english catholics to american evangelicals: Bible not literally true

[yolland]

We've been through all this before. It is far easier to follow God your own way when you get to rip out the pages you don't like.

I understand where you are coming from and see how we've taken different paths to Christ.

nb, I am curious...why are you willing to grant the existence of "different paths to Christ" for the latter case but not the former?

 

[nbcrusader]

nb, I am curious...why are you willing to grant the existence of "different paths to Christ" for the latter case but not the former?

I think a couple of things may explain the statements. First, I must go under the assumption that when someone makes the initial declaration that they are a believer in Jesus Christ; I am not in a position to say "no you are not". Only God knows their heart.

Now, it may be subsequently revealed that the Jesus Christ they declare is not the Jesus from Scripture. That is a far deeper process than occurs here.

Another factor will be the portion of Scripture we are discussing. In the context of our recent discussion, no where in Scripture is justification tied to whether or not women have authority over men in the church. But God hasn't just given us the keys to justification, but a larger body of material that we are to use to guide our lives as believers. I think God would want us to earnestly grapple with the things that contradict our instincts or natural desires.

 

[BonosSaint]

What do you grapple with, Crusader?

 

[verte76]

Martin Luther decided there were several books in the Old Testament he didn't like. Actually, of course, he was choosing the Jerusalem canon over the Alexandrian canon. There are passages in the Alexandrian canon, II Macabees to be precise, that refer to praying for the dead and Purgatory, which is why we accept these in the Catholic Church. But, the whole canon thing confuses me. Why consider one canon the Word of God and not the other one? Any comments on this?

 

[melon]

Martin Luther decided there were several books in the Old Testament he didn't like. Actually, of course, he was choosing the Jerusalem canon over the Alexandrian canon. There are passages in the Alexandrian canon, II Macabees to be precise, that refer to praying for the dead and Purgatory, which is why we accept these in the Catholic Church. But, the whole canon thing confuses me. Why consider one canon the Word of God and not the other one? Any comments on this?

As a side note, I've often questioned whether II Maccabees truly explains the Catholic idea of purgatory (in reality, it does not; it's actually a description of the traditional Jewish / Sadducceean idea of the afterlife, "Sheol," which has more in common with the ancient Greek concept of "Hades") or whether it was merely an excuse to cover up the fact that we borrowed the basic concept of "purgatory" from Zoroastrianism ("Hamistigan"; place where those equally good and evil are frozen in stone until the coming of the Saoshayant ["Savior/Messiah"]). In fact, I would bet that "purgatory" is yet another "gift" to Christianity from my favorite Manicheanist heretic cum "Christian father," St. Augustine. Manicheanism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism.

Melon

 

[verte76]

As a side note, I've often questioned whether II Maccabees truly explains the Catholic idea of purgatory (in reality, it does not; it's actually a description of the traditional Jewish / Sadducceean idea of the afterlife, "Sheol," which has more in common with the ancient Greek concept of "Hades") or whether it was merely an excuse to cover up the fact that we borrowed the basic concept of "purgatory" from Zoroastrianism ("Hamistigan"; place where those equally good and evil are frozen in stone until the coming of the Saoshayant ["Savior/Messiah"]). In fact, I would bet that "purgatory" is yet another "gift" to Christianity from my favorite Manicheanist heretic cum "Christian father," St. Augustine. Manicheanism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism.

Melon

Yes, Augustine was a Manichean before he became a Christian. It could be that he carried over some of his ideas. There's no doubt that Judaism and Christianity were heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Ah there's truth and there's truth, isn't there. Couldn't be arsed grappling with this thread but I heard the soundbite version of the story and that's enough for me. I now live in soundbites because I am a falling-down drunk, it's more efficient that way.

I doubt very much any english catholics actually said the bible isn't literally true, it's probably more that they said the truth needs to be understood in historical context, or somesuch commonsense thing. Good guess, yes?
Yeah. So, um, hmmm.

sounds of the crickets

 

[nbcrusader]

What do you grapple with, Crusader?

With many things, especially with years of bible studies.

 

[shart1780]

Of course there's scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. We all know that God is limited by the universal laws he created!

 

[Irvine511]

Of course there's scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. We all know that God is limited by the universal laws he created!

this is potentially a very interesting statement -- could you unpack this? what do you mean?

 

[shart1780]

this is potentially a very interesting statement -- could you unpack this? what do you mean?

I was actually being sarcastic.

I just find it so ironic that people would question God's word because of what they view as scientific inaccuracies. I believe God created our universe and all the laws we're restricted by. I believe he even created the concept of time! God is everywhere and every time, he has always been and always will be, he has no beginning and no end! Why should we push science on a God like that?

Some so-called spiritual men put all of their faith in science and none in God. Is that really faith at all?

 

[XHendrix24]

Some so-called spiritual men put all of their faith in science and none in God. Is that really faith at all?

And some put all of their faith into the idea of God that they have in their heads without attempting to reconcile it with the real world.

Which do you think is a better idea?

 

[shart1780]

My point is that there's a time and place to push science. Trying to apply the laws of science to the spiritual realm is completely silly and futile.

God can't be reconciled with our "real world" because God isn't limited by the same puny minds we are.

 

[Irvine511]

I was actually being sarcastic.

I just find it so ironic that people would question God's word because of what they view as scientific inaccuracies. I believe God created our universe and all the laws we're restricted by. I believe he even created the concept of time! God is everywhere and every time, he has always been and always will be, he has no beginning and no end! Why should we push science on a God like that?

Some so-called spiritual men put all of their faith in science and none in God. Is that really faith at all?

oh. sorry.

well you're working from a base set of assumptions that not everyone shares -- in fact, your view is very much in the minority, both in the US and certainly across the world.

it's lovely that you believe things, but i thought you were going to tell us what you thought.

 

[Irvine511]

My point is that there's a time and place to push science. Trying to apply the laws of science to the spiritual realm is completely silly and futile.

is the converse true, then?

creationistic superstitions like ID are emphatically not science -- so they have no place in a science classroom?

 

[nbcrusader]

well you're working from a base set of assumptions that not everyone shares -- in fact, your view is very much in the minority, both in the US and certainly across the world.

Which part do you dismiss as the minority view? That God is not bound by the laws we've discovered or understand?

 

[shart1780]

Science is the observation of our natural world, so technically, theories such as the big bang are no more scientific than the idea of creation.

I believe God set our universe in motion and decided that it would be bound by a set of rules he made. I also believe he did it in 7 days. To me that's the absolute truth. Also, the theory of evolution has so many scientific inconsistencies! Where are all of these missing links? How did the big bang occour? The whole idea of the big bang is against the laws of physics.

I'm not saying that the theory of evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, I'm just saying it shouldn't be taught as anything more than a theory. It can't be proven and it's riddled with scientific inconsistencies and uncertainties. Even non-spiritual scientists are becoming increasingly skeptical of the theory of evolution. When only one theory is taught it doesn't leave much room for question. If evolution is going to be taught then I believe the alternatives should recieve equal attention.

 

[BVS]

I also believe he did it in 7 days. To me that's the absolute truth.

You do? Despite every piece of evidence that says that's not how it happened, you still take it literally? I guess you also believe we are the product of incest as well?

 

[shart1780]

Yep, I believe it's true.

 

[BVS]

So dinosaurs bones, carbon dating it's all a conspiracy designed by scientists to discredit the Bible?

Interesting...

 

[A_Wanderer]

Science is the observation of our natural world, so technically, theories such as the big bang are no more scientific than the idea of creation.

As far as I am aware creationism lacks any supporting evidence, the big bang theory is supported by the red shifting of distant planets and the homogeneous cosmic microwave background radiation. The big bang is a theory devised to explain the observations.

You should understand that in science a theory is a framework of understanding observations that is substantiated by the evidence, the theory of evolution by natural selection for instance was formulated by Darwin to explain observed homologies (shared traits) and variations between animal species,. Since the 19th Century a lot of new evidence has come to light, we have found more fossils that show extinct forms, we have the science of genetics which shows mechanisms for variation heritability. You want missing links? take a look at animals like Ambulocetus ~ the 'whale with legs', the vestigial organs that so many animals have; why would an intelligent designer give crabs a reduced and tucked away tail? give human beings problematic appendixes? give whales diminished pelvic bones?

A scientific theory ~ one that is taught. Is a framework supported by the evidence. The problem with ID and creationism is that they are not formed on the evidence but the supposition that all life on earth was created in a static state.

How could in this original state of Earth where all species that ever lived existed at once have we derived the species that we see today? Obviously extinction had to have taken place, but what evidence is there that at one point in time everything existed at once; dinosaurs alongside men, trilobites alongside whale? Why is it that when we find fossils of extinct life certain species are found in a limited range of time? Why do the more advanced forms of life only appear in the younger rocks? why is there fossils (albeit fewer) in the pre-Cambrian period which lasted for billions of years? Why is it that the early rocks on earth show deposits of pure iron ~ there is no rust, this means that there was no oxygen, how could all life have existed without oxygen?

I am not saying that theres no God, thats not for me to say, but belief in a deity should not mean that you cannot look at the world the way it is in all its detail and complexity.

 

[A_Wanderer]

So dinosaurs bones, carbon dating it's all a conspiracy designed by scientists to discredit the Bible?

Interesting...

Easy there, radiocarbon dating cant go back as far as the dinosaurs. If you wanted to look at things from the Mesozoic you may want to use Uranium-Lead dating

 

[Irvine511]

Science is the observation of our natural world, so technically, theories such as the big bang are no more scientific than the idea of creation.

I believe God set our universe in motion and decided that it would be bound by a set of rules he made. I also believe he did it in 7 days. To me that's the absolute truth. Also, the theory of evolution has so many scientific inconsistencies! Where are all of these missing links? How did the big bang occour? The whole idea of the big bang is against the laws of physics.

I'm not saying that the theory of evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, I'm just saying it shouldn't be taught as anything more than a theory. It can't be proven and it's riddled with scientific inconsistencies and uncertainties. Even non-spiritual scientists are becoming increasingly skeptical of the theory of evolution. When only one theory is taught it doesn't leave much room for question. If evolution is going to be taught then I believe the alternatives should recieve equal attention.

i agree that evolution is a theory.

but creationism and ID are not even theories; they are superstitions.

please, point out the inconsistancies -- and, really, it's much easier, when confronted with the fact that human beings don't know everything, that instead of pushing to learn more and explore more and further the boundaries of scientific inquiry, to just say, "well, gosh, it must be god! no need to ask any more questions."

 

[Irvine511]

Which part do you dismiss as the minority view? That God is not bound by the laws we've discovered or understand?

i am "dismissing" the view that science is subservient to inherited notions of what god is and does.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The whole idea of the big bang is against the laws of physics.

I would agree with you here, the idea of a superluminal expansion of the universe during the inflationary period does violate the laws of physics and the stop-gap measures put in place by cosmologists are problematic. But perhaps we should consider that the laws of physics, like any scientific theory, can be revised or rejected as new evidence comes to light. Issac Newtons law of universal gravitation was proven wrong by a constant speed of light, to remedy this Albert Einstein formulated general relativity, we cannot reconcile GR with Quantum Mechanics yet, the next step, the theory of everything, may provide us with a framework to understand what goes on at the extremes from the singularity of a black hole to the first instants of time.

When the laws of physics simply cannot explain what you observe, then you might have to start formulating new laws

 

[Irvine511]

I would agree with you here, the idea of a superluminal expansion of the universe during the inflationary period does violate the laws of physics and the stop-gap measures put in place by cosmologists are problematic. But perhaps we should consider that the laws of physics, like any scientific theory, can be revised or rejected as new evidence comes to light. Issac Newtons law of universal gravitation was proven wrong by a constant speed of light, to remedy this Albert Einstein formulated general relativity, we cannot reconcile GR with Quantum Mechanics yet, the next step, the theory of everything, may provide us with a framework to understand what goes on at the extremes from the singularity of a black hole to the first instants of time.

When the laws of physics simply cannot explain what you observe, then you might have to start formulating new laws

all your "science" and "evidence" are no match for this website: www.answersingenesis.org

 

[A_Wanderer]

Not Ken Ham the AiG-bots are insufferable bores spouting off talking points rapid fire (thankfully their accusations inevitably rest on false assumptions which are quickly and effectively neutralised, but if you ever try to "debate" in one of their organised meetings you come off second best in the eyes of those that believe) and seem to pop up in many pentecostal groups and some of the "trendy" churches.

It amazes me that there is actually a growing ID movement in Australia and there has been a few instances where it seems they have the ears of the politicians (speaking on a "personal" level of course about giving "equal time" ).

 

[melon]

You do? Despite every piece of evidence that says that's not how it happened, you still take it literally? I guess you also believe we are the product of incest as well?

Don't forget Cain marrying someone who shouldn't exist, according to the traditional interpretation.

Of course, I'm of the view that early Judaism was polytheistic, so if their POV was that "God" (maybe as "El," the supreme deity in ancient Semitic religion; "God" IS referred to as "Elohim" in Genesis, after all) created the Jewish people and the people of Nod (where Cain settled and married) would have been created by a separate Semitic deity. The Semitic goddess, "Asherah," was depicted as "Yahweh's consort," for instance. Judaism then progressed into henotheism (belief in the existence of multiple gods, but worship of only one god) in the book of Exodus. Finally, Judaism emerged into monotheism in the post-exilic era, and the prophetic books of the Old Testament are the best depiction of this era.

Anyway, back to polytheism, the POV would likely have been that God/"El" created His "chosen people" in a separate "Heaven" (the Garden of Eden), but since Adam and Eve fucked up, they were then punished by being sent to Earth with all the existing creations. "Yahweh/El Shaddai" (ancient Semitic thunder god that lived on Mount Sinai) was the god of the Levites, and the book of Exodus made it clear to the Israelites that they were only to worship him in the first commandment (although being noticeably worded as to not explicitly deny the existence of other gods; hence, henotheism). It was commonplace back then to have a separate creator god and then a protector god that they would worship solely, so it is quite possible that early Judaism did not worship the same god who they believed created them.

But all of this became moot with the arrival of the Persian Empire when Cyrus the Great remolded Judaism into the image of the Persian state religion, Zoroastrianism. "Yahweh" was no longer the thunder god of the Levites living on Mount Sinai, but a reflection of the all good and loving supreme god of light, "Ahura Mazda."

And to ensure that this refashioned "Judaism" caught on, Cyrus the Great sent a "prophet" in the form of Ezra. And, on the order of Cyrus the Great, the temple is rebuilt, but not without conflict. Judaism is thus split into three factions:

1) The majority Sadducees who reject this Zoroastrian-infused Judaism and cling to their traditional beliefs.
2) The minority Pharisees who become powerful, due to their loyalty to this new religion.
3) The dissident Essenes (writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls) who so virulently oppose the rebuilding of the Temple that they live in the desert in protest.

And so these three factions exist up into the time of Jesus, where the Sadducees want Jesus dead, because Messianic beliefs are Zoroastrian in nature, and the Pharisees want Jesus dead because He's not the warrior Messiah they expected. Then in A.D. 70, the Sadducees revolt against the Roman Empire and the Romans destroy Jerusalem and the Temple killing most all of the Jews in the city and enslaving the remainder into all corners of the Empire. The majority Sadducees then cease to exist after this date, with the minority Pharisees then taking upon the mantle that is now "modern Judaism." The Essence, overjoyed by the destruction of the Temple, now have no reason to continue living in exile and peacefully merge with the Pharisees, taking on their religious beliefs. This recombined "Judaism" then created the canon of the Old Testament that we use today in the first century A.D.

Anyway, my main point is that the Bible starts making some sense when you keep track of all the history and conflict that created it.

Melon

 

[melon]

It amazes me that there is actually a growing ID movement in Australia and there has been a few instances where it seems they have the ears of the politicians (speaking on a "personal" level of course about giving "equal time" ).

"Intelligent design" is a joke. It's a religious concept being passed off as a "science," and people are falling for the pitiful logic that if evolution (A) is flawed, then ID (B) MUST be true. But the fact of the matter is that even if "A" could be flawed, it still doesn't remotely make "B" a contender at all, since it was not formulated out of scientific theory. We'd just have to wait for either a revised "A" (which happens all the time) or wait for a theoretical "C" theory that would arise out of science, not religion.

That's why I certainly oppose any mention of ID in school. Science and math are not consensus subjects whose substance is decided by a "popular vote." Science exists independently of whether or not most of humanity are buffoons.

Melon

 

[yolland]

But all of this became moot with the arrival of the Persian Empire when Cyrus the Great remolded Judaism into the image of the Persian state religion, Zoroastrianism. "Yahweh" was no longer the thunder god of the Levites living on Mount Sinai, but a reflection of the all good and loving supreme god of light, "Ahura Mazda."

This makes it sound as if Cyrus arrived on the scene, and voila--out of Shaddai-worship, modern rabbinic Judaism. It's true that the God of Torah has many names and embodies the attributes of many Ancient Near Eastern gods, and many Torah passages indeed suggest ongoing worship of other deities (not to mention the archeological evidence). But the notion that God is loving and good is hardly exclusive to postexilic times: the Torah and Early Prophets also extoll God as merciful and just (as well as jealous and angry), and as willing to change his mind in response to petitions from his followers. This vision of God persists into postexilic times, rather than leading to a dualistic split, as in the Zoroastrian Spenta Mainyu/Angra Mainyu.

Actually, many theologians consider Hellenistic thought to have exerted far more influence on the nature of Jewish monotheism. In any case, these outside sources were influential only in the context of an ever-developing but distinct tradition that far predated (and far outlasted) the rise to power of either.

Also, as a footnote to Cyrus' role in Jewish history (as opposed to our theology): despite Cyrus' invitation to the Jews to return, and despite the exhortations of Deutero-Isaiah and others, most Jews never went back to Israel after the Babylonian captivity ended. The total number who actually took Cyrus up on his offer was only about 40,000. So, demographically speaking, Palestine in Jesus' day was far from being the center of the Jewish world.

And to ensure that this refashioned "Judaism" caught on, Cyrus the Great sent a "prophet" in the form of Ezra. And, on the order of Cyrus the Great, the temple is rebuilt, but not without conflict. Judaism is thus split into three factions:

1) The majority Sadducees who reject this Zoroastrian-infused Judaism and cling to their traditional beliefs.
2) The minority Pharisees who become powerful, due to their loyalty to this new religion.
3) The dissident Essenes (writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls) who so virulently oppose the rebuilding of the Temple that they live in the desert in protest.

Actaually, it was the Sadducees who were most powerful during the Persian period, since they were the party of the wealthy Temple priests at a time when these priests held most of the local political power (Cyrus having refused to restore the monarchy). The Pharisees were a faction of scribes and sages who emphasized public teaching of the Torah, and continued the tradition of prayer houses (beit knesset, later "synagogues"--begun during the Babylonian exile and becoming increasingly important as sites of worship...eventually, of course, destined to replace the Temple altogether). The Essenes didn't emerge until several centuries later; their rejection of the Temple originated with rejection of the authority of High Priests during the Hasmonean period, rather than in an aversion to Zoroastrian teachings.

While it is true that Zoroastrian-influenced concepts like messianism and the afterlife were a part of some Pharisees' beliefs, the real "lightning-rod" conflicts between them and the Sadducees had to do with, first, whether the oral Torah (mishnah) could legitimately be used to interpret the written one or not; and second, whether the 613 Torah commandments (mitzvot) were meant to apply to all Jews, or only to priests. The Pharisees said yes to the former in both cases, and it is this aspect of their legacy that most powerfully shaped Judaism as we know it today--not their eschatology or their messianism, which lingered on in the margins (and occasionally erupted into disasters like the Bar-Kokhba rebellion) but have never become a guiding preoccupation of most observant Jews.

In any case, the terms "minority" and "majority" are very misleading here because most Jews--whether in the Persian period or in Jesus' day--were wholly nonsectarian, having nothing at all to gain from affiliation with any of these parties.

And so these three factions exist up into the time of Jesus, where the Sadducees want Jesus dead, because Messianic beliefs are Zoroastrian in nature, and the Pharisees want Jesus dead because He's not the warrior Messiah they expected.

It's most unlikely that either sect (much less the majority of Jews at the time) had a collective position on Jesus one way or the other. At any rate, it was ultimately the Roman rulers whose pespective mattered. Unless, of course, you buy into the unlikely idea that Pontius Pilate--a tyrannical crucifier of thousands who was ultimately canned by the Romans for excessive brutality--was really just a sympathetic pushover who let some random mob of Jews (a people whom he loathed, and over whom he held absolute power) "force" him to execute a man he wanted to live.

Anyway, my main point is that the Bible starts making some sense when you keep track of all the history and conflict that created it.

I agree, but sweeping reductionism is an ill-advised way to "make sense" of anything people feel strongly about. That can create unnecessary new conflicts at the expense of productive discussion, IMHO.

That said, I greatly admire your knowledge of Biblical and doctrinal history, as well as your gift for concisely summarizing very broad topics in a smart, spirited way. I wish I had that gift...unfortunately, I tend to be a nattering old windbag instead.