• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Religion Christianity: Conceptions and misconceptions

John 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Mark 15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Mat 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

:clueless:

Here is some more info on the Rylands fragment
 
There's a big argument about when John wrote his revelation- if it was after 70AD as generally thought or before. Of course they argue whether it is the same John, too. I'm not certain at all why the year 90 comes up for most of his writings- such as the Gospel of John, but there isn't a lot of good documentation on a lot of this.

Every big study bible has these great footnotes and introduction pages that makes it seem settled- who, what and where it was written. It may not be so clear...God knows...
 
Thanks a lot for that extra info there Tsuyoiko ! I think I've seen that pic before somewhere, but can't recall. I was especially interested in the identification number, but it was not given. Usually there is, for example, P36, given for the papyri. . . anyway, I am very grateful to you. One question though, please, what translation are you using there in those quotes? AND I am very glad that you took the time to post those !! Really ! I had thought too, but you helped out there--great! :cool:

The reason I ask for the translation is that it is actually the book of John that gives the extra input that the inscription had been in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, rather than Luke. It is in John 19:20b ('b' identifies the syntax section of a passage). Was that a slip, or does your translation actually put that in Luke's narrative?

You have hit on a little bit of a sore spot there, I'd reason, Sabro. Yes the scholars usually seem so certain--I mean we are usually taught to write like that from Freshman Comp. (at least I was). Well, from what I have gathered, the dating goes by three major steps, if you will. One, the cross-referrence of internal information among the several first century Christian works. ( Acts is used a lot) Two, the letter writing style of the various papryri and uncials (these simpy put the dating back down to an 'earliest-possible-copy' type platform to reason that the originals had too be at least earlier than these) Three, extra-biblical writings that confirm NT historical details, along with archaeological findings. That's it. So there is room for debate, and lack of 'known-to-be-true' assertions. I will say here, that it is for the scholarly religionists, that I keep the general conclusions. ( Those of the religious scholars, and scholars of religious knowledge camps, overall, hold the relatively same conclusions.)

Well, one point in the above quotes regarding the said inscription above Jesus' head on the stake, is that as is claimed by the writers of John, it had also been written in the Koine Greek so there had been no room for translation margin. If it had been written in Aramaic, for example, you could have some room for translation margin, and thus some different wording in the Greek AND the English. These claims do not suggest a single author for the four accounts, and thus prove individual witness. (that is not to say, 'eye witness', but just witness in that these accounts are all that we have on the subject.) There are a whole lot more, and I hope to point them out one by one--but not all of them though. I hope to simply make all the evidence clear, and point out the rational notion of our understanding that a single event in the flow of time (as we see it), history, cannot loop back on itself--what has been done (or said), cannot be undone (or re-said in different wording).
 
Mars Man- I wasn't giving an endorsement or opinion on the timeline/authorship/historicity of the Bible, just a statement of fact: So many of us Christians never think about such issues or question the sidenotes, footnotes and other periphera. The book is an object of faith, but this other stuff is not. I am not a Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew scholar, nor do I have access to ancient fragments. So I am often at a loss to "experts" - some of whom may have agendas. There is also a lot to be learned by looking into authorship and timeline arguments- as they change the context of the message.
 
sabro said:
Mars Man- I wasn't giving an endorsement or opinion on the timeline/authorship/historicity of the Bible, just a statement of fact: So many of us Christians never think about such issues or question the sidenotes, footnotes and other periphera. The book is an object of faith, but this other stuff is not. I am not a Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew scholar, nor do I have access to ancient fragments. So I am often at a loss to "experts" - some of whom may have agendas. There is also a lot to be learned by looking into authorship and timeline arguments- as they change the context of the message.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the extra input and effort to clarify. Please do forgive my occasional slowness, but I can't quite visualize what you may be trying to get across in this post.

It seemed to me that you had questioned the seemingly 'absoluteness' of the scholarly conclusions on when each book of the NT had been originally penned, and I had hoped to have pointed out that there is room for debate on this--though I would say not so much. Therefore, your statement, as I had taken it, that maybe no one really knows, has a degree of truth in it. Higher Critizism had tried to put a number of the original Gospel writings well into the second century until certain archeaological (sp) finds helped put them back into the first--according to what I have learned.

The other things I had mentioned in that above post, were directed to different topics and concerns. If you don't mind, I would love to hear, in a little more detail, what's on your mind here. :bow:

I'm glad to know that you are following and adding your experience and thoughts to this thread also. See you 'round !! :wave:
 
Just thought I would post this rather interesting article I've found. Use the A-Z browse to find Yahweh
I have also found it a rather good site for those interested in mythology. After all from past mythology comes our current religions and their beliefs.
 
Thanks Mycernius !! :cool: :bravo:

I read two different write-ups (two headings) and enjoyed it. The one on YHWH is very good, and fits closely to many things I've come across in other works. Nice job. I hope all those following will also take the time to read and consider it carefully. I would still suggest, however, that there is this occasional need to get over the 'the-Bible-is-inspired-so-the-primary-source-of-truth' hurdle first, before being able to actually absorb the information. I have found those who cannot get over the first hurdle without looking in detail at that conception first.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I am making any sense:
It also seems we apply unrealistic or unintended expectation to ancient scripture- a standard of "factuality" that didn't exist, a standard of literal meaning- we try to make the Bible into a science book, a history book, a modern historical narrative- a document possessing all the modern trappings and standards of its counterparts- when it doesn't necessarily have to do these things or have features to be the inspired word of God. I think it is another example of people trying to bend God (or the Bible) to fit ourselves, rather than changing ourselves to fit God.

It is possible to separate the sacred from the ordinary- to do scholarly work on scripture without challenging the pillars of dogma. Especially believers- aren't we supposed to be transformed by those words? Either God is bigger than all of this, or he is fictional.
 
Hi Sabro. :wave:

What you are saying reminds me of an argument of Stephen Jay Gould's, in Rocks of Ages. He talks about the different "magisteria" of science and religion, and how they should be kept separate. Science can answer some questions, whereas only religion can answer others, and the two cannot overlap as they speak different languages. Science covers the empirical realm of fact and theory: what is the universe made of and why it works the way it does. The magisterium of religion concerns questions of unempirical meaning and moral value. Think of it this way: science gets the age of rocks, and religion the rock of ages; science studies how the heavens go, religion how to go to heaven.
 
Good evening my dear friends !!

I'm pretty sure I got what was on your mind now Sabro. Thanks for taking the time to spell it out for me. I just can't help but see a number of major concerns with an outlook like that, especially how it concerns NT, but would like to get to the concept that Tsuyoiko brought out first, if you don't mind.

Jay Gould was a die-hard evolutionist, and I'm not surprized to find him in the 'contrast' group. John Haught, of Georgetown University gave me two of his books, one of which deals with four areas--one being his own baby--of thought in the science .vs. religion dialoges.

One group is the 'conflict' group. It's consensus is that science and religion cannot be reconciled because religion cannot demonstrate the truth of its ideas in a straightforward way, whereas science can.

Another is the 'contrast' group. It's consensus is that both science and religion are valid; that each have radically dissimilar tasks and should be kept in their own jurisdictions. According to this group problems are cause by conflation--mixing ideas together, such as saying that the Genesis story is a scientific explanation.

One more group is that of 'contact'. The consensus here is that although the 'contrast' mood is perhaps a necessary first step towards clarity, it nevertheless fails to satisfy those who seek a more unified picture of reality. Ian Barbour would be in this group. This mood of thinking, according to professor Haught, is the most difficult to stabilize, but a logical must.

The professor's own pet, is the 'confirmation' mood of thinking. This is to say that instead of just leaving the dialog in the 'contact' mood, there should be an effort to discover consonance between the two. I agree with his idea and can see the truth in his explanations of the various 'camps'. I would go for the 'contact' group first, then the 'confirmation' group--and in fact, that's what I've been trying to do for the past say, five to six years.

You see, Sabro, I can appreciate the concept you brought out, but simply cannot believe that there would ever be any way to concretize that into any universally understood reality without having to totally deny the Bible's effort to be historical in its information. I hope you can see what I'm getting at. Since we are dealing with Christianity here, we can take the entire NT, and pull out every communication that has historical referent, intent, and nature, and we will have practically nothing but universal humanisms left--the things that we find in almost all religious thought. Please keep in mind, as you consider this all, that the Mosaic law was a real law. It was that law that the early Christians were against. As far as can be ascertained, Jesus and his followers were real human beings. Paul actually did go around building congregations to which he later often wrote letters dealing with matters that had come up at that time--history. Paul reminded Timothy, his co-worker, to remain strong in the things that he had learned from his mother and grandmother--history.

There are many, many locked-in-history statements, imperatives, claims, and
recollections in the NT, and if we were to say that it were known that they had no historical reality behind them, no factual referents whatsoever, then why would anyone have ever thought of keeping those letters and narratives
in the first place? You may recall the claims by the different gospel writers to know what had been written on that sign which they all claimed had been posted above Jesus' head on that stake. This (and the whole story of Jesus life) is being given as a historical fact, and it that were not the case, this passage (and all others, for that matter) could be applied in any and whatever manner one wished to; and no one could say they were wrong.

It may very well boil down to a definition of what one means by 'inspired'--which is kind of what I had planned on putting down tonight, but should probably wait now. I was gonna show the common misconception of 2 Timothy 3:16. I'll do that later. I respectfully, yet strongly disagree that that, which, by syntax and context, in the Bible is most logically and obviously intended to be historical fact, is not just that--the intent to show historical fact. (be it true or not) Again, thanks for making that clearer! :cool:
 
Absolutely no disagreement at all. My point is along the lines of this: The guys that wrote the letters and gospels (with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, if you are a beliver) for a specific audience following the standards and conventions of their day. So you can't hold the Biblical authors to modern journalistic standards. There is a lot of history there, but that wasn't necessarily the point in every book. There is a lot of great direct overt message, but we dig for something "deeper". Most of the stuff we read doesn't require a great deal of scholarship to interpret because it is so direct. And yet we make it so complicated and difficult. We (modern American evangelical Christians) seem to have abandoned good hermaneutics for an overly literal reading of the New and Old Testaments. I am one of those literal evangelicals, but I'm realizing that there is a whole lot more to scripture than reading it with my twentieth century eyes (I am a bit behind) and determining what it meant to ME. (Because after all it's all about ME isn't it?) What we need to do is to read the intent- see how the symbolism and imagery would have been understood- see what it meant when it was used in earlier scriptural contexts whenever possible.
 
Wow, this is great! We are all grown-ups!

Sabro-san. :wave: I agree with you that the Bible cannot be read with modern eyes. How do you reconcile that with your belief? What I mean is, how does something that can't be understood in a modern way help someone who has to live a modern life? Of course there are lessons there which are still useful for us today, but how can a literal reading of biblical content make any sense in the modern world?

I look forward to your thoughts! :cool:

Mars Man :wave: I want to know the misconception you mentioned for 2 Timothy 3:16. To me this passage means "Look, we have these writings that God has sent us. Let's use them to get people to behave" :-)
 
Tsuyoiko- what a quandry! that truly is the $100,000 question:how does something that can't be understood in a modern way help someone who has to live a modern life?I think you take your modern eyes and read the book with a child like innocence. Drop all agendas and let the book tell its truths. Too bad we can't actually go back and get the first century context. I just think that often we (again speaking for American Evangelicals) turn the Bible into what we want it to be- a History textbook, a self help book, a science book... instead of letting it be what it is. Also we spend so much time debating minutia, gray areas, shadows, interpretive gymnastics to get the words to fit our ideas... that we miss the obvious overt points of the text.
 
Mmm, I think I understand. The fact that you take the Bible literally just means that you take it at face value, you don't try to read between the lines, ne? :?

sabro said:
I just think that often we (again speaking for American Evangelicals) turn the Bible into what we want it to be- a History textbook, a self help book, a science book... instead of letting it be what it is.
Click to expand...

So what would you say it is then? My friend Grace says it is God's instruction book. Is that true for you? I know I have used it as a self-help book myself - when I was a troubled teenager I would open the book at random and find some pearl of wisdom to calm my ragged nerves.
 
sabro said:
I just think that often we (again speaking for American Evangelicals) turn the Bible into what we want it to be- a History textbook, a self help book, a science book... instead of letting it be what it is. Also we spend so much time debating minutia, gray areas, shadows, interpretive gymnastics to get the words to fit our ideas... that we miss the obvious overt points of the text.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this point. People wish to turn it into something that is not. When I read it, I read it as a whole, not just a set of disjointed passages that people seem to be fond of quoting. It does annoy me that people will take sections from the Bible and use them to prove a point, but not taking in account the text that also surrounds it.
It is a great piece of literature and deserves its place as one of the great books. It gives us insights into the world of the early Jewish nation and its struggles to survive in a hostile enviroment, how one man can change the way people think and early fantasy tales of mythical beast and how the heros overcame them. As any great book it will inspire people to make their lives better and to overcome obstacles. To others it gives insight into the minds of people past. I find the problem with it is that people will take things from it so literally and not see past what it really is. A book on how to live a good life. I think you could live to its basic morals without having to resort to God.
 
I guess the Bible can be whatever we want it to be, but should it? (Really, if it helps you build character and through hard times especially- isn't that what it is there for?)And I guess we do "use" it...and certainly we spend hours reading between the lines. But I don't think that should keep us from reading the lines themselves. (Something like the song line "we are listening for whispers- when we cannot hear the screams- the sun is shining and still we look for matches.) Sometimes I think I miss the big picture because I am trying to figure out some nuance. Right now- I think it is probably a personal issue :) -- it seem like I spent too much of my time trying to force the Bible into my mold and make it about me somehow than to force me into the Bible's mold and make my life about Him.

And my only disagreement with Mycernius might be that I think it is entirely impossible to live a moral life without God- at some level. (But this might just be from recently reading the first 11 chapters of Romans which seems to say God hates you, you're a sinner- whose very nature is contrary to God. You couldn't possibly be rightous if you tried. Your best on your best of days stinks to high heaven...I think I need to read the rest of the book for a complete perspective.) ;)
 
A lot of different angles and topics have come up, and all so interesting and easy to get involved with. . . I really wish I had the time (and maybe I do, but just not fast time.)

My dear comrade in discussion, Sabro, again thank you for taking the time to spell it all out for me/us. I have gone over the entire flow which begain from your #178 on p.8, of the 'What's your religion?' poll thread. I put a lot of emphasis on being tedious with any attempt to understand things (as much as I can) and try, at least try, to go through both 'top to bottom' and 'bottom to top' analytical paths in reaching conclusions--but so much for that.

hontou ni sumimasen desu ga, moshiwakearimasen, chotto wakaranai tokoro ga doushitemo arimasu. This is the Japanese in me saying that (20 plus years, you know) You'll have to forgive me, there are still some things that I just can't understand; and in all due respect, Sabro, I can't help but sense that there may well be a logic fault somewhere in the flow. Please help me figure this out, if you're into it.

To perhaps clarify my paradigm, it may be best to point out that when I use the word 'translate' (and related words) I am referring to going from one tongue to another. When I use 'interpret', it is the same meaning as 'translate'. I do not make 'applications'. That is an act which has been given birth to by the fact that time has overrun the first century. When I refer to the word 'inspired' (adj.) I refer to it in the definition of 'the state of being caused, guided, communicated by direct intention of behalf of the Jewish "God" as so worshiped and thought of by first century Jewish religionists.'

In your #178 post, you quoted a line which as I can see it, had to have come from Genesis 1:26, not from 1:27. To quote, "It seems to me far more complex than it looks-when the Bible says,'let us make man and woman in our image,'..." I had indirectly responded in pointing out that that translation was in error. The verbatum Hebrew says no exact thing, and an accurate translation would be, " And 'Elo-him' continued by saying (went on to say)'Let us make earthling man (earth as in dirt) in our image..." 'Elo-him' is the plural of 'El' and it is what is called plural of majesty. You'll find the same thing in a number older languages--for example in the Indo-Aryan Hindi, 'hum' which literally translates 'us', can be used for 'I' in formal situations, just as second person singular is always in plural (just as it is in English). Unfortunately, almost all English translations don't point that out. Hebrew had a plural of majesty and it had not been speaking of plural gods--at least in the latter temple tradition which is where these writings were started to be collected and transcribed, and at places, embelished. The word woman does not appeart there, and verses 4-22 of chapter two, overshadow and contradict verses 1:26,27 anyway.

You had also mentioned that you didn't understand how the heliocentric solar system conflicts with the Bible, but it essentially does. That's a different topic for now.

In your #51 post on this thread you mentioned, and if I may quote,"There is a lot of history there but that wasn't necessarily the point in every book." Please correct me if I am wrong, but took this to be saying that you felt that there was a lot of historical stories/acts/events which had been written down in the various documents which became our Bible of today, but that to relay such things had not been the point of every writing. If my understanding here is correct, then there is no problem. It is most obvious that that is the case. What I have been trying to make clear, is that the very act of having written the documents themselves, is history. What would be the point in trying to argue that, say, the narrative Luke had written to one Theophilus around 56-58, is not a historical document?

What would be the point of trying to say that when Paul wrote (or dictated-- Ro 16:22--although there is spurious data mixing here, it seems) that letter to those in Rome around the year 56, he had not written or dictated that letter to the congregation in Rome, around the year 56? What real gain would there be in trying to deny that when the Apostle John had written that letter to those in the nearby congregations (1 Jn), telling them that is was the last hour (before the end of things or end of the age{the 'second coming'}), he had actually meant to say just that to those to whom he had intentionally written around the year 98?

I really hope you see my point, so that we can discuss in the same context. The writings themselves are history, so every single word that, as far as we can deduce had been in the original, is a historical fact--a small piece of historical event on paper. (because the act of writing can be seen as an event)

Therefore , as a minimum, we are required to start at that point in any attempt to try to understand just what these writings are, just why they are, and just how they fit into history itself. In doing that, a good understanding of the original language is extremely important. As Mycernius so correctly pointed out, looking at each individual document in its entire context is very important. (It is equally important to recall that we can't see the individual works as being part of some greater context until their contents can fairly do so) Also, as you seem to be inclined towards, Sabro, we must try to get a fair glimpse of the cultural setting in which the documents were written as well as to the 'ethnic idiosyncrasies' of the direct recipients or locals.(Titus 1:5, 10-13)

The lack of such preliminary ground work, in my opinion, as well as a great number of scholars I know of, is one of the greatist logic faults of Christendom from way back. If the Roman Catholic Church had not banned the Bible from the public, Biblical research and criticizm could have had a much earlier start, and maybe the scene would be a good bit different today.

As far as any document which was preserved (some were not--1 Co 5:9 x-ref by 5:11; Col 4:16) being 'inspired', the document itself, as an individual historical event, will have to evidence such first--it's illogical to first presuppose that any written work of a religious nature is automatically 'inspired', and then reason from there. I kind of like the way it was put in the Muratorian Fragment, dated to around 170 CE: "Now the epistles of Paul, what they are, whence or for what reason they were sent, they themselves make clear to him who will understand." (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol III, p 56)

So if one were to wish to claim that the NT (since, at least, that is our closest area of concern) is THE word of "God" (where "God" means that as describe and personified in these same writings and the Jewish works), or that it is inspired, and thus infallable, how do they go about doing that? If one wishes to lessen the degree of the term 'inspired' what is their premise based on anyway? I have looked at a number of arguments on these points and find them all lacking the most primarily required step to understanding the original, individual documents, as outlined above.

I apologize for the wordiness, I just want to make it all 'airtight' and complete.
Sorry :sorry:
 
Mars Man...That's a lot to go over...and I am not certain that I disagree with the heart of what you are saying. If what I have posted is not clear, it is probably not you- I'm having a heck of a time expressing myself on this topic. I read my old posts and I am not certain what I mean. I really don't know why. soooooo Tonight, because it is late let me try to clarify what I am trying to express in just a few points.

I said that the point of some books is not history, I wasn't trying to say that they're not an important part of history, just that the author's intent was not to record and communicate historical events in the way a modern text book would work. Our error comes when we apply modern standards and expectations to books whose purpose and intent was entirely different. On the other hand- Some books actually do seek to record history like Judges and Kings, or like Acts.

As much as we should ask the questions- who wrote this? To whom was it written? When and why? and what did it mean to the intended audience? Finding these answers is often difficult or impossible to do with certainty. So I'm not trying to say not to ask the questions, just that we shouldn't get so hung up on them that we don't get the open overt message the author wrote.

The Genesis reference is really interesting. What is the actual implication of the original words? And what is the wording in chapter 5?

G'night....
 
The Bible in the textbook definition is nothing more than a myth; that is a story pasted down from generation to generation. As a historian I look at The Bible from a historical and literature point of view. To me The Bible basically explains the origins of God, man, and the relationship between God and man (or in other words how man came to be and his relationship with the universe). The one thing I find facinating about The Bible is that there are so many different view points and interpetations of it that it may never be truly known what the creators had meant in their scriptures. Some of it was of personal bias against tyranny and oppression, while other parts are from Church censorship. Still others is full of holes because it had been lost in the sands of time.

The Bible truly is an interesting text to read. Unfortunately I wouldn't take a lot of it serious because of the skewed view points. However, I do belive that The Bible does offer a very good explination that a person should live a good life. I think it all really depends on how you look at the subject. Do you go for just face value, or do you delve deeper into the subject? Everybody is different, but then again that's what makes humanity unique, and the same could be said about The Bible as well (or any religious text for that matter).

Doc
 
sabro said:
I said that the point of some books is not history, I wasn't trying to say that they're not an important part of history, just that the author's intent was not to record and communicate historical events in the way a modern text book would work. Our error comes when we apply modern standards and expectations to books whose purpose and intent was entirely different. On the other hand- Some books actually do seek to record history like Judges and Kings, or like Acts.

As much as we should ask the questions- who wrote this? To whom was it written? When and why? and what did it mean to the intended audience? Finding these answers is often difficult or impossible to do with certainty. So I'm not trying to say not to ask the questions, just that we shouldn't get so hung up on them that we don't get the open overt message the author wrote.

The Genesis reference is really interesting. What is the actual implication of the original words? And what is the wording in chapter 5?

G'night....
Click to expand...
?@?@

Good morning !! :atsui: It's going night time here. I'm at the uni today.
On that first paragraph above, which I think I see much clearer now, I would say absoultely right!! :cool: In all of Paul's letters, for example, it cannot be seen that he had intended that writting to be a historical account. It was a real letter. I have learned that although we cannot see what the immediate (time thing) and direct audience thought about the letters, or how they had reacted to them, we can see that the letters were respected--that's largely how they survived. I would say that although we can see why the several documents were written, and usually by who, we cannot see so clearly when--but do have a fairly good idea. I agree completely, it's not like a history textbook would be written today, or like a journalist's report on some social event/meeting, what have you, and in that sense, is not to be seen on the same plane with such.

The wording I had mentioned in the Genesis account is in chapters one and two. I'll get back with you on that. I really appreciate your input and thoughts. I often have problems with just how to word something, and can feel for you. :relief: I hope you have another nice day today too !! :wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top