a pretty brave fellow to enter that room and play electrical Russian roulette with "Ole Sparky". If he survived the event, he was most likely transformed into a very mellow holy man. I would guess he was also pretty interesting to talk to - full of spiritual insights and profound messages from God.
As to the true pronunciation of the name of God? I think every year it was pronounced a little differently but generally sounded something like...
yyYaaaAAAAHEEEEEeeeWAAAAAOOOOOOOooooaaAAAHAAAaaaAAAAaaaa!!!!!
:yh_rotfl
Here's a fun interpretation for you from The Chicken Qabalah.
Lon Milo Duquette has the following to say about the Ark of the Covenant:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a wooden box with a double lining of gold and closed with a slab of gold, containing pots of mysterious substances, heavy plates and rods submerged in a pan of liquid, was in all likelihood a gigantic and highly unstable battery. The two cherubim on the lid served as the anode and cathode, and a spark or 'arc' (the flaming presence of God) jumped madly between the tips of the two highly conductive golden wings.
(Viable batteries have been found in Egyptian tombs of this period and before.)
The High Priest must have been a pretty brave fellow to enter that room and play electrical Russian roulette with "Ole Sparky". If he survived the event, he was most likely transformed into a very mellow holy man. I would guess he was also pretty interesting to talk to - full of spiritual insights and profound messages from God.
As to the true pronunciation of the name of God? I think every year it was pronounced a little differently but generally sounded something like...
yyYaaaAAAAHEEEEEeeeWAAAAAOOOOOOOooooaaAAAHAAAaaaAAAAaaaa!!!!!
:yh_rotfl
Literal or Metaphor?
Koan :-6
The number 40 as in 40 days and 40 nights and as in the length of time the Hebrews wandered in the wilderness has nothing whatsoever to do with actual time. It simply means "a long time". It is a story designed to show us how we are to respond to temptations by putting God first. Midrashic??
As far as the Essenes are concerned Jesus may have learned a few things from them but contrary to some he definitely was not of that persuasion. His whole message of spreading the Good News to the world is totally contrary to the rules of a group that made every effort to isolate themselves from the world. His actions and behaviour confirm he was not an Essene.
As for the Arc of the Covenant story I've heard that elsewhere. It certainly is interesting.
Shalom
Ted :-6
The number 40 as in 40 days and 40 nights and as in the length of time the Hebrews wandered in the wilderness has nothing whatsoever to do with actual time. It simply means "a long time". It is a story designed to show us how we are to respond to temptations by putting God first. Midrashic??
As far as the Essenes are concerned Jesus may have learned a few things from them but contrary to some he definitely was not of that persuasion. His whole message of spreading the Good News to the world is totally contrary to the rules of a group that made every effort to isolate themselves from the world. His actions and behaviour confirm he was not an Essene.
As for the Arc of the Covenant story I've heard that elsewhere. It certainly is interesting.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
Here's another question, or two.
If everything was "good" before the tree of Knowledge was eaten from. How did the serpent exist as an evil natured creature. Had it snuck a fruit from the tree already?
Why would God put something so terrible in the middle of the Garden...like creatures could live there forever and never be tempted to eat from it! If it had to be there, why didn't he try to hide it a little better. Why put it right in front of their faces and say "You can't have it...nanaNAnanaNA" ?
If everything was "good" before the tree of Knowledge was eaten from. How did the serpent exist as an evil natured creature. Had it snuck a fruit from the tree already?
Why would God put something so terrible in the middle of the Garden...like creatures could live there forever and never be tempted to eat from it! If it had to be there, why didn't he try to hide it a little better. Why put it right in front of their faces and say "You can't have it...nanaNAnanaNA" ?
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
Your questions really did give me a chuckle today. Of course the stories were a mythological attempt to explain evil and death and the need to work in this world to earn a living.
Your description was beautiful, was it funny. LOL
Shalom
Ted :-6
Your questions really did give me a chuckle today. Of course the stories were a mythological attempt to explain evil and death and the need to work in this world to earn a living.
Your description was beautiful, was it funny. LOL
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
I'm glad you appreciate my humour!
The thing is; so much metaphor has been and still is the source of so much anger and hate. I hope through this discussion, many will see how important interpretation is and open themselves to greater possibilities of what the bible may have "meant". In this example, women are not evil and despicable because Eve gave Adam a nasty fruit. Yet people have used this interpretation to visit all kinds of misery upon each other.
What about poor Cain? What did he do wrong (before he killed Able) and didn't God kind of set this up if he is all knowing and should have seen the enmity that would be created by respecting one offering and not the other? Where is the kindness in this and, what exactly is the moral? If God rejects you for no obvious reason keep your chin up and don't kill anyone? What do we think of human fathers who withhold their respect from their sons to make them "strong" or "test their character"? We think the human father is ignorant and cruel.
:yh_blush . I think I got a little passionate on this one. What was this story meant to convey?
The thing is; so much metaphor has been and still is the source of so much anger and hate. I hope through this discussion, many will see how important interpretation is and open themselves to greater possibilities of what the bible may have "meant". In this example, women are not evil and despicable because Eve gave Adam a nasty fruit. Yet people have used this interpretation to visit all kinds of misery upon each other.
What about poor Cain? What did he do wrong (before he killed Able) and didn't God kind of set this up if he is all knowing and should have seen the enmity that would be created by respecting one offering and not the other? Where is the kindness in this and, what exactly is the moral? If God rejects you for no obvious reason keep your chin up and don't kill anyone? What do we think of human fathers who withhold their respect from their sons to make them "strong" or "test their character"? We think the human father is ignorant and cruel.
:yh_blush . I think I got a little passionate on this one. What was this story meant to convey?
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
There's that damned apple again. My wife did the same thing LOL. Must be women.. LOL Of course I did eat the little bugger too. LOL
It must be remembered that these were oral stories handed on for centuries. Some of them even borrowed from other tribes.
It would appear that one made a sacrifice to God that was acceptable and the other made a sacrifice that was unacceptable.
It really would appear that this myth is telling us that we must work at doing things acceptable to God.
Shalom
Ted :-6
There's that damned apple again. My wife did the same thing LOL. Must be women.. LOL Of course I did eat the little bugger too. LOL
It must be remembered that these were oral stories handed on for centuries. Some of them even borrowed from other tribes.
It would appear that one made a sacrifice to God that was acceptable and the other made a sacrifice that was unacceptable.
It really would appear that this myth is telling us that we must work at doing things acceptable to God.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
But if God is arbitrary in His decision as to what He approves or does not approve of (as it appears in the Cain and Able story)...how do we walk but on eggshells?
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
"Walk on eggshells". Not at all. "All those who love God and do what is right are acceptable to him." Acts 10 I believe. It is interesting to note that in all cultures most folks seem intuitively to know what is right. I say intuitively because that is the modern term but the Bible also tells us a do other sacred writings that God has written his laws in our hearts. In Jeremiah 17 we are also told that God judges the heart and in James 2:13 that those who show mercy will be shown mercy that mercy triumphs of judgment.
In spite of the criticisms I face from my fundamentalist/literalist friends I put my trust and faith in Almighty God who is just.
We all know what to do. It's just that sometimes some folks get carried away with their own agenda in a big way and forget what is right and just. But that too is forgiven because God's grace and love are unconditional. The very definitions of those words as they relate to God mean unconditional, no strings attached. Sure there are imperatives--simply do what is right. Sometimes we all slip and fall. God does not worry about that HE understands.
My faith is not based on fear it is based on the unconditional love and grace of God.
Shalom
Ted :-6
"Walk on eggshells". Not at all. "All those who love God and do what is right are acceptable to him." Acts 10 I believe. It is interesting to note that in all cultures most folks seem intuitively to know what is right. I say intuitively because that is the modern term but the Bible also tells us a do other sacred writings that God has written his laws in our hearts. In Jeremiah 17 we are also told that God judges the heart and in James 2:13 that those who show mercy will be shown mercy that mercy triumphs of judgment.
In spite of the criticisms I face from my fundamentalist/literalist friends I put my trust and faith in Almighty God who is just.
We all know what to do. It's just that sometimes some folks get carried away with their own agenda in a big way and forget what is right and just. But that too is forgiven because God's grace and love are unconditional. The very definitions of those words as they relate to God mean unconditional, no strings attached. Sure there are imperatives--simply do what is right. Sometimes we all slip and fall. God does not worry about that HE understands.
My faith is not based on fear it is based on the unconditional love and grace of God.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
If you look carefully at the life of Jesus you will find that the only times he was really angry with folks was when they were deliberately and knowingly trying to mislead people. Most of his life he ate the with publicans and sinners, and tax collectors, the outcasts of society, the oppressed, the prostitutes etc.
Even the word "sin" is a rather difficult word to define. Generally it means anything which separates us from the love of God. It does not in reality mean "wrong doing". That is another of the heresies of the reformation just as is the literalization of the Bible. Before 1692 it was generally read as was intended as midrash and metaphor.
Shalom
Ted :-6
If you look carefully at the life of Jesus you will find that the only times he was really angry with folks was when they were deliberately and knowingly trying to mislead people. Most of his life he ate the with publicans and sinners, and tax collectors, the outcasts of society, the oppressed, the prostitutes etc.
Even the word "sin" is a rather difficult word to define. Generally it means anything which separates us from the love of God. It does not in reality mean "wrong doing". That is another of the heresies of the reformation just as is the literalization of the Bible. Before 1692 it was generally read as was intended as midrash and metaphor.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
I love "granny smith" apples. They are good keepers. LOL
Shalom
Ted :-6
I love "granny smith" apples. They are good keepers. LOL
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
Ted wrote: koan :-6
If you look carefully at the life of Jesus you will find that the only times he was really angry with folks was when they were deliberately and knowingly trying to mislead people. Most of his life he ate the with publicans and sinners, and tax collectors, the outcasts of society, the oppressed, the prostitutes etc.
Even the word "sin" is a rather difficult word to define. Generally it means anything which separates us from the love of God. It does not in reality mean "wrong doing". That is another of the heresies of the reformation just as is the literalization of the Bible. Before 1692 it was generally read as was intended as midrash and metaphor.
Shalom
Ted :-6
I am glad that you posted this second thought as well.
I hope you get that my questioning of the bible's stories is not a questioning of how you express your religion. From what I have read, I think that your understanding of the bible is much healthier than the literalists that I am refering to. My examples and questions are meant to bring alternate perspective to those who approach the teachings in a narrower perspective (this of course being my own perspective expressed).
I have thought recently that the OT and the NT should, perhaps, not be combined since the God of the OT is a wrathful and vengeful God and the one that Jesus talks of is Kind and Compassionate. I am struggling to see how the two can go between the same covers of a book. It seems that the OT struggles to explain a world they do not understand and the NT struggles to explain a world that Christ understood very well.
Like my opinion of drugs, it is not the book I object to...it is how it is used. You may not like the comparison but it was available.
If you look carefully at the life of Jesus you will find that the only times he was really angry with folks was when they were deliberately and knowingly trying to mislead people. Most of his life he ate the with publicans and sinners, and tax collectors, the outcasts of society, the oppressed, the prostitutes etc.
Even the word "sin" is a rather difficult word to define. Generally it means anything which separates us from the love of God. It does not in reality mean "wrong doing". That is another of the heresies of the reformation just as is the literalization of the Bible. Before 1692 it was generally read as was intended as midrash and metaphor.
Shalom
Ted :-6
I am glad that you posted this second thought as well.
I hope you get that my questioning of the bible's stories is not a questioning of how you express your religion. From what I have read, I think that your understanding of the bible is much healthier than the literalists that I am refering to. My examples and questions are meant to bring alternate perspective to those who approach the teachings in a narrower perspective (this of course being my own perspective expressed).
I have thought recently that the OT and the NT should, perhaps, not be combined since the God of the OT is a wrathful and vengeful God and the one that Jesus talks of is Kind and Compassionate. I am struggling to see how the two can go between the same covers of a book. It seems that the OT struggles to explain a world they do not understand and the NT struggles to explain a world that Christ understood very well.
Like my opinion of drugs, it is not the book I object to...it is how it is used. You may not like the comparison but it was available.
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
Other then laughing at the odd question I find no questions concerning the BIble trivial.
Actually the Bible needs both the OT and the NT. However, we must now read the OT in light of the NT and in light of the teachings of Jesus. There is lots of value in the OT just as there are some stories that are real dandies and do not reflect the God that I have come to know and love. One example is Numbers 31 where God appears to not only condone war crimes but encourages them. This does not come from God.
We must remember the the Bible is composed of stories that in one way or another reflect man's experience of the Divine. The Bible both the OT and the NT become for Christians the "Word of God" because God speaks to us through the Bible, but Christians must learn to discern what reflects God and what reflects man. Not an easy task in many ways but made easier by reading the OT in light of the NT.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Other then laughing at the odd question I find no questions concerning the BIble trivial.
Actually the Bible needs both the OT and the NT. However, we must now read the OT in light of the NT and in light of the teachings of Jesus. There is lots of value in the OT just as there are some stories that are real dandies and do not reflect the God that I have come to know and love. One example is Numbers 31 where God appears to not only condone war crimes but encourages them. This does not come from God.
We must remember the the Bible is composed of stories that in one way or another reflect man's experience of the Divine. The Bible both the OT and the NT become for Christians the "Word of God" because God speaks to us through the Bible, but Christians must learn to discern what reflects God and what reflects man. Not an easy task in many ways but made easier by reading the OT in light of the NT.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
Ted wrote: koan :-6
Other then laughing at the odd question I find no questions concerning the BIble trivial.
Shalom
Ted :-6
I enjoy making people laugh. I think there is not enough laughter in the world.
I'll leave you be for now. Anyone who has taught me anything says I am exhausting. You only get about 12 hours of rest though. :wah:
Other then laughing at the odd question I find no questions concerning the BIble trivial.
Shalom
Ted :-6
I enjoy making people laugh. I think there is not enough laughter in the world.
I'll leave you be for now. Anyone who has taught me anything says I am exhausting. You only get about 12 hours of rest though. :wah:
Literal or Metaphor?
I'll say it as it was quoted to me recently, accurate or not.
"There is no salvation but through me."
Would Jesus actually desire the worship of God to be transfered to a worship of himself? This is what I have been told it means. What are the possibilities of interpretation.
By the way, I just looked into the Cain and Able thing again. I forgot that Cain gave the worst of his crop as an offering. This makes God not so arbitrary in his approval. Anger subsides.
"There is no salvation but through me."
Would Jesus actually desire the worship of God to be transfered to a worship of himself? This is what I have been told it means. What are the possibilities of interpretation.
By the way, I just looked into the Cain and Able thing again. I forgot that Cain gave the worst of his crop as an offering. This makes God not so arbitrary in his approval. Anger subsides.
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
The first point is that it is doubtful that Jesus ever uttered those words. They are the words of the evangelist John in his gospel. This was not an attempt to deceive or lie it was simply the early churches response to the profound Easter Event. It shows how profound they felt about this Jesus.
If Jesus did say "I am the way . . ." Then I believe what he meant was look at what I am doing and follow in my way. I have explained that in the other thread. This does not mean say my name or acknowledge me as the ultimate. In fact he always gave the credit to God.
It is believed by many modern theologians that Jesus made no messianic claims whatsoever. But through his life and example he relected the true unconditional love and grace of God thus leading to the profound Easter Event.
The fundamentalist/literalists consider me a heretic I am sure. They are always trying to "save" me. But I have experienced the profound loving transformatiional relationship with the Risen Lord or God if you so please. I believe that pluralism is not only OK but demanded by God. I can appreciate their concern for my soul but personally I trust in God.
Shalom
Ted :-6
The first point is that it is doubtful that Jesus ever uttered those words. They are the words of the evangelist John in his gospel. This was not an attempt to deceive or lie it was simply the early churches response to the profound Easter Event. It shows how profound they felt about this Jesus.
If Jesus did say "I am the way . . ." Then I believe what he meant was look at what I am doing and follow in my way. I have explained that in the other thread. This does not mean say my name or acknowledge me as the ultimate. In fact he always gave the credit to God.
It is believed by many modern theologians that Jesus made no messianic claims whatsoever. But through his life and example he relected the true unconditional love and grace of God thus leading to the profound Easter Event.
The fundamentalist/literalists consider me a heretic I am sure. They are always trying to "save" me. But I have experienced the profound loving transformatiional relationship with the Risen Lord or God if you so please. I believe that pluralism is not only OK but demanded by God. I can appreciate their concern for my soul but personally I trust in God.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
I can't agree with either thought.
MOses did not write any part of the Pentateuch. It was passed on as oral tradition for hundreds of years until it was finally written down during the Babylonian exile. Some of the stories were even borrowed from other tribes. This however does not negate the truths that are found therein.
Jesus did indeed have a special relationship with God. He was probably born to a couple called Mary and Joseph in the normal way of birth and he was probably born in an upper room in Nazareth.
Both these stories are midrashic and metaphorical.
Shalom
Ted :-6
MOses did not write any part of the Pentateuch. It was passed on as oral tradition for hundreds of years until it was finally written down during the Babylonian exile. Some of the stories were even borrowed from other tribes. This however does not negate the truths that are found therein.
Jesus did indeed have a special relationship with God. He was probably born to a couple called Mary and Joseph in the normal way of birth and he was probably born in an upper room in Nazareth.
Both these stories are midrashic and metaphorical.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
Ted :-6
I did ask similar questions regarding Christ being the only path to God in this and the "one path" thread. In fact, the other thread originated as a result of this one issue. I asked it more directly here since I am going to be working with this guy very soon on a daily basis and wondered if there is some concrete proof that this is not what was meant by those words.
I tried to say "Jesus called himself the Son of Man, not the Son of God" and was cut off with "He did too say it."
When I tried to argue some of his literal interpretations using the info you have so graciously provided, he said that you were no scholar. He claims to be a scholar of the bible and was convinced you were full of nonsense and unlearned. I am much more prone to put value in your information than his as you have an intelligent and knowledgable explanation for most things whereas his explanations were mostly comprised of "its in the book". I am somewhat convinced that he considers "scholarship" to be a rereading of the bible until you have it memorized.
Don't get me wrong, this man is a kind and compassionate individual who helps many young people stop living in the street and does a lot of charity work. I have no real sense of need to correct him. I merely think that the good that he does could reach even more people if he were more open minded. I doubt he can accept that Jesus may not have said exactly what was written and denies that most scholars may think the words to have been altered by John for any reason.
Even if everything said by Jesus in the Bible was proven to be altered, would it take away from the understanding that those words gave to the individual who read them. I don't think so.
My understanding of "I am the way..." is, apparently, the same as yours. "Live as I do." To think that Jesus would want people to worship him as a God is contrary to the important messages he gave.
Next question:
What is meant by the Holy Trinity?
Most confusingly, the Holy Ghost
I did ask similar questions regarding Christ being the only path to God in this and the "one path" thread. In fact, the other thread originated as a result of this one issue. I asked it more directly here since I am going to be working with this guy very soon on a daily basis and wondered if there is some concrete proof that this is not what was meant by those words.
I tried to say "Jesus called himself the Son of Man, not the Son of God" and was cut off with "He did too say it."
When I tried to argue some of his literal interpretations using the info you have so graciously provided, he said that you were no scholar. He claims to be a scholar of the bible and was convinced you were full of nonsense and unlearned. I am much more prone to put value in your information than his as you have an intelligent and knowledgable explanation for most things whereas his explanations were mostly comprised of "its in the book". I am somewhat convinced that he considers "scholarship" to be a rereading of the bible until you have it memorized.
Don't get me wrong, this man is a kind and compassionate individual who helps many young people stop living in the street and does a lot of charity work. I have no real sense of need to correct him. I merely think that the good that he does could reach even more people if he were more open minded. I doubt he can accept that Jesus may not have said exactly what was written and denies that most scholars may think the words to have been altered by John for any reason.
Even if everything said by Jesus in the Bible was proven to be altered, would it take away from the understanding that those words gave to the individual who read them. I don't think so.
My understanding of "I am the way..." is, apparently, the same as yours. "Live as I do." To think that Jesus would want people to worship him as a God is contrary to the important messages he gave.
Next question:
What is meant by the Holy Trinity?
Most confusingly, the Holy Ghost
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
I have never referred to myself as a scholar. That being said I have spent a good deal of life in contact with scholars. I am but a humble servant of the Risen Lord.
He is entitled to his opinion and he does have a certain group of scholars that would back him up. However, the scholarly circles with whom I am in touch simply do not agree with him and the conservative scholars. That he should judge me as not being a scholar shows him judging others. That he should say I am not learned well I only have had about 9 years at university. The more I've learned the more I realize how little I really know.
When someone indicates to me they have all the answers all I can do is smile.
You ask about the Holy Trinity. This has been argued by theologians for some 2000 years. I will try to give a brief explanation. It's like one person wearing three different masks, realizing of course I can only resort to metaphor.
We have God as Father-metaphor, why not mother, brother, companion, guide, healer etc.
According to the theology He sent His son Jesus as the Christ the annointed one. Metaphor again. The important part here is that this Jesus was crucified and died. Sometime after his crucifixion, tradition says three days, He was raised from the dead on Easter Day. We do not really know what happened on Easter Day but it was profound. They felt that this Jesus was still in their presence. At the same time it was felt that at that point HE became one with God. This was their experience. Millions of folks down through the centuries have also felt this same experiential reality. It has changed the world profoundly over the past 2000 years.
Before Jesus left this world he indicated that when he was gone God would send the Holy Spirit-the Spirit of God to guide us and comfort us. This too has been the experiential reality of millions down through the centuries.
So you have the Holy Trinity. There is no explanation possible outside of metaphor. We have the experiential reality of millions to lend veracity to it as truth. I too have had such experiences. In that, I know God. In that I trust Him.
Our biggest lack today as has been down throughout history is that we have no language with which to describe or define the infinite or the Divine. We can only resort to metaphor. Metaphor is the language that does point to the "more".
I do wish I had all the answers. I wish I knew more. That is why I continue to study, pray, meditate, read, and engage in scholarly discussions with those I consider scholars. My trust is in God and His uncondition love and grace. I need no more reallly but one always continues to follow the truth no matter where it leads.
Your friend sounds like an honest and decent person. He follows the older more traditional Christian paradigm and that is his right. I only claim the same right as I continue to follow and develop with the newer emerging Christian paradigm.
Shalom
Ted :-6
I have never referred to myself as a scholar. That being said I have spent a good deal of life in contact with scholars. I am but a humble servant of the Risen Lord.
He is entitled to his opinion and he does have a certain group of scholars that would back him up. However, the scholarly circles with whom I am in touch simply do not agree with him and the conservative scholars. That he should judge me as not being a scholar shows him judging others. That he should say I am not learned well I only have had about 9 years at university. The more I've learned the more I realize how little I really know.
When someone indicates to me they have all the answers all I can do is smile.
You ask about the Holy Trinity. This has been argued by theologians for some 2000 years. I will try to give a brief explanation. It's like one person wearing three different masks, realizing of course I can only resort to metaphor.
We have God as Father-metaphor, why not mother, brother, companion, guide, healer etc.
According to the theology He sent His son Jesus as the Christ the annointed one. Metaphor again. The important part here is that this Jesus was crucified and died. Sometime after his crucifixion, tradition says three days, He was raised from the dead on Easter Day. We do not really know what happened on Easter Day but it was profound. They felt that this Jesus was still in their presence. At the same time it was felt that at that point HE became one with God. This was their experience. Millions of folks down through the centuries have also felt this same experiential reality. It has changed the world profoundly over the past 2000 years.
Before Jesus left this world he indicated that when he was gone God would send the Holy Spirit-the Spirit of God to guide us and comfort us. This too has been the experiential reality of millions down through the centuries.
So you have the Holy Trinity. There is no explanation possible outside of metaphor. We have the experiential reality of millions to lend veracity to it as truth. I too have had such experiences. In that, I know God. In that I trust Him.
Our biggest lack today as has been down throughout history is that we have no language with which to describe or define the infinite or the Divine. We can only resort to metaphor. Metaphor is the language that does point to the "more".
I do wish I had all the answers. I wish I knew more. That is why I continue to study, pray, meditate, read, and engage in scholarly discussions with those I consider scholars. My trust is in God and His uncondition love and grace. I need no more reallly but one always continues to follow the truth no matter where it leads.
Your friend sounds like an honest and decent person. He follows the older more traditional Christian paradigm and that is his right. I only claim the same right as I continue to follow and develop with the newer emerging Christian paradigm.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
Until the likes of your friend learn that there are other ways of viewing God and the Sacred Writings we will never have a unified church or a unified Christianity. That sorrows me greatly but that is life. I and others have tried reaching out to them but to no avail. It is not that I want others to believe as I do but to respect what God has shown to me.
Somehow or another they seem to think that anything other then the older paradigm is a threat to their faith. Of course it is not.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Until the likes of your friend learn that there are other ways of viewing God and the Sacred Writings we will never have a unified church or a unified Christianity. That sorrows me greatly but that is life. I and others have tried reaching out to them but to no avail. It is not that I want others to believe as I do but to respect what God has shown to me.
Somehow or another they seem to think that anything other then the older paradigm is a threat to their faith. Of course it is not.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
I suppose I used the term scholar to attempt to make him reconsider his authority in the matter. Regardless, you are scholarly to me. 
I was thinking after I wrote that if I wanted only to defend myself that all I need do is smile, as you mentioned. But your last post, I suppose, is the reason I feel compelled to engage in debate with him. I wish deeply that people who all want to do "good" and contribute "good" to the world would embrace each other without arguing over who is better in their approach. To do good is good. There is no need for the vanity of who's good is better. Maybe, then, we can all be saved. Saved from the anger and hate that causes so much war. Even if he practices love, by doing it in an elitist fashion, he also promotes hate and pride.
The holy trinity, then, is just a way to say God is everywhere?
There are some who see Jesus as a warrior and think that his breaking from tradition of the time and converting the wealthy, the tax men and allowing women into the "group" was part of an attempt to build a large "army" very quickly.
Regardless, you are scholarly to me. I was thinking after I wrote that if I wanted only to defend myself that all I need do is smile, as you mentioned. But your last post, I suppose, is the reason I feel compelled to engage in debate with him. I wish deeply that people who all want to do "good" and contribute "good" to the world would embrace each other without arguing over who is better in their approach. To do good is good. There is no need for the vanity of who's good is better. Maybe, then, we can all be saved. Saved from the anger and hate that causes so much war. Even if he practices love, by doing it in an elitist fashion, he also promotes hate and pride.
The holy trinity, then, is just a way to say God is everywhere?
There are some who see Jesus as a warrior and think that his breaking from tradition of the time and converting the wealthy, the tax men and allowing women into the "group" was part of an attempt to build a large "army" very quickly.
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
Thanks.
You must do what you feel is correct. Who am I to judge. But generally I agree with you.
Right now I'm somewhat of a heretic on another forum Vision TV. I am refusing to give an answer to a rhetorical question that has no answer. ie. if Jesus . . . what would he say? A totally absurd question that wants me to play God. Not a chance. LOL.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Thanks.
You must do what you feel is correct. Who am I to judge. But generally I agree with you.
Right now I'm somewhat of a heretic on another forum Vision TV. I am refusing to give an answer to a rhetorical question that has no answer. ie. if Jesus . . . what would he say? A totally absurd question that wants me to play God. Not a chance. LOL.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
The Old Testament does not agree with you
No, Harry, YOU do not agree with him. The interpretations of the OT are entirely subjective and I think there is scholarly support on both sides.
No, Harry, YOU do not agree with him. The interpretations of the OT are entirely subjective and I think there is scholarly support on both sides.
Literal or Metaphor?
Harry,
I am missing your point as to how that proves Ted to be wrong. Perhaps you should clarify?
I am missing your point as to how that proves Ted to be wrong. Perhaps you should clarify?
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
Tradition says the the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, are the 5 books of Moses. However, most Biblical scholars as well as Jewish scholars now accept the fact that they were not written by Moses.
The lastest research would indicate that they were written by the Hebrew in exile in Babylon.
It would seem that Harry is simply not accepted anything beyond tradition. They in fact were passed on orallly for several centuries before they were ever written down. In fact parts of them were borrowed from the Babylonians and other local tribes. This is well known among academic circles today.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Tradition says the the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, are the 5 books of Moses. However, most Biblical scholars as well as Jewish scholars now accept the fact that they were not written by Moses.
The lastest research would indicate that they were written by the Hebrew in exile in Babylon.
It would seem that Harry is simply not accepted anything beyond tradition. They in fact were passed on orallly for several centuries before they were ever written down. In fact parts of them were borrowed from the Babylonians and other local tribes. This is well known among academic circles today.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
This why I asked for the point to be clarified. What the book are called and what the books say about themselves are not necessarily "fact". Since I assumed Moses did not submit a signed copy written by his own hand...it comes down to a he said, she said kind of debate, yes?
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
I am only going by the scholarly research that I have read. There are of course the conservative lot who take everthing literally. This of course was the heresy of the reformation and the Renaissance.
Shalom
Ted :-6
I am only going by the scholarly research that I have read. There are of course the conservative lot who take everthing literally. This of course was the heresy of the reformation and the Renaissance.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
The first five books are considered to be the work of Moses
Yes, CONSIDERED to be. So there is room for error. Even if he didn't write them it wouldn't change their value.
Genesis is the oral tragition passed down to his time
So there is some acknowledgement that myth plays a part in the OT. If he is relating oral tradition, than the books are not so much the word of God as given to Moses than a continuation of the understanding that was imparted to Moses by his teachers and actually predates Moses.
As a side note: I could never figure out why who begat who was so important. This implies that only "royal" people of a certain bloodline can become wise prophets. If this is so and Jesus died on the cross with no children, how is he ever going to come again? There is no more begatting to trace. Is this not troublsome if heritage is so important.
A list of dos and don'ts can most certainly be a collection of knowledge that Moses had gathered through his experience, wisdom and with God's help, but how do you know a few extras weren't thrown in or reworded at the time of writing? Nobody alive today was there when it was written so it all comes down to faith that they remembered it all correctly. Also, have you ever played the game "Telephone"?
Yes, CONSIDERED to be. So there is room for error. Even if he didn't write them it wouldn't change their value.
Genesis is the oral tragition passed down to his time
So there is some acknowledgement that myth plays a part in the OT. If he is relating oral tradition, than the books are not so much the word of God as given to Moses than a continuation of the understanding that was imparted to Moses by his teachers and actually predates Moses.
As a side note: I could never figure out why who begat who was so important. This implies that only "royal" people of a certain bloodline can become wise prophets. If this is so and Jesus died on the cross with no children, how is he ever going to come again? There is no more begatting to trace. Is this not troublsome if heritage is so important.
A list of dos and don'ts can most certainly be a collection of knowledge that Moses had gathered through his experience, wisdom and with God's help, but how do you know a few extras weren't thrown in or reworded at the time of writing? Nobody alive today was there when it was written so it all comes down to faith that they remembered it all correctly. Also, have you ever played the game "Telephone"?
Literal or Metaphor?
Sometimes it takes me a while to track down my "sources", in this case A History of God by Karen Armstrong. This is what my home library says about the origins of the Pentateuch.
During the nineteenth century, some German biblical scholars developed a critical method which discerned four different sources in the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. These were later collated into the final text of what we know as the Pentateuch during the fifth century BCE. This form of criticism has come in for a good deal of harsh treatment, but nobody has yet come up with a more satisfactory theory which explains why there are two quite different accounts of key biblical events, such as the Creation and the Flood, and why the Bible sometimes contradicts itself. The two earliest biblical authors, whose work is found in Genesis and Exodus, were probably writing during the eighth century, though some would give them an earlier date. One is known as "J" because he calls his God "Yahweh", the other "E" since he prefers the more formal divine title "Elohim". By the eighth century, the Israelites had divided Canaan into two separate kingdoms. J was writing in the southern Kingdom of Judah, while E came from the northern Kingdom of Israel...the two other sources of the Pentateuch [are] the Duetoronomist (D) and Priestly (P) accounts of the ancient history of Israel.
During the nineteenth century, some German biblical scholars developed a critical method which discerned four different sources in the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. These were later collated into the final text of what we know as the Pentateuch during the fifth century BCE. This form of criticism has come in for a good deal of harsh treatment, but nobody has yet come up with a more satisfactory theory which explains why there are two quite different accounts of key biblical events, such as the Creation and the Flood, and why the Bible sometimes contradicts itself. The two earliest biblical authors, whose work is found in Genesis and Exodus, were probably writing during the eighth century, though some would give them an earlier date. One is known as "J" because he calls his God "Yahweh", the other "E" since he prefers the more formal divine title "Elohim". By the eighth century, the Israelites had divided Canaan into two separate kingdoms. J was writing in the southern Kingdom of Judah, while E came from the northern Kingdom of Israel...the two other sources of the Pentateuch [are] the Duetoronomist (D) and Priestly (P) accounts of the ancient history of Israel.
Literal or Metaphor?
That you are well read is not under dispute. :-6
The "facts" here are that there are no facts. You represent a more literal translation of the scriptures and Ted leans more to the midrash or metaphorical interpretation. Neither side can really be proven. There is a "shadow of a doubt" on either side. The same can be said of any religion's core principles. They spring from myth, philosophy and/or divinely inspired minds.
This thread will never "prove" anything to anyone. This thread may give people a chance to review the stories and think about what they perceive it to mean so any and all interpretations are welcome. In general, people will believe what they feel is right and not just what someone tells them to believe.
I could tell people that an inspiring person I knew was an embodiment of God and relate all the theology that was passed on to me. If they are dead, there is no way for them to validate or invalidate what I have said. If this person was not divinely inspired, most likely the religion would fail. If the words touched many people it would be a testament to the inspiration of the theology. A follower of a religion pays tribute to the religion and contributes to its effect on the world by building the number of followers. Regardless, the writer of those words must also be divinely inspired to capture the essence of the teachings in words...very difficult. So it seems that God worked powerfully not only through Christ but through the person, or persons who wrote it down.
I do wonder: Why give one man all the credit?...especially when he didn't really want the credit because he was HUMBLE and believed everyone was capable of doing the miracles that he did. Why not give the credit to God and look for the value in the words of other inspired messengers as well. I don't think Christ would be mad if you listen to others that say the same thing.
My understanding is that he wanted people to emulate him ("through me") not idolize him "through me".
The "facts" here are that there are no facts. You represent a more literal translation of the scriptures and Ted leans more to the midrash or metaphorical interpretation. Neither side can really be proven. There is a "shadow of a doubt" on either side. The same can be said of any religion's core principles. They spring from myth, philosophy and/or divinely inspired minds.
This thread will never "prove" anything to anyone. This thread may give people a chance to review the stories and think about what they perceive it to mean so any and all interpretations are welcome. In general, people will believe what they feel is right and not just what someone tells them to believe.
I could tell people that an inspiring person I knew was an embodiment of God and relate all the theology that was passed on to me. If they are dead, there is no way for them to validate or invalidate what I have said. If this person was not divinely inspired, most likely the religion would fail. If the words touched many people it would be a testament to the inspiration of the theology. A follower of a religion pays tribute to the religion and contributes to its effect on the world by building the number of followers. Regardless, the writer of those words must also be divinely inspired to capture the essence of the teachings in words...very difficult. So it seems that God worked powerfully not only through Christ but through the person, or persons who wrote it down.
I do wonder: Why give one man all the credit?...especially when he didn't really want the credit because he was HUMBLE and believed everyone was capable of doing the miracles that he did. Why not give the credit to God and look for the value in the words of other inspired messengers as well. I don't think Christ would be mad if you listen to others that say the same thing.
My understanding is that he wanted people to emulate him ("through me") not idolize him "through me".
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Literal or Metaphor?
I've been resisting this thread for days, but ok, I admit it, I'm rather hooked. 
Ted, are you saying the Holy Ghost is something along the lines of a memory/inspiration type experience? That sounds cold, so I'll explain my meaning briefly. Although my father died years ago, I can still hear his voice, or "feel" what he would want from time to time. His body is gone, but his guidance and love remains with me.
What is the name of your church?
Didn't someone else in the Tanach raise a man from the dead, before Jesus did? I cannot recall who did it, but I vaguely recall several days of praying and working to bring him back.
I was intrigued by the short mention of god apparently commanding people to wipe out other peoples - specifically when the wandering Israelites took over other lands....which Israelis now say is their birthright. A bit ironic, but moving on ~ The idea of a just and merciful god does not jibe with directives to wipe out every man, woman, and child. Can you explain more on that?
Thanks!
Ted, are you saying the Holy Ghost is something along the lines of a memory/inspiration type experience? That sounds cold, so I'll explain my meaning briefly. Although my father died years ago, I can still hear his voice, or "feel" what he would want from time to time. His body is gone, but his guidance and love remains with me.
What is the name of your church?
Didn't someone else in the Tanach raise a man from the dead, before Jesus did? I cannot recall who did it, but I vaguely recall several days of praying and working to bring him back.
I was intrigued by the short mention of god apparently commanding people to wipe out other peoples - specifically when the wandering Israelites took over other lands....which Israelis now say is their birthright. A bit ironic, but moving on ~ The idea of a just and merciful god does not jibe with directives to wipe out every man, woman, and child. Can you explain more on that?
Thanks!
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Literal or Metaphor?
A Karennia :-6
Once again we have only metaphor to describe the Divine. The holy Spirit is the present of the spirit of God.--It is an experiential reality on the part of millions.
I am a member of Anglican Church of Canada but first and formost I am a follower of the Risen Lord. I happen to love the tradition forms of service. I find so much personal meaning in them.
You may be referring to Num 31. First of all this did not come from God. In fact Biblical scholars think this may have been a later addition in an attempt to justifiy some very horrible acts.
We must learn to read the OT in light of the NT and the message and life of Jesus.
We must also remember that the Gospel of John contains no words that God back to the historical Jesus. They are the results of the developing traditions within th early church. They certainly explain what the early church felt about this man Jesus of Nazareth.
I hope that answers your questions. If not ask further.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Once again we have only metaphor to describe the Divine. The holy Spirit is the present of the spirit of God.--It is an experiential reality on the part of millions.
I am a member of Anglican Church of Canada but first and formost I am a follower of the Risen Lord. I happen to love the tradition forms of service. I find so much personal meaning in them.
You may be referring to Num 31. First of all this did not come from God. In fact Biblical scholars think this may have been a later addition in an attempt to justifiy some very horrible acts.
We must learn to read the OT in light of the NT and the message and life of Jesus.
We must also remember that the Gospel of John contains no words that God back to the historical Jesus. They are the results of the developing traditions within th early church. They certainly explain what the early church felt about this man Jesus of Nazareth.
I hope that answers your questions. If not ask further.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Literal or Metaphor?
koan :-6
Your response to Harry is rather interesting. History is not an exact science. It is indeed subject to a lot of interpretation. One must go on the balance of probabilities for sure. This is especially so when looking a ancient and pre history.
We have the latest findings of archaeology that do lend weight to one position or another. The dating systems include far more then C-14 which is accurate to only about 40000 years and in some rare cases to 70 000. However that is only one method of dating out of dozens.
Reading and interpreting the Sacred Writings depends on many things one of which includes the perspective or point of view of the interpreter. In the sence of proving anything I think the best we have at the moment is the archaeological record and the knowledge and medthodology of the archaeologists who do submit their word to peer review.
We do know some facts thought about the Bible. It is known that the Pentateuch was passed on as oral tradion for hundreds of years. That is not questioned by the scholars. We know the the authors used more then one source when the put the Pentateuch together. We know that some of the stories were borrowed from other local tribes. We know that most of the earch church did not believe in the literalism or the inerrancy of the early Bible. That is part of the church record. In fact a probable date for the blossoming of the literalist/inerrant approach to the Bible is 1692 (Marcus Borg).
The archaeological record on much of Biblicla history has become quite clear. I will give one example because there are books written on the subject. There is not one shred of evidence for the Exodus as written in the Bible. Hundreds of years of searching have yealded absolutely no even one piece of evidence. Either Exodus story came of of the early expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta or it came from a smaller exodus of a family, extended family or small tribe exodus. The story of course being embellished over the years.
In terms of reading the Bible the best source of information for that are the Jewish scholas themselves. They for millenia understood the Sacred Writings to be midrashic. They still accept this today. Metaphor is a part of the midrashic approach.
We know that the Bible has been subject to the redactors who modified the OT to suit new situations. Often stories were backdated etc. This has been shown by historians and archaeologists.
The difficult arear to offer proofs of anything is of course the spiritual area. Nothing can generally be proven to the level of scientific proof. Yet I think that there are proofs out their: We have medically accepted miracle healings from Lourds. We have the experiences of millions of folks down through the millenia.
Folks have had the experiential reality of God and of the Risen Christ and of the power of the Holy Spirit. Now I know that some psychologists try to explain these. However my arguement with the psychologist is rather simple. How dare s/he tell an individual what they experienced. They did not have the experience. At best it is guesswork on their part.
I speak of course as a Christian but as a Christian Pluralist I accept that members of the other Great Faiths have had similar experiences such as Muhammed. Due to history, belief systems, culture, language, upbringing, personal experiences, mental abilties, conceptualization abilities etc. they have recorded things differently. Just as two witnesses to a car accident etc. describe it differently.
There are thinkgs we know for sure, as much as history will allow it. There are things that people know for sure within themselves by their own experiences.
Anyway I have gone on far too long. I have attempted to prove nothing except that much study and research is important if one is to understand this particular field of knowledge. One must go to the scholars who have a much better idea of their work then I most certainly do.
Shalom
Ted
:-6
Your response to Harry is rather interesting. History is not an exact science. It is indeed subject to a lot of interpretation. One must go on the balance of probabilities for sure. This is especially so when looking a ancient and pre history.
We have the latest findings of archaeology that do lend weight to one position or another. The dating systems include far more then C-14 which is accurate to only about 40000 years and in some rare cases to 70 000. However that is only one method of dating out of dozens.
Reading and interpreting the Sacred Writings depends on many things one of which includes the perspective or point of view of the interpreter. In the sence of proving anything I think the best we have at the moment is the archaeological record and the knowledge and medthodology of the archaeologists who do submit their word to peer review.
We do know some facts thought about the Bible. It is known that the Pentateuch was passed on as oral tradion for hundreds of years. That is not questioned by the scholars. We know the the authors used more then one source when the put the Pentateuch together. We know that some of the stories were borrowed from other local tribes. We know that most of the earch church did not believe in the literalism or the inerrancy of the early Bible. That is part of the church record. In fact a probable date for the blossoming of the literalist/inerrant approach to the Bible is 1692 (Marcus Borg).
The archaeological record on much of Biblicla history has become quite clear. I will give one example because there are books written on the subject. There is not one shred of evidence for the Exodus as written in the Bible. Hundreds of years of searching have yealded absolutely no even one piece of evidence. Either Exodus story came of of the early expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta or it came from a smaller exodus of a family, extended family or small tribe exodus. The story of course being embellished over the years.
In terms of reading the Bible the best source of information for that are the Jewish scholas themselves. They for millenia understood the Sacred Writings to be midrashic. They still accept this today. Metaphor is a part of the midrashic approach.
We know that the Bible has been subject to the redactors who modified the OT to suit new situations. Often stories were backdated etc. This has been shown by historians and archaeologists.
The difficult arear to offer proofs of anything is of course the spiritual area. Nothing can generally be proven to the level of scientific proof. Yet I think that there are proofs out their: We have medically accepted miracle healings from Lourds. We have the experiences of millions of folks down through the millenia.
Folks have had the experiential reality of God and of the Risen Christ and of the power of the Holy Spirit. Now I know that some psychologists try to explain these. However my arguement with the psychologist is rather simple. How dare s/he tell an individual what they experienced. They did not have the experience. At best it is guesswork on their part.
I speak of course as a Christian but as a Christian Pluralist I accept that members of the other Great Faiths have had similar experiences such as Muhammed. Due to history, belief systems, culture, language, upbringing, personal experiences, mental abilties, conceptualization abilities etc. they have recorded things differently. Just as two witnesses to a car accident etc. describe it differently.
There are thinkgs we know for sure, as much as history will allow it. There are things that people know for sure within themselves by their own experiences.
Anyway I have gone on far too long. I have attempted to prove nothing except that much study and research is important if one is to understand this particular field of knowledge. One must go to the scholars who have a much better idea of their work then I most certainly do.
Shalom
Ted
:-6
Literal or Metaphor?
Thanks A Karenina for joining the discussion. :-6
I was thinking more of the Holy Trinity and how this has been one of the bigger stumbling blocks in the Christian theology. I am glad it hasn't slipped by unnoticed.
The worship of One God is confused by the issue of three "faces" in the Trinity. I have more questions/thoughts on this one but I'm not sure how to word them.
Ted :-6
Much of my comments were to avoid a battle over whose history is more correct. The main point is that
In general, people will believe what they feel is right and not just what someone tells them to believe.
It doesn't matter how much proof you come up with if the person doesn't feel it to be right. Scientific, scholarly or not. I didn't want this thread to get too concerned with choosing sides.
The Trinity is still of interest for me and also the reasons behind idolatry that many literalists seem to cling to. What are the quotations from the bible that make people look on Jesus as if he IS God incarnate and what are ALL the other possible meanings? If Jesus was God incarnate from birth, how can we picture God as a helpless suckling baby?
I was thinking more of the Holy Trinity and how this has been one of the bigger stumbling blocks in the Christian theology. I am glad it hasn't slipped by unnoticed.
The worship of One God is confused by the issue of three "faces" in the Trinity. I have more questions/thoughts on this one but I'm not sure how to word them.
Ted :-6
Much of my comments were to avoid a battle over whose history is more correct. The main point is that
In general, people will believe what they feel is right and not just what someone tells them to believe.
It doesn't matter how much proof you come up with if the person doesn't feel it to be right. Scientific, scholarly or not. I didn't want this thread to get too concerned with choosing sides.
The Trinity is still of interest for me and also the reasons behind idolatry that many literalists seem to cling to. What are the quotations from the bible that make people look on Jesus as if he IS God incarnate and what are ALL the other possible meanings? If Jesus was God incarnate from birth, how can we picture God as a helpless suckling baby?