Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Eran of Arcadia]

Okay, remember that I consider a lot of the OT to be mythology - the whole "separating the waters" and whatnot just being a way to explain the truth of God creating the earth. I still believe that some of the more "miraculous" parts could have happened, but probably didn't. Overall, I think the whole point of the OT was not to tell a story - whether it was meant to be true or false.

 

[ironduck]

Okay, remember that I consider a lot of the OT to be mythology - the whole "separating the waters" and whatnot just being a way to explain the truth of God creating the earth. I still believe that some of the more "miraculous" parts could have happened, but probably didn't. Overall, I think the whole point of the OT was not to tell a story - whether it was meant to be true or false.

So why is it wrong to label that fiction? Plenty of excellent stories are clearly fiction, yet they give wonderful insights and provide moral guidance to many people. It seems as if fiction is somehow considered a negative term (someone said it was insulting), I don't consider it that at all. It's not a term of value, it simply describes whether the story is overall factual or not.

What about an urban legend, is that not fiction? Because that is how legends are typically formed. And legends sometimes become myths of great power and importance.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So why is it wrong to label that fiction? Plenty of excellent stories are clearly fiction, yet they give wonderful insights and provide moral guidance to many people.

Well, there is nothing wrong with calling it fiction if you are really determined, I suppose. I guess I just define the word "fiction" differently.

 

[Homie]

When you are all standing before Jesus on judgement day, you can tell Him how His book is fiction

 

[ironduck]

Well, there is nothing wrong with calling it fiction if you are really determined, I suppose. I guess I just define the word "fiction" differently.

What do you call urban legends? Scripture? Fact?

 

[Homie]

What do you call urban legends? Scripture? Fact?

I call them urban legends. Seriously, do they have to be categorized any further, as "urban legends" is its own category. Don't see a problem here.

And really they are a part of the "legends" category, which means they can be true, false or partly true.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

What do you call urban legends? Scripture? Fact?

I would just call them "legends", which I classify as neither "nonfiction" nor (usually) "fiction", as such. It occurs to me that this is an increasingly semantic argument, but hey those are fun too. I would actually call some parts of the Bible fiction (assuming they didn't actually happen, which in some cases I believe they did) such as the books of Ruth or Esther or Jonah.

 

[Sidhe]

When you are all standing before Jesus on judgement day, you can tell Him how His book is fiction

Jesus had pretty derogatory views about scripture, himself believing it to be non changing non evolutionary and in fact he even called it lifeless. Understandably though his views didn't get included in the bible. so facing Jesus I'll say about the bible 'can you believe how easy it was to take this and turn it into a mess off squabling and argument, and dubious interpritation', and he'll say yup, well I did say that many liars will come after me and my message will become corrupted, but my message will always be true, that's true Jesus, but they didn't include that in the sanctioned version either? Well of course not, it's not condusive to the message for people to be a little cynical of their religous leaders. Yeah but it is wise though surely? And then he'll do the buddy christ thing.

 

[ironduck]

I would just call them "legends", which I classify as neither "nonfiction" nor (usually) "fiction", as such. It occurs to me that this is an increasingly semantic argument, but hey those are fun too. I would actually call some parts of the Bible fiction (assuming they didn't actually happen, which in some cases I believe they did) such as the books of Ruth or Esther or Jonah.

Of course it's semantic, but it started with people finding it offending that I call it fiction because I think that it's likely fiction. I don't get why it's offending. According to that logic nothing must be called fiction because somewhere some person may find that particular bit of fiction to be sacred or whatever.

If we can agree that something that is true is non-fiction and something that is not true is fiction then I don't see the problem. I deem that the bible is mostly fiction because I don't think most of it is true. I'm sure most christians don't think Norse mythology is true. The only reason they may not want to call it fiction is to avoid upsetting someone who believe it. To me that just complicates things unneedlessly - all a person is saying is that they don't think it's true, it's not an attack on whomever does consider it true.

If I'm talking to someone about their beliefs and they are telling me something that is personal then it may be rude of me to note that I think they are wrong, and so I may be quiet about that, because it really isn't relevant. But in a discussion on a public forum I don't think it's rude to say I think someone is wrong. Especially when the topic is about controversial ancient stories whose messages are being questioned. By explaining in such a discussion that these stories are made up for such-and-such a purpose I or anyone else may simply be trying to explain the background and message of the story.

 

[MobBoss]

Jesus had pretty derogatory views about scripture, himself believing it to be non changing non evolutionary and in fact he even called it lifeless.

Wha? It was my impression that he called it the bread of life. Please show me this "lifeless" quote so I can see for myself how long you dicided to ride the out of context train.

Understandably though his views didn't get included in the bible.

???

so facing Jesus I'll say about the bible 'can you believe how easy it was to take this and turn it into a mess off squabling and argument, and dubious interpritation', and he'll say

And what if he says...ooops, sorry, Sidhe....but you were all wrong...buh bye.... (que flushing sound).

 

[Sidhe]

Wha? It was my impression that he called it the bread of life. Please show me this "lifeless" quote so I can see for myself how long you dicided to ride the out of context train.



???



And what if he says...ooops, sorry, Sidhe....but you were all wrong...buh bye.... (que flushing sound).

Well at least there will be some dialogue with me I don't accept everything as gospel in the bible like you do, I think you'd just ask for an autograph rather than adressing the more troubling parts.

Oh I'll find the quote I believe it's from the Gospel of the Holy twelve, the earliest recorded text of the lives of Jesus and his disciples, it's no doubt authentic as it predates the bible and has pretty much all the same messages as the gospels, in fact except for that one passage, it's not in the least contreversial and agrees with the bibles message completely, or it may be from one of the gnostic gospels, I forget it's a while since I read it.

Of course no one would exempt something or even change it in the bible, wrong, they did and they have, even the gospels are contradictary. Actually I don't even know why I should provide the quote, why would you take the word of Jesus seriously if it's not in your own personal bible? Anyway don't expect it this evening, it's late here, If you really wish to see it I posted it before, try searching my posts.

Oh never mind found them wasn't that hard funnily enough.

Rhese text were liberated from the vatican, but it's easy to see why they might of kept them burried.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/essene_gospel_of_peace_book1.htm

And Jesus himself sat down in their midst and said: "I tell you truly, none can be happy, except he do the Law."

And the others answered: "We all do the laws of Moses, our lawgiver, even as they are written in the holy scriptures."

And Jesus answered: "Seek not the law in your scriptures, for the law is life, whereas the scripture is dead. I tell you truly, Moses received not his laws from God in writing, but through the living word. The law is living word of living God to living prophets for living men. In everything that is life is the law written. You find it in the grass, in the tree, in the river, in the mountain, in the birds of heaven, in the fishes of the sea; but seek it chiefly in yourselves. For I tell you truly, all living things are nearer to God than the scripture which is without life. God so made life and all living things that they might by the everlasting word teach the laws of the true God to man. God wrote not the laws in the pages of books, but in your heart and in your spirit. They are in your breath, your blood, your bone; in your flesh, your bowels, your eyes, your ears, and in every little part of your body. They are present in the air, in the water, in the earth, in the plants, in th e sunbeams, in the depths and in the heights. They all speak to you that you may understand the tongue and the will of the living God. But you shut your eyes that you may not see, and you shut your ears that you may not hear. I tell you truly, that the scripture is the work of man, but life and all its hosts are the work of our God. Wherefore do you not listen to the words of God which are written in His works? And wherefore do you study the dead scriptures which are the work of the hands of men?"

Perhaps you can see where I get my point of view from?

 

[MobBoss]

Well at least there will be some dialogue with me I don't accept everything as gospel in the bible like you do, I think you'd just ask for an autograph rather than adressing the more troubling parts.

Oh I'll find the quote I believe it's from the Gospel of the Holy twelve, the earliest recorded text of the lives of Jesus and his disciples, it's no doubt authentic as it predates the bible and has pretty much all the same messages as the gospels, in fact except for that one passage, it's not in the least contreversial and agrees with the bibles message completely, or it may be from one of the gnostic gospels, I forget it's a while since I read it.

Of course no one would exempt something or even change it in the bible, wrong, they did and they have, even the gospels are contradictary. Actually I don't even know why I should provide the quote, why would you take the word of Jesus seriously if it's not in your own personal bible? Anyway don't expect it this evening, it's late here, If you really wish to see it I posted it before, try searching my posts.

Well, I actually do take the word of Jesus seriously, which is why I take you to task every time you misrepresent it.

So, its not in the bible. Gotcha. I didnt think it was. Nice try.

Btw, if its one of the gnostic gospels...it doesnt agree with the bibles message completely...thats why the gnostic gospels were removed in the first place.

Once again, its just like you to take a single esoteric passage from a non-canon source as "the word of Jesus". And you wonder why people take what you say with a grain of salt.

 

[Smidlee]

Query 01 ; you may be surprise by this but even true love can harden some people's heart. Anyways God harden Pharah's heart by demonstrating who He was? Pharoah's asked who is this God? The plaques of Egpyt was according the the gods Egyptians worshipped. They worshipped frogs (dare not kill them) so God gave them frogs.

Query 02: First noted that there's a difference between God plan and role for the nation Isreal and God's plan/role for the church. The nation Isreal was to stay put and witness while the church is told to go to all parts of the world with different cultures and governments. So church has no business having an army for example.
God isn't finished with the nation Isreal and will one day again be the witness for God to the world.

Being tolerant doesn't equal good/right and being intolerant doesn't equal evil/wrong. For true Love will be both tolerant to that which is right and intolerant to that which is wrong. (ex; idol worshippers would often their children up to this idols.)

Query 003: "Esau" means red while "Jacob" means supplanter/trickster because at birth he had Esua heel. Jacob is a fine example of trying to do God's will your way.
First Esau wasn't dying, this is just what he said. Second, Jacob knew there were many times that Esau will go out and not kill anything (as with any hunter) so he happen to fix Esau favorite meal to use to trick Esau. The next time Jacob tricked his brother and father to get the birthright set forth events which cause Jacob to take his own medicine. 9you reap what you sow.) For ole Uncle Laban was a even better trickster than Jacob was. He trick him to work seven years to marry the wrong daughter then had to work seven more years to marry the one he wanted. If that wasn't enough, these two women went to war trying to have babies. Finally God had to wrestled Jacob into submission which gave him the name "Isreal" which means "the prince that pravails with God". After this point of Jacob's life he was a changed man.

 

[Sidhe]

Well, I actually do take the word of Jesus seriously, which is why I take you to task every time you misrepresent it.

So, its not in the bible. Gotcha. I didnt think it was. Nice try.

Btw, if its one of the gnostic gospels...it doesnt agree with the bibles message completely...thats why the gnostic gospels were removed in the first place.

Once again, its just like you to take a single esoteric passage from a non-canon source as "the word of Jesus". And you wonder why people take what you say with a grain of salt.

Mob Boss are you really that ignorant that you believe everything that is included in the bible is the only truth out there? Some things weren't included in the bible simply because they were not found untill recently, like these texts which remained buried in church archives untill 1930.

All the texts on those web sites have been authenticated by independant theological scholars and scientists.(they are dated from the periods they maintain and they are the words of people living around the time of Christ.

Does the bible represent the only words of God for you, so much that nothing else Jesus spoke and people who cared wrote down means anything to you, are the apocrypha lies? Just because they were considered for inclusion after the fact? Are all the vast volumes of text about the period of Christs life, that the Catholics own capable of being placed in the bible? If not are they all worthy of scorn and contempt? Are you trully this obtuse? Do you really believe that you can dismiss everything out of the bible, dispite organised religion keeping it stored for posterity. Do historical texts which contradict the text have to be wrong by definition, because the Gospels contradict each other you know, are you truly that brainwashed that you believe nothing but the bible maters, because you can be damn sure that the Catholic Church would not have let these messages out of their posession if they thought they were detrimental to the faith in the 1930's. Man I don't believe this guy is real, surely his refusal to accept anything that another faith keeps is true is beyond credibility. Are you real Mob Boss or are you some stereotypical refuser of anything that does not agree with your razor thin definition of reality? Is this some caricature of refusal, can you be any more dismissive of other religions, does your pastor tell you to stick your fingers in your ears and shout la la la, every time your unwavering faith is questioned? Honestly are all fundementalists this blind? Or are you an uber fundementalist?

And you wonder why people take what you say with a grain of salt?

I don't need to feign laughter at the end of my posts, your most overused smiley, I doubt it's something you really do at the end of your posts very often.

One question, it's not part of the Gnoistic gospels. it's actually part of the Essene church an esoteric faith existing in Jerusalem, founded around the time of Christs message. Look it up on the internet. They tend to take the new testement very seriously, with more acknowledgement for Jesus than other Jews. Why are they and their words written down from meetings with Christ worthy of your scorn?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@ironduck: Fair enough. I certainly understand what you mean, and that you don't accept it as true. I avoid using the word "fiction" just because a large number of people accept it as true, and I at least accept it as something else. Certainly it is not the same thing as a novel, I think almost anyone will agree to that.

@Sidhe/MobBoss: I gather that Jesus felt that Scripture could be a useful instructional tool, with spiritual benefit, but also could become far too overvalued, and made more important than God. I think most of us can admit that at least some Christians have basically put the Bible in place of God.

 

[MobBoss]

Mob Boss are you really that ignorant that you believe everything that is included in the bible is the only truth out there?

Not at all, but apparently you feel the inverse is true...that somehow that single quote from a source outside the bible is Jesus' only real words. Regardless if it is in direct contradiction with everything else attributed to him in the bible.

Some things weren't included in the bible simply because they were not found untill recently, like these texts which remained buried in church archives untill 1930.

Huh?

All the texts on those web sites have been authenticated by independant theological scholars and scientists.(they are dated from the periods they maintain and they are the words of people living around the time of Christ.

What web sites are you referring to?

Does the bible represent the only words of God for you, so much that nothing else Jesus spoke and people who cared wrote down means anything to you, are the apocrypha lies? Just because they were considered for inclusion after the fact? Are all the vast volumes of text about the period of Christs life, that the Catholics own capable of being placed in the bible?

Not at all. I particularly find the Apocalypse of Peter and the Book of Enoch interesting.

If not are they all worthy of scorn and contempt?...(snip...utterly meaningless rhetoric removed)....... Honestly are all fundementalists this blind? Or are you an uber fundementalist?

First of all, I dont think such books were withdrawn without long and hard debate upon their merits. I have read a bit on the process and lets suffice to say it wasnt just a few odd priests tossing out books they didnt particularly care for.

I don't need to feign laughter at the end of my posts, your most overused smiley, I doubt it's something you really do at the end of your posts very often.

You mean like this? Hehe.

 

[Sidhe]

I agree to that, It feels natural that God's mesage is suposed to change, not be held back, that Religion should evolve with people, however from what I know of fundementalism and it's harking back to the fundemental texts, Mob Boss could never agree with Christs words in this case, it is agianst his religion.

EDIT: The link is in the original post. But here it is again.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/

Mob Boss I have read many texts by many authors including the disciples, which have maybe one word of controversy in them with the rest being condusive to the message, they don't get included because of this, not because they arent factual obviously, why would you include that text if you are trying to consolidate a power base, based on scripture? I don't think the Churches religous political maneuvers indicate something is false or true, and I really don't think these people have a sort of holy right to include and bar Jesus or any other disciple or prophets word from our view, sadly though the church did so for centuries.

 

[MobBoss]

I agree to that, It feels natural that God's mesage is suposed to change, not be held back, that Religion should evolve with people, however from what I know of fundementalism and it's harking back to the fundemental texts, Mob Boss could never agree with Christs words, it is agianst his religion.

God doesnt change. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

 

[Sidhe]

God doesnt change. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Jesus disagrees with your position. Hell I know you never change your mind, but you really should read up about things outside of your church before you dismiss their writings out of hand, it shows a distinct lack of tolerance of other beliefs, albeit within the same religion.

What your really saying is God is a dinosaur and only man is capable of changing, or are you saying we should not evolve either but remain as backwards and lost as we are now?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

God doesnt change. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Again, if one is to take the Bible seriosuly one has to admit that at least His ways of dealing with humans changed from the beginning to the early Christian period as humanity itself changed; why should He then stop at about 100 AD? Mankind is still changing (or at least society is) last time I checked.